Leading progressive researcher HopeForPeace says I don’t do interviews, and that I am a liar for claiming that I do. She used her world class Internet search skills to arrive at this conclusion.
9:24 PM 03/09/2015
Spencer is not the first to criticize NCDC’s adjustments to temperature data. Science blogger Steven Goddard (his pen name) has been arguing for years that government climate agencies have been tampering with temperature data to create a significant warming trend where none actually exists.
“NCDC pulls every trick in the book to turn the US cooling trend into warming. The raw data shows cooling since the 1920s,” Goddard told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a previous interview.
More Evidence Of Climate Data Tampering By NOAA? | The Daily Caller
No .. Steve that is untrue.
I simply asked you for citation of the interviews you said you do “all the time”.
You are lying about me to your followers. I would think they can see that.
More projection from the liar who denies the 43rd Judicial District court ruling…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
” to maintain a prima facia case ”
The case has never been heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Can’t tell Big Foot from water contamination V V V V V V
This case hasn’t been heard yet either.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaobjHksic
There are not insults strong enough to do you justice.
Right back at ya…
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
The EPA withdrew the order because an agreement with Range Resources was underway; the costs and risks of litigating this particular case were likely to be very high and the needed short-term benefits would be low, if any; and immediate human health risks were believed to have been addressed.
Gee, no human health risks! 😆
And then again they knew they would be defending known frauds and liars. 😆
No doubt you can;lt tell the difference between the two cases.
A ruling by the court is still a ruling by the court. No need to worry about differentiating, it is a record of the court now!
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. And you admitted it. Or are you now calling yourself a liar? 😆
“Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. ” GATOR
NO .. the COURT RULED THERE WAS enough PRIMA FACIA evidence that the CASE COULD GO FORWARD, Illiterate FOOL!
I have said that you 60 times in 2 days ..
can you not just read a citation??
Are you proud of making an idiot of yourself here?
Wow.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
We are discussing this ruling dummy, remember, you agreed with the judge. Then you started lying again.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
,b>Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“maintain a prima facia case ” (24X)
The CASE has NOT been heard, Gator.
There was enough prima facia evidence to allow the case to go forward and deny the Anti-Slapp motion.
I’m sorry you can;t read.
“The appeals panel had been considering whether Loftin ruled properly last year when he found that a state law that bans litigation meant to stifle public protest didn’t bar Range’s lawsuit. ”
This says Loftin heard Range’s case against Lipsky and rules for Range .. huh Gator 🙂
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to post the same inane drivel AGAIN and make my point.
Thanks for showing everyone you lack the conviction of your rhetoric.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and liar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
Quit the ad homs and answer the question.
If you cannot call Loftin a liar, you are the liar.
Projection is a mental disorder, you are the liar who refuses to answer the question, you BS has nothing to do with this court document…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Refusal to call Loftin a liar validates this document dummy. 😆
GATOR
I am calling YOU a LIAR for the 52nd time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD. Calling me a bitch 95 times won't change that!
So you are saying that judge Loftis lied when he issued this court document.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Go ahead, call the judge a liar already!n 😆
“So you are saying that judge Loftis lied when he issued this court document.”
For the hundredth time ..
I am saying the CASE ITSELF has never been heard .. you are quoting a PROCEDURE ruling on the ANTI_SLAPP aspect ONLY.
I am also saying it is possible you have no reading comprehension at all:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Read the CITE GATOR!!!!!!
Ok, let’s read it together again, dummy.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
,b>Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Are you calling judge Loftis a liar? 😆
“Ok, let’s read it together again, dummy.” GATOR ..
Let’s read the part you omit:
“Order denying plaintiffs Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claim”
Can YOU explain what that MEANS Gator?
It means Lipsky was found to have committed fraud.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Are you calling judge Loftin a liar?
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:10 pm
It means Lipsky was found to have committed fraud.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims.”
No it means the court “denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss ”
82X I have told you.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS invalid – I said ACCURATELY it is a ruling on procedure.
All you are doing is making a fool of yourself.
“It means Lipsky was found to have committed fraud.”
NO – LOFTIN RULES there was enough PRIMA FACIA evidence to ALLOW the case to PROCEED .. most people can READ THAT!
Great! So you agree with this court ruling!
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
😆
Still no way to refute the truth… unless you have the conviction of your rhetoric to call Loftin a liar.
And… you… cannot! 😆
The ruling stands dummy! 😆
It is a court ruling dummy dumb dumb, a legal decision that has never been refuted, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
And what say you when you see the facts for yourself?
My guess: “I am too chicken to watch” …..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
I told you that I have no intention of enabling your dishonest Goebbels style cut and paste propaganda. Your intent is nefarious. Your intent is to silence other points of view. Your intent is as un-American and as unacceptable as it gets.
You are the one doing selective editing here:
No. You required I post the interview on youtube:
“I expect our discussion to remain intact, streamed live, and be posted on YouTube for posterity.” Steve/Tony
Then required that I agree that no one can download it from youtube:
” I expect you to write a permanently displayed and clear disclaimer that the interview is intended to be kept intact, and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.” Steve/Tony
(please finally answer me as to what you prefer to be called)
That is a preposterous request no one can agree to.
STILL today I tried again to see if we could go forward:
“Offer stands, I’d be happy to be the first to post an interview of you. I will add the disclaimer to the entire video and give it context (I myself do not even agree with it). We can do a live skype I record (and anyone else watching CAN also), I will post it as you requested on youtube with the disclaimer.
I will NOT be held responsible when people laugh at the idea that you can stop them using the material and they will use the material. That’s the real world Steve/Tony. (again, it would be great if you could just answer what you go by)” Me today
In answer you post 3 erroneous, deleterious articles about me on your blog … doing EXACTLY what you accuse my side of doing ..
SELECTIVE EDITING!!!
Now, I could care less, in fact you serve to make my case for me. But don’t think for a minute this will not be used to show your what your work actually is.
The only one who will be laughed at is you lady.
Steve, after 4 heavily truncated stories about me, I expect a reply from you here …..
You should get a job so you’re not on the internet all day, you stupid fat loser.
Stark! Don’t you know we are babysitting?
We are keeping little Hopeski very busy, which means she cannot f-up anything else. 😆
‘I do have to wonder, Steve, why you would even bother replying to piece of slime that is so obviously half ignorant trailer trash and half extremist radical greenie .”
Anyone who accidentally clicked on the comment pages of this blog would wonder who trained 5 year olds to type?
THEY SURELY would NOT believe they are on a site supposedly devoted to SCIENCE!
Hope asks: “You don;t mind if Steve lies on this blog? You still read it?”
Steve can do whatever he likes on his blog; you can do whatever you like on yours.
Every word here is only a “word”. Some you will believe, some you will not believe. If the words are interesting, you stay; if not, then not.
Knowing when to use an apostrophe ‘ versus a semicolon ; can help establish credibility. It’s a small point to be sure but when an audience cannot actually test the truth of claims small things can matter.
Now answer the question weasel. Did Judge loftis lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
What up B? Above your brain grade?
Hey Steve, what does Al Gore charge for an interview?
Your scientific and climate knowledge is far beyond his, you should charge accordingly. 🙂
Also, Big Al would almost certainly insist on knowing every question in advance. 🙂
Not that you would ever get a word in over the screeching and nagging. !
I do have to wonder, Steve, why you would even bother replying to piece of slime that is so obviously half ignorant trailer trash and half extremist radical greenie .
You have no intention of defending YOUR dishonest selective editing here .. and outright LIES STEVE!
“Leading progressive researcher HopeForPeace says I don’t do interviews, and that I am a liar for claiming that I do. She used her world class Internet search skills to arrive at this conclusion.” Steve/Tony
Utter made up hooey. I posted a reply to this farce below and you FAIL to answer .. this is your blog .. can you NOT defend you own work??
Hope chucks another childish ATTENTION SEEKING tantrum.
What a sad, lonely, hopeless life she must have.
Asking why a person who posted FALSE stories about me on their blog to ANSWER basic facts is …
…. “another childish ATTENTION SEEKING tantrum.”??
Wow .. most people would not agree.
No false stories.
The truth is obvious even in your attempts to rationalise your childish behaviour.
Keep screeching like a bansheeeeee.. its funny !! 🙂
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Yes or no? Too complex an issue for a strawhead? 😆
I would characterize supporting the propaganda of an industry that hopes to keep us on their product no matter the harm to ours and future generations .. as UNAmerican as it gets. That’s you Steve’/Tony
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Hope Forpeace says “You (*) are lying about me to your followers. I would think they can see that.”
* Steven Goddard
An occasional exaggeration to illuminate a particular point is, to me, excusable.
One of the great developments in the past ten years or so is the “right” finally learning that to talk to the “left” you must use leftist language and tactics inspired in part by Saul Alinsky. I worry sometimes that the left might actually learn to speak “right” but I have a doubt it is possible.
If I go to a foreign nation, if I expect to be understood, I must speak their language.
The left is motivated primarily by feelings (right brained). Feelings cannot be directly communicated; you use proxies (words, pictures) for feelings, but that’s unpredictable since the other person may interpret the proxy differently, or even take the proxy at face value.
That is why the typical libertarian or right winger sees the left lying nearly constantly; the left uses words like a paint brush to paint a picture, factuality of the words used is almost irrelevant — each is chosen for its color not its truth.
Similarly, the right, and especially libertarians, seldom use “ridicule” failing to grasp the enormous power of ridicule — on the left!
The “Sokal Affair” is an example of pretending to be “left” as a way to get published.
The left, thinking the right is motivated by the color of words, goes to great lengths to “paint” Willie Soon with the paintbrush of oil money; not knowing or caring that the right wingers feel pity for the small sums available to Willie Soon — why is it so small? C’mon BP, cough it up Shell, give the man some real money!
Any of us who have hung around here for a while know Steven Goddard has a very sarcastic tongue. Hope should be happy. He hasn’t called her a turnip yet….
You don;t mind if Steve lies on this blog? You still read it? How would you react is someone did drive by journalism like this about you?
Keep silent? Does the hypocrisy not bother you? Steve/Tony cried about the “leftists” doing selective editing …..
Is that they type of person one should get opinion on science form … or believe that his science is real and the 9K studies the IPCC report is based on are not?
Hmmmm…..
Painting instructions:
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
http://www.green-agenda.com
“The Bible tells me climate change is not real” .. and this guy is STILL living!
Inhofe.
Out of context quotes prove nothing.
Hope says (not sure if she is quoting someone) “The Bible tells me climate change is not real” .. and this guy is STILL living!”
The bible predicts many disasters and also climate change, although of course it is regretable that the prophets did not anticipate this recent language.
“He changes times and seasons;”
http://biblehub.com/daniel/2-21.htm
There’s more than a hint of it here
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Revelation%206%E2%80%9318
Isaiah 24:5-6 ESV The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left.
It doesn’t suggest what, if anything, to do about it.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/stories/cartoons/cartoon_caveman_iceage_ending.gif
“all liberals are God and America hating Commie-fascist-socislist-statist who are idiots (esp the Ivy leagues types) useful to the New World Order takeover. Enviroloons who hate the poor and lie about science.
All correct except the God hating part, Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian.
You are catching on! :lol:”
Thanks for making my point Gator.
You make my work so easy, Fred Koch would be proud.
And Marx would be proud of you, you useful idiot.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Still calling judge Loftin a liar? 😆
gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 10:40 pm
And Marx would be proud of you, you useful idiot.
_________________________________________________
Right back at ya Gator …. if you dare to watch the truth … will you still be a useful idiot?
lets see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Good little tool!
God, I didn’t think anyone could be that thick, but Hype, oops I mean Hope, takes the biscuit.
She really believes that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe.
She is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO SAAAAD.
The funny part is that she admits to being a tool in the Big Green industry. Conflict much, or project much? 😆
We shouldn’t point and laugh, but then it is sooo much fun.
http://moonbattery.com/graphics/liberalism.jpg
“An occasional exaggeration to illuminate a particular point is, to me, excusable. ”
4 lie stories in a row .. lying to your base? Y’all accept that? I had no idea .. you get that the last three are selective editing hackjobs .. exactly in the style Steve decries??
And you defend that .. and this is a person you get scientific opinion from? Ok.
” the right, and especially libertarians, seldom use “ridicule” failing to grasp the enormous power of ridicule — on the left! ”
Would you consider Mike Savage and Mark Levin Libertarian?
The comparison between the ad hom tactics of the right and the left is very easy to illuminate.
Simply compare Amy Goodman to Ann Coulter.
Or Bill Moyers to Hannity.
The right is busy now with an “othering” that started with the John Birch Society’s popularizing the notion that all liberals are God and America hating Commie-fascist-socislist-statist who are idiots (esp the Ivy leagues types) useful to the New World Order takeover. Enviroloons who hate the poor and lie about science.
I could not list the number of bombastic pundits on the right. And no, Rachael Maddow does not compare with Mike Savage… just compare their book titles for a good example.
But I know cons are taught to believe that liberals are the hate-slingers … the right follows Alinsky far more than the left.
https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+fascism%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=liberal+fascism++
https://www.google.com/search?q=conservative+fascism%27&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=conservative+fascism++
all liberals are God and America hating Commie-fascist-socislist-statist who are idiots (esp the Ivy leagues types) useful to the New World Order takeover. Enviroloons who hate the poor and lie about science.
All correct except the God hating part, Hayhoe is an Evangelical Christian.
You are catching on! 😆
Hope makes several comments and questions that will be interleaved with my responses. Hope’s comments will be quoted and italic (with a bit of luck, typing tags sometimes doesn’t work)
“4 lie stories in a row .. lying to your base? Y’all accept that? I had no idea .. you get that the last three are selective editing hackjobs .. exactly in the style Steve decries?”
Needless to say what I consider a lie you might not and vice versa. My personal style is to withhold judgment on such things until I possess enough facts to decide for myself.
“And you defend that .. and this is a person you get scientific opinion from? Ok.”
That is a strawman style of argumentation. It is more interesting in the way it reveals your mind than mine. I get scientific opinions from just about everyone but of course each opinion is weighted according to my sense of that person’s connection to the data and education.
“Would you consider Mike Savage and Mark Levin Libertarian?”
I am unfamiliar with either person. I presume you are speaking of media personalities. Of Mike Savage, Wikipedia says “Savage has characterized his views as conservative nationalism”
The difference between a libertarian (small L) and a conservative is the extent to with the conservative imposes his beliefs on others, the absence of which denotes libertarian. Libertarians have beliefs all over the spectrum and distinct only insofar as not imposing on others, but also resisting imposition by others. I believe libertarian is the default philosophy for persons of high intelligence since such persons can see the benefits, and costs, of either or both “left” and “right” ideas; each being more “fit” for a suitable purpose at different times and places.
“The comparison between the ad hom tactics of the right and the left is very easy to illuminate.”
I am neither right nor left, and I suspect that is true of most Americans. But, you are correct, a difference does exist, targeting what the team thinks is the pain point of the opponent. As such it reveals more about the attacker’s weaknesses than that of the victim (ie, “projection”).
“The right is busy now with an “othering” that started with the John Birch Society’s popularizing the notion that all liberals are God and America hating Commie-fascist-socislist-statist who are idiots (esp the Ivy leagues types) useful to the New World Order takeover. Enviroloons who hate the poor and lie about science.”
No one can be all that at the same time (I might be surprised) but nearly every leftist is at least one of those epithets. Since these epithets have very little power to the right, they are intended to provoke the left to some sort of confirmation response; make you lose your composure (it has worked well enough right here).
A similar theory exists at, say, DailyKOS. Nobody on the right reads it; so for whom are the epithets intended? Other leftists — keep them in the fold. So it will be with a “wavering” right winger or in-the-middle majority. If you are listening to Hannity, you are almost certainly already a right-winger (or in the middle in a small town with few choices of radio station).
In other words, these epithets are NOT weapons aimed at the other side; nearly all epithets are aimed at the HOME TEAM to keep them in the fold. I’m not sure that it works very well.
“I could not list the number of bombastic pundits on the right”
Same here, but only because I am not interested in an enumerated list.
“Rachael Maddow does not compare with Mike Savage”
While I am not familiar with Mike Savage, I have had the misfortune of hearing Rachel Maddow a few times. Mostly I get on Huffington Post a daily note on what violent metaphor is to be applied to Rachel the previous night as she {skewered, roasted, exploded…} her right wing target that probably didn’t know he was a target. I used to anyway until about a year ago when Huffpo made a hard left turn and I went from daily viewing to about twice yearly.
“But I know cons are taught to believe that liberals are the hate-slingers”
Knowing a thing and having it be true are not related. It is my experience that vastly more hate emanates from the left; a review of DailyKOS for example, or your own commentary right here as compared to mine.
“Hate” is an emotion; and emotion belongs to the left.
“the right follows Alinsky far more than the left.”
That is starting to become true especially when the right must deal with the left. Alinsky is the modern playbook; older playbooks still exist (Marxism) but are not sufficiently particular to our modern era.
A suitable response by the left would be to avoid conspicuous alignment with Alinsky rules. They were designed for use organizing the left by organizers of the left. Libertarians cannot be organized. I doubt there is such a thing as “right” other than lumped in everything not left (that is why you mistake “libertarian” for “right” and so do nearly all leftists).
X (triggering a subscription; I don’t know how to activate notifications except in the reply process)
“Leading progressive researcher” Utter hooey you made up.
”
Hope Forpeace Steve Goddard • 4 days ago
Steve .. since you are often cited by well trained deniers .. and I often see you on these boards, I hope you might agree to an interview. You know I am a producer at AK Productions, would you be willing to give me an interview and we could talk about these matters?
Are you brave enough to come out? .. ”
Steve Goddard Hope Forpeace • 4 days ago
I’d love to. I do interviews all the time.
But I prefer live interviews so that people don’t selectively edit.”
Hope Forpeace Steve Goddard • 4 days ago
“I do interviews all the time.” really? I’ve never seen one. Please cite.
Agreed, we can live skype. When is good for you? .. ”
Steve never cited his claim,after 12 X requesting citation of any type of interview:
Searches return these results:
https://www.google.com/search?q=+steve+goddard+interview&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
https://www.google.com/search?q=tony+heller+interview&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
A did more fine tuned searches, but still found nothing.
So .. Steve/Tony is lying again…
So says the proven liar who defends proven liars and frauds. Again, this is not my opinion but the opinion of the 43rd Judicial District court.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
The case has never been heard Gator – for the 27th time:
Forwarding Fossil fuel industry talking points again?
‘Range alleged in court papers that the Lipsky couple and Rich engaged in a conspiracy to defame the company and used false and misleading evidence as “a pretext for getting the EPA and the media to wrongly label and prosecute Range as a polluter of the environment.””
http://www.texassharon.com/2013/04/02/appeals-court-sends-range-resources-slapp-suit-against-lipsky-back-for-abatement/
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Read bitch, and learn. You have no f’g idea what you are talking about.
It is an official court document stating the ruling of as district judge.
It states that your sources committed fraud. Period.
“Read bitch, and learn. You have no f’g idea what you are talking about.
It is an official court document stating the ruling of as district judge.
It states that your sources committed fraud. Period.” Gator
No, Gator, the case has never been heard:
Why don’t you read a little about the case before you call me a both 19 times?
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/
Hope you ignorant bitch. We are not talking about the case brought by your fraudulant friends. We are talking about the court ruling stating that Lipsky not only conspired to commit fraud, bur actually did so.
Stop the childish distractions you lying bitch.
This is what we are talking about, bitch.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Lipsky committed fraud. Period.
“Lipsky committed fraud. Period.” Gator
Fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point. You are forwarding Range’s false claims against their own victim.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
You ignorant lying bitch, the courts ruled Lipsky committed fraud, not Range.
What do you think you are gaining by repeating provable lies? 😆
“You ignorant lying bitch, the courts ruled Lipsky committed fraud, not Range.
What do you think you are gaining by repeating provable lies? :lol:” GATOR
I have proved over and over and over the case itself has never been heard .. Steve has never been found guilty ….
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
YOU are posting the same lie ad infinatum .. not me.
“No fetish, I hate liars with a passion.” I’m sorry you hate yourself, GATOR.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! 😆
perhaps you are confused. Most cases before a judge NEVER go to trial. A decsion is made on facts and precedent. You only go to trial when the facts are in dispute,
Hope, Steve has made you look like an idiot on several occasions now. When will you accept the fact that he, along with everyone else here, can see right through you and leave?
So you believe these articles even when you read the actual emails?
… very interesting.
Would YOU agree to ensure no one downloaded and used a youtube video?
What is very interesting is how you stick around and continue to push proven lies.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
@gator .. no what is interesting is you have to cut in on every single conversation.
Fetish?
No fetish, I hate liars with a passion.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
I notice Steve/Tony’s blog readers can;t defend him. I wonder if YOU GUYs note that?
Tony is old enough to defend himself, but then maybe is is just sitting back and building a case against you.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Still calling judge Loftis a liar?
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“Leading progressive researcher” Utter hooey you made up.
roflmao.. You are so, so, so DUMB !!!
No, I am honest, a trait Steve/Tony should pick up.
Yes, honestly defending a fraud.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Still lying about the judge?
Hope says “I am honest”
Maybe, but that’s not actually all that relevant right here and right now.
Far more important (online anyway) is correctness; an honest person can be incorrect for a variety of reasons; just as a dishonest person can be correct and will at times go to some effort to make sure of it to hide his otherwise dishonesty.
Honesty becomes important when you talk or write about you where no other validation exists other than your word. If it was your well flaming gas then your honesty matters; if you are simply describing someone else’s experience, then correctness becomes more important.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“A did more fine tuned searches, but still found nothing.”
Wow, just wow.. your ignorance is displayed for all to see. (like every other post you have made).
Just because you can’t find any on google, means absolutely nothing.
What a small, sad, diminutive, trivial world you must live in.
I personally heard one of the several radio interviews Steve did. Google doesn’t record interviews unless the show up in some news print.
Yes .. the fact that I asked for CITES 12 times DOES tell me something …
You clearly have a bombast fetish .. how embarrassing for you.
This comment has gotten kicked into the ether a dozen times or more. I really hate WordUnimpressed!
…….
Well, gator after doing a bit of looking. I have to agree with the court the gas came from the hydrocarbon producing Strawn formation.
Ranger was drilling 2,300 feet from the water well. Ranger Resources Drilling in Barnett and Marcellus Shale
“The Barnet Shale is about at 8900 to 8400 feet deep along highway 380 in between Denton and Decatur Texas.” – http://www.thebarnettshale.com/
“The Strawn formation consists principally of sharp-grained, moderately hard, evenly-textured sandstones, alternating with beds of blue clays… [sound like a no -go for fracking]… In the northern region (Millsap, Parker County) the lower exposed part is composed principally of blue and black clays, little sandstone, and occasional thin beds of limestone and sandy shale…. The Strawn formation is exposed in central Texas, principally in Mills and San Saba countines… The whole thickness of the formation, which can only be measured in central Texas is more than four thousand feet.” Bulletin of the University of Texas,
Parker County is where Lipsky is.
“The Strawn Formation is one of the more enigmatic hydrocarbon producing formations on the Eastern Shelf of the Midland Basin….The core is composed of 22 high-frequency shallowing-upward cycles. Each cycle begins with a black, fissile shale or black argillaceous lime mudstone containing and open marine fauna….Each cycle is capped by grain-rich packstones or skeletal grainstones. These grain-rich facies represent the primary reservoir facies in the Strawn Formation.” — Reservoir Characterization of the Strawn
“Jun 20, 2014 … Gas from the Strawn formation could have even migrated into the Range Resources well … EPA Withdraws Order Against Natural Gas Driller.”
http://www.texastribune.org/2014/06/20/questions-linger-about-parker-countys-tainted-wate/
With the EPA very anti CO2 there is no way they would drop this case unless the evidence in favor of Ranger was so overwhelming it would make the EPA look like fools.
Gail, I have a friend who fracks for a living, and he has explained in great detail how fracking operations are not even close to the strata where water resources lie. My geologic training and life experience has proven that methane is naturally found in aquifers. My mother used to think that all artesian wells were stinky, because where she grew up, they all contained methane.
Hope is a bored and uneducated housewife with delusions of grandeur.
Gator, can you leave people alone to talk .. you have broken in on every convo I have tried here .. w/ Ad hom regaled.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
The comment below was meant for Gail …..
No-one ever asked you to comment here.
No-one here likes you, because you are an abrasive liar. Everyone here can see that.
Go away.
An Ad Hom is an attack on a person. I am not attacking, but simply identifying a proven liar.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Sooooo Sorry dummy…
“Five independent experts testified at the TRRC hearing on issues of geology, hydrogeology, micro-seismic analysis, hydraulic fracturing, petroleum engineering, geochemical gas fingerprinting, and groundwater analysis.
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
Then of course there is the issue where a judge ruled that Lipsky committed fraud when he hooked a hose to a gas line and called it water. 😆
“Five independent experts testified at the TRRC hearing on issues of geology, hydrogeology, micro-seismic analysis, hydraulic fracturing, petroleum engineering, geochemical gas fingerprinting, and groundwater analysis.
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
And then there is the problem where a judge ruled that Lipsky committed fraud when he hooked up a hose to a gas line and called it water, in order to defraud Range.
“you have broken in on every convo I have tried here”
So what? This is a forum, not your private discussion panel.
Anyone can reply to you in any way they see fit..
FFS, GET OVER YOURSELF !!!!
You are an unimportant, ignorant and gullible, attention-deprived, nagging frightbat !!
Your training is better than mine in geology. However I was curious so I went looking of course.
Methane is known as swamp gas and is found ever where something is decomposing. It is soluble in water but not as soluble as CO2.
Methane
http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-ch4-water.png
CO2
http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-co2-water.png
By the way the stinky water was probably from sulfur. Chittenango Falls NY had the stinkest water, nice calcite crystals though. (Herkimer NY has the quartz crystals.)
http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-h2s-water.png
@Gail .. the EPA isotopic testing matched the gas in Steve’s well to thermogenic Barnett gas ..
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
What ppm methane do you think causes this large of a flame? 2.8 .. or 85??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:36 am
@Gail .. the EPA isotopic testing matched the gas in Steve’s well to thermogenic Barnett gas ..
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
No, they don’t. Quit lying. From your link idiot…
Test data supplied in the report measured the chemical make-up of both the gas found in Lipsky’s water and from two nearby gas production wells, called the Butler and the Teal. According to the Railroad Commission report ‘the evidence is insufficient’ to determine if the two samples match.
What F-stop do you think causes this kind of bigfoot?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaobjHksic
It’s viideo, so it must be true! Right? 😆
@Gail .. the EPA isotopic testing matched the gas in Steve’s well to thermogenic Barnett gas ..
Total garbage, Hope. From the linked report:
“Based on the information described above, Commission staff has determined that the evidence is insufficient to concluded that Barnett Shale production activities have caused or contributed to methane contamination in the aquifer beneath the neighborhood.”
https://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/228385751?access_key=key-KbpV4cet0siVoJNkKsd0&allow_share=true&escape=false&view_mode=scroll
@gator69
“@Gail .. the EPA isotopic testing matched the gas in Steve’s well to thermogenic Barnett gas ..
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
No, they don’t. Quit lying. From your link idiot…
Test data supplied in the report measured the chemical make-up of both the gas found in Lipsky’s water and from two nearby gas production wells, called the Butler and the Teal. According to the Railroad Commission report ‘the evidence is insufficient’ to determine if the two samples match.” YOU
So, you watched the video .. watched the scientists tell you the EPA’s isotopic testing MATCHED the gas .. you saw the numbers .. and all you can quote is the TRRC?
They also parrot Range’s claim that the gas was always there .. have you read Pecks deposition? Obviously not.
Trrc also says the isotopic testing matches the gas to the Strawn .. that’s physically impossible.
FACTS:
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor
to the Contamination The information that the EPA had in its possession was sufficient for it to conclude that the gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination of the aquifer that led to the ISE.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Even Lipsky’s experts agreed with the findings that stated the gases are not the same.
While the video posted on YouTube was labeled “Hydraulic Fracturing turns gardenhose to flamethrower,” neither the EPA nor the Lipskys have cited that drilling method as a cause of the water well contamination.
And even you admitted the court ruled that Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and EPA.
You are a lunatic. 😆
“Even Lipsky’s experts agreed with the findings that stated the gases are not the same.
While the video posted on YouTube was labeled “Hydraulic Fracturing turns gardenhose to flamethrower,” neither the EPA nor the Lipskys have cited that drilling method as a cause of the water well contamination.” GATOR
For the 10th time Gator – CITE IT – YOU KNOW you are posting a claim from Range it’s spin. Richter said he could not guarantee he could explain HOW Range’s gas got IN Steve’s well . .RANGE spun it your quote.
You know I’m right, that’s why you don;t cite it.
“And even you admitted the court ruled that Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and EPA.” GATOR .. you clearly can not read.
You mean the 45 times I have told you THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD??
And you can NEVER answer the BASIC FACTS:??
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
You are a lunatic. ..I..
Hope says “While the video posted on YouTube was labeled ‘Hydraulic Fracturing turns gardenhose to flamethrower,’ neither the EPA nor the Lipskys have cited that drilling method as a cause of the water well contamination.”
I had hoped to avoid watching it but to continue commenting I must. It is clearly intended to blame Range Resources drilling for this phenomenon.
However, doing it at night making it impossible to see the full length of the garden hose and what it is connected to makes it useless and unpersuasive to me. But that’s after only 30 seconds of a 3.5 minute video. What more can there be? I’m already losing interest.
At 0:42 (min/sec) text explains the well company is venting the well.
Good heavens, if I had my own personal source of natural gas that would be awesome!
At 3:25 “What’s wrong with this picture?” It’s dark, that’s what is wrong with the picture.
At any rate, it appears that the problem stated is not fracking per se, it is an uncased well that allows gas from deeper strata to penetrate porous shallower strata, in effect giving everyone nearby free gas, whether they want it or not.
Let’s try again. I am citing and providing a link to the original court document. A document signed by Judge Loftis.
If you cannot grasp this, you are fatally retarded.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
I let Judge Loftis know that you accused him of being in the pocket of Range. That is slander sweety.
Hope not grasping reality in 3,2,1…
Fracking had been around for over 40 years before this brouhaha over it began. It’s been around longer than Hope has. But suddenly it’s evil. I think part of it is the hijacked environmental groups, and part is jealousy. Property owners get money from a lease, then if they drill on your property and find gas the owner gets royalties, and in some cases free gas as well. Oooh, can’t have people making money or burning gas willy-nilly.
Actually Fracking has been around since just after the Civil War.
Lt. Col. Edward A. L. Roberts’ original U.S. Patent (No. 59,936) was awarded in November 1866. In May 1990, Pennsylvania’s Otto Cupler Torpedo Company “shot” its last oil well using liquid nitroglycerin.
Roberts filled the borehole with water. This provided Roberts his “fluid tamping” to concentrate concussion and more efficiently fracture surrounding oil strata.
It was on March 17, 1949 that modern hydraulic -fracking was first used. So hydraulic -fracking has been around for 66 years.
For the Civil War buffs:
Col. Edward Roberts leads Charge at the Battle of Fredericksburg
http://im.archive.today/0fjLb/d33c4a9e97915e80bb16a59d8b4a53089e7d9556.png
No one said fracking is evil. The EPA matched the isotopic fingerprint to the Barnett gas .. really not a hard concept:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Gail, that original patent is a very interesting read. Thanks for the tip.
Irony of the case: Edwards was a resident of NYC. Did he have to hide from his Occupy friends in SoHo?
Modern horizontal high pressure fracking has been around since 2004, in heavy use since ’06.
The fracking of the ’60s is the same as fracking today in the same way the phones of the ’60s are the same as today’s phones.
“Fracking is 60+ years old” is a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point.
I’m sure Lee Fuller doesn’t go a week without repeating it.
http://energyindepth.org/national/touch-em-all-eid-strikes-hard-fast-with-the-facts-on-gaslands-oscar-nod/
Hope “Modern horizontal high pressure fracking has been around since 2004, in heavy use since ’06.”
Agreed. I was amazed at the technology, and expense, of wells drilled in the Bakken formation typically to incredible depths of 14,000 feet. Each well costs millions of dollars and requires rather a lot of water which often must be trucked in via tankers.
I doubt the technology has changed so much as that the price of oil reached a point where the millions of dollars could be recouped.
“Then of course there is the issue where a judge ruled that Lipsky committed fraud when he hooked a hose to a gas line and called it water. :lol:” Gator
Really? After all of this time, you can;t simply read the citation?
You are so wrong … the case has never been heard. Why don;t you call Trey Loftin and ask him yourself .. since you threatened me with calling him .. go ahead:
“But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
why would it "PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
THE case has never been heard.
'“Five independent experts testified at the TRRC hearing on issues of geology, hydrogeology, micro-seismic analysis, hydraulic fracturing, petroleum engineering, geochemical gas fingerprinting, and groundwater analysis."
This is a TRRC hearing, not the lawsuit and yes, Range Resources brought in witnesses.
Do you know the results of the recent Sunset review on TRRC?
Know how long TRRC gave Steve to prep for the hearing?
Why didn't the EPA appear?
How many neighbors now have the same problem?
When was the TRRC's last report?
How many more people have methane in their water wells as did in 1020 when this started?
Where is Alisa Rich an Assist Proff now?
Who first attached the garden hose to the wellheadspace and why?
Who doctored the video – Range or Steve?
In fact, it's likely you know little about this case .. save what you have been told by the con media .. an arm of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine. They thank you for your service.
"The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
This is .. I believe from Range, and I note again you refuse to cite it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA0Kfh8GB2c
I'm here to see if just one of you can discuss this case ..GATOR can only continually make the same erroneous fossil fuel industry propaganda claims.
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?
“OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” Gator ..
no .. everyone here has seen me call YOU A LIAR:
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
wHat does this mean, Gator?
"Order denying plaintiffs Anti-Slapp motion to dimiss Range's counter claim"
You have no idea so you will reply with
""OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?""
or something equally inane like:
"Woohoo! Hope finally admitted that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud.
Case closed. :lol:"
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD, GATOR.
I'm sorry you are illiterate ..I..
So this never happened. Right?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
No .. you are fathering another strawman there. Obvious from this thread I have never called Loften a liar.
I AM CALLING YOU a lair/misinformed trained industry talking points regurtgitator .. because that is what you are.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>>>> “PROCEED TO TRIAL” <<<<<<<<<
IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
For the 60th TIME THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD !!!
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Woohoo! Hope finally admitted that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud.
Case closed. 😆
“Woohoo! Hope finally admitted that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud.
Case closed. :lol:”
Gator .. do you think anyone who might read this does not see that you are making an arse of yourself?
wow…
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD ..I..
This was heard, and signed off by judge Loftis. Or are you calling him a liar?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
And did you see the reason the EPA dropped the case? It was too expensive for them to continue to sue Range to make them respect the Order and Steve ships in his own water, so the danger is supposedly past. (tho the well still looks like this when you hook it up and light it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
But the EPA’s IG does uphold both the science and the EPA’s power to issue the Order:
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article3840709.html
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/24/1265117/-Breaking-Inspector-General-report-justifies-EPA-in-Parker-County-fracking-intervention
It can’t be from the Strawn (Tho the FF bought TRRC says it is) – the EPA’s isotopic testing matches it to the Barnett.
That is physically impossible.
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
Would you give Thyne a listen and see what you think of the actual evidence? Thanks
No. I do not listen to frauds and liars.
Do you have a court ruling overturning this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
No you don’t. Does your husband know you are a lying bitch? Can I talk to him?
“No you don’t. Does your husband know you are a lying bitch? Can I talk to him?” Gator
You might someday.
I understand that you are not able to comprehend this case.
Can you leave the rest of us in peace to discuss it and not break in on every single conversation please?
Thank you.
I am not the dumbass who keeps calling the 43rd Judicial District court ‘Range’.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“Can I talk to him?” LOL! Gail strikes me as an LGBT proponent and believes she is a woman trapped inside of a man’s body. If that offends anyone, I do not apologize.
Damnit. My comment was for Hope, not Gail. Now I do apologize to Gail.
“The same EPA that dropped the case? :lol:” GATOR
The same EPA whose OIG found they were correct in making the case and that the science was solid.
Again, the lawsuit Range put the EPA through refusing to honor isotopic testing was a main reason they left … if would simply read the material, you may see they state that Steve had unhooked his water well, thus the danger was averted.
WHY do you think the EPA would even START a lawsuit against Range if they had flimsy evidence?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=603BD5Y4lCE
Just to be clear, you are calling Judge Lofits a liar. Right?
And did you see the reason the EPA dropped the case? It was too expensive for them to continue to sue Range to make them respect the Order
That’s bullshit, Hope. This is what the EPA representative actually testified to:
“The EPA official who signed the EPA order testified by deposition in connection with
the TRRC proceeding that, when the order was signed, the EPA (1) did not know if
Range actually caused the alleged contamination; (2) knew, but ignored, that gas had
been present in water wells in the area for years and that shallow natural gas was present
beneath the Lipskys’ water well; and (3) failed to evaluate the geology in the area.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=93ec69dc-10ed-4933-8ab5-d3897db00031&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=842ba8da-ba1b-454a-9319-4b311e96003c
Again, you are quoting Range:
“ATTORNEYS FOR RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY AND RANGE RESOURCES CORPORATION .. brief in Reply” That is Range’s Response
Here is the EPA’s IG:
“First, the EPA wanted to reduce the costs and legal risks associated with the
ongoing court cases.”
This was elaborated on in a press release that now eludes me ..; but ongoing court costs were a consideration.
“In addition, an EPA official indicated that the EPA believed
that the risk faced by the residents at the well where contamination had first been
found was reduced because the residents had obtained water from a separate
source and were no longer using the well.”
This was an unfortunate call by EPA .. STeve spends his own money every month now for nearly 5 years shipping in his own water .. thus EPA said the problem was solved … yet look at his water well .. not really solved.
“Finally, the EPA was able to obtain Range Resources’ agreement to participate in a national agency study of the relationship between hydraulic fractur
ing and drinking water contamination.
Range Resources also agreed to sample 20 water wells in Parker County every
3 months for a year if the EPA withdrew the order. ” page 21
Not sure if this occurred.
The entire IG report is a good read:
“Isotopic fingerprinting determines the ratio of different isotopes of a particular
element in an investigated material. Methane produced in the ground varies in the
relative concentrations of carbon 12 and carbon 13 isotopes. The ratio of these
isotopes provides an indication of the source of the natural gas. The isotopic
fingerprint analysis of methane in the water and gas samples Region 6 obtained
on October 26, 2010, showed that the isotopic values from the residential water
wells and the gas production well were thermogenic in nature and likely from the
same source. In addition, the compositional analysis indicated that both gases
contain significant amounts of heavier hydrocarbon components, and that the
gases were identical within analytical error; the hydrocarbon portion of each gas
contains the same components. ”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
So in other words, Lipsky should not have relied on well water that was known to be naturally contaminated with methane. Methane is methane. There was no identical match as you have erroneously claimed.
Humans share 99% of the sane DNA as chimps. Can I call you a chimp, bitch? 😆
I am sorry you are incorrect gator. It is only 95% of the DNA we share with chimps according to a new study by David Nelson, a geneticist at Baylor College.
Humans share 54% of our DNA with turnips, and sometimes the turnip genotype expresses itself, right Hope Forchickenbroth?
“So in other words, Lipsky should not have relied on well water that was known to be naturally contaminated with methane. Methane is methane. There was no identical match as you have erroneously claimed.
Humans share 99% of the sane DNA as chimps. Can I call you a chimp, bitch? :lol:” Gator
IN fact – as I have said to you over and over – the methane was not there for the first 5 years they used the well.
Peck’s Drilling testified to that under oath.
It would have been impossible to have 85 ppm methane and not notice.
The well pump only started having issues with seizure when the methane hit the well.
But “the methane was always there is a fossil fuel industry talking point …. you forward .. as … I have said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfi22e8UQYc
OK, so you are calling judge Loftis a liar. Right?
“OK, so you are calling judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR (16th time)
No, I am calling YOU a LIAR/ignorant fossil fuel industry propaganda believer:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Can you HANDLE the TRUTH?? ..I..
I can handle the truth. Can you?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Truth! 😆
It was too expensive for them to continue to sue Range….
The EPA has the entire US treasury behind it so that makes no sense especially when the EPA gets millions in fines.
As far as the situation goes, the Strawn formation is a possible source as my search revealed. Since I do not have access to samples and a gas chromatograph I can go no further and will have to wait on the Texas Supreme court ruling.
Do I trust the government to be honest?
HELL NO!
Not after what the US government did to the Falliaces, the Henshaws and Jason, a friend of mine.
“First, the EPA wanted to reduce the costs and legal risks associated with the
ongoing court cases.” EPA Ig report below ..
Gail, Did you not watch Thyne give you the values in the clip I sent?
The isotopic fingerprint of Steve’s gas and range’s gas is covered the news piece .. please review.
Maybe you can find the facts in the EPA’s Ig report:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
The same EPA that dropped the case? 😆
I can’t reply to your post above this so I’m doing it here.
No one said fracking is evil? That’s why movies like Gasland get made? That’s why protesters hold signs about stopping or banning fracking? I never once saw a protester hold up a sign that said frack responsibly, or frack wisely…no, it’s don’t frack. Period.
The message is: fracking is bad, evil,
No. The message of Gasland was that the people who do get contaminated are left without help from government agencies. TRRC is a good example.
The fossil fuel industry started the attack on Gasland .. the strawman you forward is from the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine.
http://fracknationreview.blogspot.com/
Sorry Hope, but Lipsky is the fraud, Or are you calling judge Loftis a liar?
@GATOR (17X)
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
It is embarrassing for you .. you have no way to face the truth, do you?
The fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine (AKA con media) LIED to you, Gator .. and look how impossible it is to help someone once they buy that junk 100% impossible.
They will make fools of themselves to serve the lies they buy.
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD !
Why are you droning on about nothing, this matter has been ruled upon sweety.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
@Gail
I’d really like to hear the answer of a reasonable person, which you clearly are .. if you could find a way to reply through all the noise .. that would be great. Thanks.
@Gator
“I am not the dumbass who keeps calling the 43rd Judicial District court ‘Range’.” you
What you have posted there – for the 20th time .. is Loftn’s procedural ruling …
the OTHER spam you post is Range’s accusation against Steve.
Uncited, as you are likely embarrassed to admit you forward industry propaganda.
If you wanted to know the facts, you could simply read them:
Why did Loftin recuse himself if the case was not ongoing??
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
And HOW DID Steve get that Range gas into his well????
A court ruling. A ruling that found Lipsky conspired to commit fraud, and then did commit fraud. A ruling not by Range, but by a judge of the 43rd Judicial District.
Where is your refutation? Dumbass! 😆
The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video
Check mate. 😆
And HOW DID Steve get that Range gas into his well????
You really are a complete liar, aren’t you? There was NO Range gas in the Lipsky’s well:
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/Case.aspx?cn=13-0928&coa=cossup
“A court ruling. A ruling that found Lipsky conspired to commit fraud, and then did commit fraud. A ruling not by Range, but by a judge of the 43rd Judicial District.
Where is your refutation? Dumbass! :lol:”
Loftin heard the Anti-SLapp case .. the case has never been heard. If would research the case you would find that is true .. and someday when the story hits national news you will be fairly embarrassed (or maybe not) for all your “bitch” talk:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
WHY WOULD IT "PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
The case has never been heard.
So judge Loftis lied when he issued this court document…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Just say it Hope. Call the judge a liar.
@GATOR
‘So judge Loftis lied when he issued this court document…” YOU
I hope all can see –
I HAVE said over and over and over and over …
the CASE has NEVER BEEN heard.
I have never SAID Loftin’s ANTI-SLAPP ruling is a lie.
YOU ARE MAKING THAT UP.
IT DOES NOT FIND STEVE GULTY .. as con media and the industry’s propaganda machine has trained you to beleive it has.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
THE CASE itself HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD .. you have a procedural ruling you keep citing!!!!.
No need to screech any further liar. You just admitted that the court ruled that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
We’re done here!
BTW – I have taken the opportunity to contact Range, and we will see what happens next.
Have a nice day! 😆
“No need to screech any further liar. You just admitted that the court ruled that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR .. (18X)
YOU mean here where I said:
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD … yes .. for YOU that sentence says:
“the court ruled that Lipsky committed fraud” …. Perfect.
PLEASE DO CALL RANGE – they will TELL YOU THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD FOOL!
(Not that you will return and admit your lies)
What exactly is your mental defect, we are discussing this, not a nonexistent ruling.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
I can not watch videos my equipment is way too old.
The EPA IG’s report would tell you everything you would need to know. The video simply has two scientists confirming the isotopic fingerprints match the gas in the water to Range’s production gas.
Hope says: (March 11, 2015 at 4:18 am) “I’d really like to hear the answer of a reasonable person”
A reasonable person is likely to say “a pox on both of your houses”.
All human activites are a blend of risk and benefit.
Advocates exist, in this case persons that are not directly involved in this particular case and unlikely to be personally involved in fracking ever, anywhere.
Since the halflife of carbon isotopes is fairly brief compared to geologic time, I do not believe isotope analysis of methane serves any useful purpose.
Half-life of C14 around 5700 years http://www.c14dating.com/int.html
Methane dissolved in water will not burn. Methane must exist in air in a specific, narrow range of concentration in air to burn; requiring vastly more methane than will dissolve in water. However, the lightness of methane suggests it could separate from water and form a pocket of gaseous methane at a wellhead such that opening the spigot releases the methane first until the pocket is exhausted. This would require a bit of luck; the wellhead would have to just barely tap the aquifer just underneath a domed, gas-tight layer, which is pretty much exactly how you extract natural gas anyway.
“Methane-air mixtures have quite narrow explosive limits (4 -17 mol %), ”
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/practical-chemistry/controlled-explosion-methane-air-mixture
You might want to run that thesis by Isotech.
http://www.isotechlabs.com/analytical/isotope/carbon.html
Would you think Nitrogen markers would be more reliable?
” However, the lightness of methane suggests it could separate from water and form a pocket of gaseous methane at a wellhead such that opening the spigot releases the methane first until the pocket is exhausted. ”
Well said ..have you seen that inaction?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
I took this film myself .. feel free to ask me about the case ….
Hope says “Well said ..have you seen that inaction?”
Something similar. Ordinary water spigots in areas where, for whatever reason, the water has so much air trapped in it that it comes out milky white and gradually the “fizz” rises to the top. In the pipe the air can form a pocket such that turning on the faucet produces a rush of air followed by a “water hammer” that can break pipes and valves. People living in such areas (me, as a teenager) learn to turn the water on slowly to let out the trapped air.
Hope says “Would you think Nitrogen markers would be more reliable?”
No, for a couple of reasons. The obvious reason is nitrogen is not an element of methane, the other reason is that carbon dating is reliable and well tested and self-calibrating, assuming that the C12/C13 ratio has remained relatively constant over the past 100,000 years or so that this method of dating is effective. Since C13 is regenerated by solar activity it is a reasonable and well tested assumption.
However, it is a good test to reveal whether methane is leached cow poop. The cow eats grass which absorbs C12 and C13 in whatever is the current atmospheric ratio, which due to fossil fuel burning is itself changing. The ratio will eventually restore itself but for now, some of that grass has “old” carbon and some “new” carbon. Anyway, the cow poops, the methane leaches into the ground along with irrigation or rainwater, and eventually finds its way into your well.
Ancient methane will have no C13 whatsoever; leaching from agriculture will show some C13.
Aquifers tend to have ancient water, but not so old the methane age could not be determined (10,000 to 6,000 year old water in Ogalalla aquifer).
Texas in particular deliberately recharges the aquifer. When I visited areas around San Antonio I noticed many settling ponds where rainwater is captured and instead of dumped in a river, seeps into the ground. This is both good and bad; good for aquifer but it will also hasten leaching into the aquifer.
Nitrogen 15 is listed as stable, it doesn’t decay. Other isotopes DO decay quickly, in minutes. Thus the ratio of N14 to N15 do not directly denote elapsed time (as it does with C12/C13).
The voice of reason. I love reading the words of a real scientist, as opposed to make believe scientists like Hope and her Causa Nostra crowd
Yeah, because everything on Youtube is real.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaobjHksic
gator69 “Yeah, because everything on Youtube is real.”
True enough, but it is important to recognize that what is real is the video itself — it is a “real video” whose conformity to reality or truth is variable; ranging from nearly zero in the case of “Avatar” to highly true (or so I believe) in the case of wingsuit flying through a big natural arch in China.
I am a careful judge; I observed a flame on a pipe which eventually seemed connected to a tank of some sort which *might* be a pressure tank as commonly used on a well or it might be something else.
It is unfortunate and unnecessary to have made the video at night which to me seriously compromises its integrity. Dusk would achieve the goal of seeing the flame while at the same time carefully observing the surrounding. It also would be effective to show the flare-off of gas followed eventually by a flow of water, with nobody touching anything in the meantime AND some way to assure that nobody stopped the camera to make any kind of change (gas to water). Unfortunately I cannot think of a way to achieve all that integrity assuring. Even a little television showing the evening news could be stopped at the same time as the camera and restarted, or even picture-in-picture pasted in afterward, but it would help to make the video more persuasive.
It would also help to have a “matter of fact” presentation that was not so obviously “anti-fracking” and linked to more anti-fracking videos.
So, it is mildly interesting but it was difficult to sit through three and a half minutes of watching a flame at the end of a pipe. It wasn’t a garden hose at any rate, it’s a flaring pipe and obviously the resident expected some methane flaring ’cause he’s got the rig for it. Too bad he didn’t hook it up to his barbeque and get some use out of it.
Besides, flaring natural gas destroys the climate so perhaps this wasn’t the wisest video for a climate warmist to recommend. 🙂
And that Michael, is why I rely on our justice system…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
I guess we will just have to wait and see how the courts rule on Bigfoot and Bigfraud. 😆
@MIke2
“Michael 2 says:
March 11, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Hope says “Would you think Nitrogen markers would be more reliable?”
No, for a couple of reasons. ”
Well that was the logic TRRC used to throw out EPA’s Isotopic testing. Did you look into Isotech yet?
And what did you think of my video of the level of methane coming from this well?
Context (unfortunately necessary since rather a lot has transpired between increments) “Michael 2 says:
Hope says “Would you think Nitrogen markers would be more reliable?” No, for a couple of reasons ” Well that was the logic TRRC used to throw out EPA’s Isotopic testing. Did you look into Isotech yet?
Yes, I looked at the Isotech webpage. It wasn’t very helpful; they do carbon dating and evaluate some other elements. Subsequent reading of the other lengthy article someone recommended showed that nitrogen was used to determine that the contamination came from the Shawn formation rather than whatever it was Range was drilling into. The article did not describe precisely how this was determined as nitrogen is not an element of methane. Nitrogen, as nitrate, is often found in groundwater leached from fertilizer or cow poop (and related substances). Presumably the deeper you go the less nitrate will exist since water leaches down very slowly.
The article described that some water well drillers hit methane gas immediately so there’s a layer of methane near the surface, within 200 to 400 feet of the surface. This creates several possibilities that I cannot from here resolve; his well presumably pumped clear water (but with sulfates that he was filtering) for five years or so then ran dry and started emitting methane. A possibility exists of a natural “water trap” the same kind of thing you have on your sink or toilet to keep sewer gas out of your house. If you drain the trap, you’ll get sewer gas backing up into your house. That’s just a possibility but I am slow to leap to a conclusion.
Knowing that he spends a thousand dollars a month to bring in water suggests he was pumping a lot of water, more than a semi-desert climate is equipped to provide. If, due to climate change, Texas has had less rain for the past decade then of course the water table is going to go down; to say nothing of all those new houses in the subdivision presumably ALL pumping water.
“And what did you think of my video of the level of methane coming from this well?”
I have seen a video made at night of someone burning a flammable gas at the end of what looked like a pipe with a fitting on the end. Several minutes into the video the camera pans down to show what might be the other end connected to what looks like a long cylinder on its side but, being night and dark, was not sufficiently illuminated for me to decide what I was seeing.
I have no idea where it is, who it is, and so on. As a demonstration it wasn’t all that exciting. In a courtroom a witness would testify as to such things, and would have to testify even when such things are obvious in the video. But on YouTube, testimony does not exist, only the video, and it is poorly done.
Answer the question weasel. Did Judge loftis lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to post the same inane drivel AGAIN and make my point.
Thanks for showing everyone you lack the conviction of your rhetoric.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“Steve .. since you are often cited by well trained deniers…” — Hope
WE ARE NOT DOGS, we are well trained SCIENTISTS and ENGINEERS. That is why we actually looked at the DATA not the adjusted crap put out by the government propaganda mills.
I generally read several scientific papers a day as does many others here. And no we do not always agree but we present facts and data to back up our conclusions. So far all I have seen from you is a denial of a court judgement and regurgetated talking points.
Therefore the only ” well trained denier” that I see is you.
If you are a scientist and/or engineer, you should have the capacity to review Steve’s case above and tell me how isotopic testing that matched the Barnett gas to the gas in Steve’s well .. could also match the Strawn as you claim.
Thanks.
“” well trained denier” ”
You decry the use of this phrase .. but then you parrot fossil fuel propaganda:
“So far all I have seen from you is a denial of a court judgement ”
I believe you have the ability to understand this case. What you repeat IS a fossil industry talking point when you claim the case has come to a judgement.
I hope for your own sake you take a little more time and ;look into the fact that what Gator is citing is a procedural ruling .. the case has never been heard.
Con media and Range like to say it has, and call Steve a fraud.
If you took the time to look into the charges you would see they are fraudulent.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/11/08/1254247/-Texas-Frackers-Sue-Victim-of-Their-Water-Pollution-for-3-Million-for-Exposing-Them
There are few more definitive fossil fuel industry propaganda talking points than Steve Lipsky is a fraud and the gas in his well was always there.
The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video
Court document. Legal decision. Where is your refutation lying bitch?
Yes … have you not read ONE cite?
“Loftin was promptly flamed both on this blog and in the national press for bragging about his rulings against Lipsky while the case remains in his court.”
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa-bashing_judge_in_high-prof.php
The case has never been heard, Gator. No manner of fact can help you see that.
WOW! A blog flamed the judge!
You are an idiot and a POS. 😆
“The case has never been heard, Gator. No manner of fact can help you see that….” — Hope
>>>>>>>>>>>
From memory** The Lipskys did not show up in court. If you do not show you automatically lose the case. If that is the true the case wasn’t ‘heard’ but the court did make a ruling.
You can appeal but it is not a retrial of the case. The higher court looks over the evidence and determines if the lower court behaved in a correct manner. So the higher court is in essence trying the lower court and not the case.
I learned this the hard way by going through a lower court case and then an appeal in another state.
…..
*** My computer is refusing to load this website half the time so I am not going to go looking.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
If you are a scientist and/or engineer, you should have the capacity to review Steve’s case above and tell me how isotopic testing that matched the Barnett gas to the gas in Steve’s well .. could also match the Strawn as you claim.
What part of this don’t you understand:
“The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing, even though they received notice, filed a notice of appearance, participated in pre-hearing discovery, and hired experts to evaluate the source of the natural gas in the water.
“Five independent experts testified at the TRRC hearing on issues of geology, hydrogeology, micro-seismic analysis, hydraulic fracturing, petroleum engineering, geochemical gas fingerprinting, and groundwater analysis.
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
What part of “the EPA is not the TRRC” do YOU not understand?
http://www.khou.com/story/news/2014/07/13/11410252/
““The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.””
This is a Range/TRRC claim .. AKA fossil fuel industry talking point.
Please cite it. Thanks.
She thinks we are all a bunch of hicks instead of the actual experts in scientific fields. You know you are dealing with an illiterate when they constantly use the phrase “fossil fuel propaganda”, since they are the ones receiving all the oil money.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/24/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil-no-the-alarmists-are/
I can see how she might get the impression there are some rather stale brains reading this blog. There is a noisy reptile who has a problem controlling his language while littering the conversation with his bile. His arguing point is a valid one, but his manners are a complete turnoff.
The whole discussion here became pointless pretty early on.
Walk a mile in my shoes before you disparage me John. I tried to be nice to the world’s biggest lying troll (who viciously attacked our generous host) at first, but after showing her court documents dozens of times, and each time to have her deny what was right in front of her lying face was more than I could take. My apologies to those regulars who may find ‘bitch’ offensive, but in my mind I was being kind.
,
I do not suffer fools lightly, and when it comes to slanderous trolls who call judges liars to advance humanity killing agendas, I take off the gloves. Maybe some of you do not have the intestinal fortitude for this fight, and maybe you should stick to the Weather Channel.
The large reptile with steel trap jaws was continually dragging her back to the lie she was spreading every time she tried to twist out of it. He was not letting her change the subject or control the conversation.
Please note IIRC, she at one point said she made a video of the Flaming Well. Now she is saying that a judge never ruled there was fraud.
If she did make the video and if she is spreading false information, then she could end up in court sued by Ranger Resources.
…..
Does this have relevance?
Yes it does, especially if she actually made a Flaming Well video.
It is clear she has at least some knowledge of the Ranger Resources lawsuits. It is also clear she is willing to twist the facts to suit her narrative. Now she wants to do a video of Steven Goddard. Given her passed performance and her continually calling a court ruling indicating in blunt words that Lipsky, under the direction of Mrs Alicia Rich set up a fraudulent video in order to extract money from Ranger Resources, would you trust her?
Gator, I had to really bite my tongue to stay polite.
However I have a nit to pick. You were insulting female dogs. They usually do not lie.
No .. his point is a lie .. it’s really not that hard to understand.
He is citing a procedural ruling and claiming it shows guilt, as trained by industry’s propaganda.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-FmquofjYM&spfreload=10
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! 😆
@Gail
“The large reptile with steel trap jaws was continually dragging her back to the lie she was spreading every time she tried to twist out of it. He was not letting her change the subject or control the conversation.”
Your difficulty is I AM am RIGHT and GATOR is wrong .. a quick read of the case would prove that – it has been caught up on the Texas courts for 4 yrs.
The ruling Gator spams the page with is a procedural ruling on Prima Facia evidence, it allowed the case to go forward, no judge has ever found The Lipskys or Rich did conspire in fraud ..
… it’s a fossil fuel industry propaganda myth …
I hope you might read up on the case and see that true.
Now answer the question weasel. Did Judge loftis lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Work that straw!
The specific case Gator talks of has been ruled on. That has nothing what ever to do with whether there have been other associated cases or appeals.
That decision STANDS unless a higher court over turns it. So at present that is where everything is.
The fact Lipsky did not bother to show does not mean the case was not heard. The guy I sued did not bother to show either. He also appealed and the judge tossed the appeal right back in his face. That is how I learned the judge only looks at whether the lower court has followed procedure.
From a law dictionary
Hey Gail! You have seen my posts long enough to know I do not use language like that, except in this case. I don’t like hitting people either, but when pushed far enough, you better duck. Too many people think this is just an academic discussion and do not realize this is war, people are dying because of the Hope’s of this world.
Maybe Parma John is OK with that, I am not.
Gator, you have seen me take a bite out of those who actively promote CAGW. I also am very aware of the people who suffer and die because of the money grubbers who are promoting these lies.
It would give me deep pleasure to see every single one of them dragged into court on murder charges. If there was a real justice system in this country instead of kangaroo courts, we would already have seen hundreds of cases tried.
‘ since they are the ones receiving all the oil money.”
So, it’s very simple to understand, the fossil fuel industry bought itself a propaganda machine, it sunk millions, combined with other dark money to fund a massive misinformation machine.
“Fossil fuel industry propaganda” is not the benchmark of an illiterate – but an accurate description. It is the doubt machine we are all about to hear so much about from “Merchants of Doubt” but has been well known.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-money-funds-climate-change-denial-effort/
Much of the propaganda is repeated here, and since it’s what I research, I point that out.
This is just such a point: “they are the ones receiving all the oil money.”
It’s a myth propagated by this machine .. environmentalists are making all the profits, they are the real ones taking oil cash.
“Rockefeller Brothers FoundationGreenpeace $1,080,000.00 1997 – 2005Sierra Club $710,000.00 1995 – 2001ACORN $10,000.00 2002 – 2002 Rockefeller Family FundGreenpeace $115,000.00 2002 – 2005Sierra Club $105,000.00 1996 – 2002ACORN $25,000.00 1998 – 1998Rockefeller FoundationGreenpeace $20,285.00 1996 – 2001Rockefeller Philanthropy AdvisorsSierra Club $38,250.00 1997 – 2000 Suffice to say that the neither of these champions of climate change and global government – the WWF and Greenpeace, would exist without all that juicy Big Oil Money”
Poorly written and poorly cited, did you look into the claim that Greenpeace would not exist sans oil $? Why don’t you, since it’s your cite. Greenpeace’s annual budget is 250 million, would they have closed shop sans the less than 2 million listed here? Look into it.
“Big Oil is being bullied by big spending Big Green” is a popular talking g point … obviously written by the industry that hopes to demean renewable and keep us on their product? It certainly isn;t true:
$22 million v $175 million is a real world comparison:
http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/08/pro-environment-groups-were-outmatc/
And check the lobbying:
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2014&ind=E01
Average $150 million a year.
Claim: Dark Money Conspiracy – star “deniers” are scripted performers
Prof. Brulle (Drexel Uni, Phil) claims IRS helped track secret donations
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Prof. Robert Brulle, an environmental sociologist of Drexel University, Phil., has published a study allegedly accusing “deniers” of being sock puppets in the pay of “dark money” from big oil.
http://www.hngn.com/articles/20257/20131223/study-reveals-source-of-dark-money-in-climate-change-denial-studies.htm
According to the story, Prof. Brulle enlisted IRS help tracking a correlation between big oil bogeymen such as the Koch Brothers withdrawing funding from climate studies, and significant increases in funding from other organizations such as the Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund.
Quite apart from the outrageous invasion of privacy, if the IRS did actually lend special assistance to the study, the mundane explanation, that lead authors of studies simply turned to other sources when some donors withdrew their support, was not good enough for Prof. Brulle.
Instead, Brulle allegedly asserts the existence of a “dark money” conspiracy – a deliberate attempt to conceal the true sources of funding, by using a network of shadowy donor groups.
“The climate change countermovement has had a real political and ecological impact on the failure of the world to act on the issue of global warming,” said Brulle. “Like a play on Broadway, the countermovement has stars in the spotlight — often prominent contrarian scientists or conservative politicians — but behind the stars is an organizational structure of directors, script writers and producers, in the form of conservative foundations.
All I can say Anthony, is where is my dark money cheque? I’ve been sending you these scripts for ages, so far not a dime :-).
==============================================================
Some other viewpoints on this claim.
Dr. Lubos Motl: We received 1 billion dollars
‘Congratulations to all of us. A possible problem – one pointed out to me by the Galileo Movement via Twitter – is that I may find out that we just “may have received” the billion instead of the phrase “did receive” it.’ — ‘The funding of climate skepticism work is at most something of order $10 million a year and much if not most of the most influential work is being done on a budget that is smaller than that by additional orders of magnitude…This figure should be compared to $80 billion that have been paid to promote the climate hysteria pseudoscience, mostly in the recent decade or two…If Suzanne Goldenberg believes that the purpose of this funding is to change people’s minds, well, then I must say that the climate skeptics are more efficient by almost 4 orders of magnitude.’
Marc Morano:
This new study and the media reports surrounding it are pure bunk! The study counts all money raised by all conservative groups as somehow being for global warming issues! But the study itself admits this is not true.
Excerpt: ‘It was not always possible to separate funds designated strictly for climate-change work from overall budgets, Brulle said. ‘Since the majority of the organizations are multiple focus organizations, not all of this income was devoted to climate change activities.’
Tom Nelson:
After UK Guardian’s Suzanne Goldenberg makes a large, fraudulent claim about climate change spending, it gets very quietly ‘fixed’ with the addition of weasel words ‘may’ and ‘up to’
[Guardian story yesterday, from the Internet Archive] Conservative groups spend $1bn a year to fight action on climate change
Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change
[Guardian story today] Conservative groups spend up to$1bn a year to fight action on climate change | Environment | theguardian.com
Conservative groups mayhave spent up to $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change
…This headline on this article was amended on 21 December 2013 to reflect that not all the $1bn referred to will have funded climate change work.
Twitter / kaleekreider: @DanJWeiss @pourmecoffee Bob …
@DanJWeiss @pourmecoffee Bob Bruelle says headline misleading. $1billion istotal avail not total spent on climate. I will forward email.
Update: Robert Brulle pushes back on Suzanne’s fraud here.
As I said .. Gator you forward industry talking points – “well trained”.
Do you then deny the fossil fuel industry has poured millions into climate science denial .. through think tanks and other groups?
How much does “Big Green” spend on lobbying annually, do you know?
There you go lying again! 😆
Sweety, I do this for free, because it cleanses my soul to degrade evil people like you.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! 😆
“Sweety, I do this for free, because it cleanses my soul to degrade evil people like you.”Gator ..
Yet all you are doing is lying (19X) What does THAT do for your soul?
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
“You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING” ME
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! :lol:”
You are making an utter arse out of yourself.
THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD – you SHOULD KNOW what ANTI-SLPP is .. this was a ruling ON PROCEDURE:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
(Watch how you can not answer the FACTS .. but as trained prevaricate ..I..
Why do you keep ranting about a case that has not been heard,? Why not look at court decisions that have been made public.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
As I said .. Gator you forward industry talking points – “well trained”. ME
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 5:12 pm
There you go lying again! 😆
Sweety, I do this for free, because it cleanses my soul to degrade evil people like you.”
TRAINED not PAID .. no one would pay you for this mendacious drivel.
Now answer the question weasel. Did Judge loftis lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
There you go, running away again! 😆
Those two things are not equivalent, dumbass, and you know it. No-one ever required that you prevent any video from being downloaded from youtube, ever. Not in writing, nor verbally.
The only person here who even pretends that that absurd excuse isn’t an utter sham is you, Hope. It’s why you’re posting so much nonsense: you’re trying to distract from the fact that you know your excuse is bullshit.
Everyone here can see it’s bullshit, Hope. No-one is fooled.
Are you sure?
‘ any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.” ”
Doesn’t say that any other use is a violation of the agreement between us?
Positive??
IS it possible for you to use reason 😉
You are either mentally defective or lying. Whether or not some third party can download a video from youtube and wilfully violate the license has nothing to do with the terms of your agreement with Goddard. Do you realise that license agreements are not physical barriers? Why are you the only one pretending that it is otherwise? Do you not understand English? Is copyright law too difficult for you to grasp?
“Whether or not some third party can download a video from youtube and wilfully violate the license has nothing to do with the terms of your agreement with Goddard.”
Well said .. can you explain that to Steve?
“Then required that I agree that no one can download it from youtube:”Me
“I want you to put a prominent disclaimer up that the video is intended to remain intact, unedited, and that any other usage is dishonest and not authorized.” Steve/Tony
For “other use” anyone would have to download .. I guess I have to spell that out for you … so there ya go.
See, I read what you wrote, & you just made that part up out of thin air. No-one besides you ever said that it couldn’t be downloaded from youtube, only that editing & manipulation would constitute a violation on your part. If those sound like the same thing, you probably have something wrong in your brain & should talk to your doctor about Haldol.
““I want you to put a prominent disclaimer up that the video is intended to remain intact, unedited, and that any other usage is dishonest and not authorized.””
Did you think the required disclaimer was only for me? That’s rich.
“and any other use is a violation of the agreement made between us.”
Would YOU agree to that?
It’s pretty clear that Hope is a lunatic. In the face of overwhelming and credibly sourced evidence, she continues to lie and make an utter fool of herself.
Hope cannot even tell the difference between a district court and an oil company! 😆
http://youtu.be/BXOwNOf2QXY
Yes .. Gator is a broken record .. well said.
Region 6 concluded that gases from
the production wells and contaminated
residential wells were likely from the sa
me source. Moreover, samples taken from
other wells in the area had a different is
otopic profile. Region 6
concluded that the
gas produced by Range Resources’ gas well
was most likely the source that was
contaminating the aquifer and the dri
nking water wells. Figure 2 shows plotted
isotopic values of gases from the gas
production well and the
residential water
well along with gas samples fr
om other nearby wells.
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
You keep quoting known frauds and liars. How stupid are you?
@ANTO
“What part of this don’t you understand:
“The Lipskys refused to attend the TRRC hearing,”
I understand the difference between the TRRC and the EPA. You may not.
We understand the difference between district courts and oil companies. We also understand the difference between gas lines and water lines. 😆
The big question is does your electrician know the difference between the water line (ground) and the gas line?
Gail, one time we had an electrician that did not know the difference. Went down to the basement to inspect the work after they were done, and found that they hooked the grounding wire for a new circuit to the gasline!
Anthony S,
A good friend who is an electrician has found the same thing a few times that is why I mentioned it. Scared the spit out of him!
Can you answer the EPA’s Ig findings?
Region 6 concluded that gases from the production wells and contaminated residential wells were likely from the same source. Moreover, samples taken from other wells in the area had a different is isotopic profile. Region 6 concluded that the gas produced by Range Resources’ gas well was most likely the source that was contaminating the aquifer and the drinking water wells. Figure 2 shows plotted isotopic values of gases from the gas production well and the residential water well along with gas samples fr
om other nearby wells. ”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
All you have is Range Resources allegations that is is a fraud .. which is `100% impossible .. but that will never stop you repeating the fossil fuel industry propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
No you ignorant lying bitch. I have a court ruling.
Quit lying you scumbag shill.
No .. you have ruling on procedure .. as I have demonstrated to you over and over.
No manner of fact can help you:
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor to the contamination The information that the EPA had in its possession was sufficient for it to
conclude that the gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination of the aquifer that led to the ISE.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
HOW did Lipsky FOOL the EPA’s isotopic testing???
He didn’t Tool.
A Huge corporation is lying to cover up their guilt – SO obvious.
No, I have a court ruling.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
If Lipsky’s case was sooooo strong, why did he hook a hose to a gas line and lie about it being his water?
Why would you continue to defend a proven fraud.
Rhetorical question, you need not answer, we all know you are a liar.
@gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 5:30 am
We understand the difference between district courts and oil companies. We also understand the difference between gas lines and water lines. :lol:”
That’s a goof point GATOR – READ the ANTI-SLAPP ruling again by LOFTIN .. WHAT IS THE GAS LINE MENTIONED?
DO YOU KNOW??
” intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line”
What “gas line” is he referring to???
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! 😆
“You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING” ME
(20X) @GATOR .. do you just not understand that not every ruling is a ruling on a HEARING of a case .. that MANY rulings are on legal questions, and not the case itself??
The ANTI SLAPP ruling allowed the case to go forward …
THAT”S WHY HERE:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
.. it says "PROCEED to Trail"
And why the text you leave out LABELs what this hearing was about:
"Order denying plaintiffs Anti-Slapp motion to dimiss Range's counter claim"
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD, Gator.
There she goes again 😆
Keep up sweetie, we are discussing this record of the court.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Concentrate! 😆
My fav:
“Can you answer the EPA’s Ig findings?” Me
Answer:
“No you ignorant lying bitch. I have a court ruling.
Quit lying you scumbag shill.” Gator
Now answer the question weasel. Did Judge loftis lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Quit dodging the question liar.
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 5:00 am
You keep quoting known frauds and liars. How stupid are you?”
You keep quoting fossil fuel industry talking points – how brainwashed are YOU??
Sorry dummy, I am quoting the courts, a judge, not frauds and liars like you.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Broken record this lying bitch! 😆
NO matter how many times you call me a bitch .. the case has still not been heard.
“The presiding judge, Trey Loftin, dismissed the Lipskys’ claims, citing lack of jurisdiction, but allowed Range’s defamation suit to proceed. ”
http://www.desmogblog.com/2013/11/06/steve-lipsky-s-flaming-tapwater-no-joke
It is a court order bitch. Lipsky committed fraud. Get over it, and get a life. 😆
“It is a court order bitch. Lipsky committed fraud. Get over it, and get a life. :lol:” Gator ..
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
" A Texas appeals court on Monday halted its review of Range Resources Corp.'s defamation suit against two homeowners in a hydraulic fracturing dispute, saying a new trial court judge should get a chance to hear the homeowners' argument for dismissal after the initial judge was replaced.
The Texas Second District Court of Appeals said it was required to give Judge Craig Towson — who took over for the judge who declined to dismiss the case, Judge Trey Loftin — an opportunity to re-examine his predecessor's decision."
http://www.law360.com/articles/429553/gas-co-s-fracking-defamation-suit-sent-back-to-trial-court
Again oh brain damaged lying bitch, we are discussing THAT. We are discussing the fact that a judge ruled Lipsky committed fraud by hooking as hose to a gas line and reported it as a water line.
Do you accept that as fact, or are you calling judge Loftin a liar?
I’m ready to make that call. (817)594-7343.
Gator, you don’t understand. The case has not been heard because the judge declared the motion to be a fraud and refused to hear it. That means it’s not a fraud, because it has not been heard. Don’t you get it?
“Again oh brain damaged lying bitch ..
… we are discussing THAT. We are discussing the fact that a judge ruled Lipsky committed fraud by hooking as hose to a gas line and reported it as a water line.” GATOR (21X)
No. Loftin ruled that Range had presented although evidence that the case could go forward, THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
How can you not see the difference? (hint: TRAINED)
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
Why does a court case "PROCEED TO TRIAL" is it is RULED ON????????
Do try and keep up, we are discussing THIS ruling. How stupid are you? 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Hope still not grasping the discussion in 3,2,1…
I’m beginning to think that Hope is being paid to be here. There is no way someone can be that stupid.
Stupid enough to believe what I see with my own eyes? Hmmmm ….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Great, now you can believe in Bigfoot! 😆
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaobjHksic
I filmed the water well twice.
You are only repeating the industry talking points as trained .. exactly as I said you would.
Lots of nice bombastic icing, too .. also as trained.
Hope, if the guy has methane in his water, he should just heat his house with it. Hook it up to his stove and cook pancakes with it. It’s a gold mine. It’s like striking oil. Money for nothing, out of the ground. Holy shit, if Lipsky doesn’t like it I’ll buy his property. You are a complete idiot. Natural gas comes out of the ground. It’s natural, get over it.
Bigfoot industry talking points?
Or maybe 43rd Judicial Court talking points? 😆
Gator, you are hilarious. I don’t know how you have the patience.
GATOR, thanks for proving …
NO manner of fact can help a well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda believer.
“Range Resources Corp. (RRC)’s lawsuit against Texas landowners who accused it of fouling their water by hydraulic fracturing should go back to the trial court, a state appeals court said after the judge who originally let the case proceed stepped down from the bench.
An appeals court in Fort Worth said that a new judge had replaced Judge Trey Loftin of Weatherford, Texas.”
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2013/04/03/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-court-says/
Fine, that case can go back to trial.
The judge still ruled Lipsky committed fraud. It is now a record of the court.
But feel free to keep defending proven liars and frauds, it helps your credibility soooo much. 😆
“The judge still ruled Lipsky committed fraud”
If you just re read the ruling you will see you are 100% wrong …LOFTIN can not rule Steve guilty when Steve’s guilt is NOT the matter before the court!
The matter before the court is the Anti-Slapp case and IF Range has enough prima facia evidence to allow it to continue …
Are you capable of subtle thought?
Or just calling women bitches?
” to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.”
YOu actually have no idea WHAT this means …
This is not subtle. He’s not calling women bitches.
He called you a bitch.
So you are saying the judge lied whenb he said…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
Maybe I should contact Judge Loftin, and explain that you are slandering him.
(817)594-7343. Should I call, or do you want to tell the judge he is a liar?
@gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 5:51 am
(817)594-7343. Should I call, or do you want to tell the judge he is a liar?”
AS I said GATOR I AM NOT CALLING HIM A LAIR…. I am CALLING YOU a lair/ well trained industry propaganda repeater.
Please DO Call him … and ASK HIM IF HE HEARD THE CASE ..or ruled on procedure??
THANKS
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Hope admits that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud, that Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and the EPA.
Thanks for the clarification Hope! 😆
“Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Hope admits that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud, that Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and the EPA.
Thanks for the clarification Hope! :lol:” GATOR (22X)
“You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING” Me .. and I am correct …
You poor schmuck .. NO, The ANTI-SLAPP aspect was PROCEDURE ..
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
"Order denying plaintiffs Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range's counter claim"
Can you read???
Nope.
I read well. I read the court document stating Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA. Can you read? 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Hopeski still not comprehending the content of this court document in 3,2,1…
@Morgan Wright says:
March 11, 2015 at 9:32 am
Hope, if the guy has methane in his water, he should just heat his house with it. Hook it up to his stove and cook pancakes with it. It’s a gold mine. It’s like striking oil. Money for nothing, out of the ground. Holy shit, if Lipsky doesn’t like it I’ll buy his property. You are a complete idiot. Natural gas comes out of the ground. It’s natural, get over it.”
He’s been told he could. He’s afraid Range will sue him for stealing their gas… which contaminated his water well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amqXocVjpJA&spfreload=10
I thought you said that case has not yet been heard?
Lying again? 😆
“He’s been told he could. He’s afraid Range will sue him for stealing their gas… which contaminated his water well.”
WHERE does that say ‘The case has been heard”?
Is obtuse just your forte?
Unfortunate.
Dummy, we are not speculating on something that has yet to take place, We are discussing the court record that states Steve Lipsky conspired to defraud the public and the EPA, and then did so.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
What part of this do you not get? 😆
@Anto .. “And HOW DID Steve get that Range gas into his well????
You really are a complete liar, aren’t you? There was NO Range gas in the Lipsky’s well:” you
So .. if you look right at it, you can deny it’s there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
How did STEVE FOOL the EPA then??
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Hope, you have no interest in debating. Your only goal is to accuse everyone of being a fossil fueled industry shill. Sometimes I wish that were true – they could have paid for my graduate school.
What you’re doing here is the equivalent of the following:
Gator69: “Hope, how are you today?”
Hope: “I love lamp.”
Just leave already.
I don’t believe any of you here are paid .. that’s a strawman .. and I’m actually working very hard to HAVE a conversation while being followed around and called a bitch.
It’s a very simple question .. you should take a stab at it …. The EPA matched the gas .. HOW did STEVE pull that off?
GATOR, I notice you can’t answer this question ^^^^^^
Don’t be a denier…admit it….you enjoy being “followed around and called a bitch”. Hell, you don’t even mind being publically and repeatedly called “stupid” for voting for those that ideologically agree with you. Anything for attention. Quite sad…
Irrelevance is tight quarters for a massive ego.
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
Ooopsy! 😆
This is, I believe, also from Range .. CITE IT .. GATOR .. in reference to Richter?
ARE YOU posting Range’s position??
Cite it … if you have any integrity at all (this after you’ve called me a bitch about 15 times today 🙂
I am quoting the courts, and Lipsky’s experts.
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
God you are dumb! 😆
“I am quoting the courts, and Lipsky’s experts.
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
God you are dumb! :lol:” GATOR
I call you on it .. CITE it GATOR.
Of course it’s court documents .. Range’s … go ahead .. prove me wrong!
Give the LINK!
OK, here is a link…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Comprendo? 😆
Here is your answer, yet again…
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
Have your husband explain it to you.
I dare you cite the claim..
You can’t, too embarrassing. It’s Range spin.
I will find it sometime and post – it’s a Range Resources claim .. you fossil fuel industry talking points repeater you ….
“But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Hope admits that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud, that Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and the EPA.
Thanks for the clarification Hope! 😆
Like I said .. you can’t cite the claim .. just more prevaricating.
You know that’s Range’s spin and all you are doing is forwarding fossil fuel industry propaganda ..as I have said.
the CASE has never been heard .. Loftin did not rule on the trial .. it has not yet been heard:
IS THIS the trial: “Order denying plaintiffs Anti-Slapp motion to dimiss Range’s counter claim”
??
YOU KNOW you are wrong.
Hope says: “…. The EPA matched the isotopic fingerprint to the Barnett gas .. really not a hard concept.”
That is not the problem What is the problem is that government agencies have been caught LYING repeatedly .
USDA Treachery Proved! In the Henshaw case the USDA also lied. And they lied again in Jason’s case. Actually a USDA agent deliberately infected his animals.
If the EPA faked their testing, EPA’s IG would have caught it.
http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/2013/12/another-chapter-in-epas-battle.html
But – “the scientists are lying” would be a position I would expect to hear here .. Still .. Steve’s gas well looks like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Is that the gas line, or the biogenic methane water?
“The Lipskys’ experts actually agreed with the TRRC’s holding that Range’s hydraulic fracturing operations did not cause any alleged contamination and that Barnett Shale gas is not in the Lipskys’ water well.”
If you simply WATCH the video you can divine that:
If you read the EPA’s findings that helps too.
“But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
THE case has never been heard.
Are you calling judge Loftin a liar? If you refuse to answer, I will have to contact the judge and let him know you are spreading lies about him and his court on the internet.
(817)594-7343
Your call, sort of… 😆
Are you calling judge Loftin a liar? If you refuse to answer, I will have to contact the judge and let him know you are spreading lies about him and his court on the internet.
(817)594-7343
Your call, sort of… :lol:”
Feel free .. did you know he goes to the same church as Lipsky?
Ask him about that …
No, I am saying the case has =never been heard and YOU are repeating fossil fuel industry talking points.
I will ask again, are you calling the judge a liar. Yes, or no. It is very simple.
(817)594-7343
Judges do not take kindly to their courts being mocked, and certainly do not put up with liars who slander them.
Last chance.
YOU can never cite that claim .. you know it would prove your are a fossil fuel industry talking points repeater.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
STEVE has NEVER been found Guilty ,.. LAIR.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Hope admits that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud, that Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and the EPA.
Thanks for the clarification Hope! 😆
“I will ask again, are you calling the judge a liar. Yes, or no. It is very simple.
(817)594-7343
Judges do not take kindly to their courts being mocked, and certainly do not put up with liars who slander them.
Last chance”
He’s no longer a judge (you know this as you are posting his phone number here)
.. and YES PLEASE DO CALL HIM .. HE WILL TELL YOU he ruled on the ANTI-SLAPP portion and then had to recuse himself .. as I have cited to you repeatedly .. do you not read?
“Judge recuses himself from controversial case
In a letter sent Tuesday to an administrative judge regarding the high profile Parker County case alleging well contamination by Range Resources, 43rd District Court Judge Trey Loftin agreed he should be recused from the case.
After the national media raised questions less than a week prior to the May 29 primary election of whether Loftin’s campaign statements about the EPA improperly referenced the ongoing case, the attorney representing Steven and Shyla Lipsky filed a motion May 30 calling for the court to disqualify or recuse Loftin. Environmental consultant Alisa Rich’s attorney, George Carlton, also told the Democrat Tuesday they planned to soon file a similar motion for recusal.
“On Feb. 16, Loftin issued an order denying the Lipskys’ motion to dismiss Range’s claims against the Lipskys.”
Does that say “Found The Lipskys and Alisa Rich guilty”??
Can you read that Gator?? Nah …
http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/news/local_news/judge-recuses-himself-from-controversial-case/article_104b5376-279a-5727-bb92-e3ba1a7c977c.html
Why do you keep avoiding this? Lipsky is a fraud. Why not defend Maddoff? 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Quit changing the subject loser. 😆
The USDA tossed out the GAO when they went to investigate and the USDA has a better reputation then the EPA ever did.
@Gail .. Ok, I accept that answer .. you believe the EPA is lying …
but were you not protesting my characterization of many here as “industry talking points repeaters”?
“The EPA is lying” is .. sadly .. a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point.
It’s exactly what Range and the gas ind would like you to believe and what they state on their propaganda websites ….
If they are lying .. how do you think all that gas got in the well??
Could you live with that for 5 years and not notice? That’s how long they used the well before the flame appeared.
The water was already biogenically contaminated. It is all in the reports we have given you. Why else would Lipsky have hooked a hose to a gas line and called it water? 😆
“The EPA is lying” is .. sadly .. a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point. — HOPE
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually given who the head of the region was I think it is a reasonable point of view.
Then there is the IRS going after True the Vote and other groups.
And Sally Jewell saying ‘I Hope There Are No Climate Change Deniers in the Department of Interior.”
So why ever should I trust the US government when Obama has said he wants to close down the coal industry and make prices sky rocket? Why should I trust the government when all I see is scandal after scandal.
And just for the record I loathed The Bush and The Shrub and McCain too.
“The EPA is lying” is .. sadly .. a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point. — HOPE
>>>>>
Actually you did not follow me at all.
My distrust has ZERO to do with the fossil fuel industry who I know, based on personal experience, are all crooks, it has to do with the repeated lies told by the USDA and the FDA.
Government Accountability Project: Shielding the Giant – USDA’s “Don’t Look, Don’t Know” Policy
History, HACCP and the Food Safety Con-job (Has five pages of documentation)
It also has to do with Sancho Jones whose brother works for the EPA. He was told point blank to go after the Mom and Pop companies and leave the big guys alone. This is the exact same thing that the USDA and the FDA are doing to the independent farmers and meat packers. Consolidation of the entire market under less than ten companies.
The goal is to run the small companies out of business so a cartel, who fixes prices, is the last man standing.
You might want to also look at this:
Paper
Explanation (from Occupy Wall Street no less.)
@ gail ..”“The EPA is lying” is .. sadly .. a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point. — HOPE”
It is.
I don’t believe your citation on the USDA shows all government agency science is a lie.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
So apparently Judge Loftis was not lying when he ruled that Lipsky committed fraud. Of course Hope is more than welcome to call him a liar. I ‘Hope’ she does. 😆
It’s very, very rare to get a Warmist to address an actual fact and discuss it.
I think what you have done above is a brilliant piece of work…eventually she twisted and turned till she ran out of road….then crash!
Nice.
She’ll be back. She just needed to rest a little.
“The water was already biogenically contaminated. It is all in the reports we have given you. Why else would Lipsky have hooked a hose to a gas line and called it water? :lol:”
GATOR
WHAT IS THE HOSE hooked to??
DO YOU KNOW GATOR??
A “gasline” according to Loftin .. WHAT “GASLINE” THE HOSE actually HOOKED UP TO?
YOU can answer easily of you watch the video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
…. and the case has NEVER BEEN HEARD.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Hope admits that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud, that Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and the EPA.
Thanks for the clarification Hope! 😆
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
http://www.hyzercreek.com/hopesteeth.jpg
Poster child of the Grubered.
I know … I’m sorry for the guy.
Makes you look small.
You bother me not at all. Since the yellow teeth weren’t there .. you have to poorly Photoshop .. how cute.
Photo-shopping yellow teeth is bad, but defrauding the public is fine!
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Hope admits that the court ruled Lipsky a fraud, that Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and the EPA.
Thanks for the clarification Hope! 😆
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
ghetto grill, not yellow teeth.
Poorly photoshopped, did you think I would spend more than 30 seconds doing it?
If this prediction comes true, then east US will flow air from Alaska.
If the solar wind weakens, it’s pretty far south.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z50_nh_f216.gif
Where are all Hope’s ‘friends’?
Hope…
Do you have any of these traits?
Qualities of a Sociopath:
Someone who is described as a sociopath will have several traits that set them apart from those with no personality disorders. These traits include the following…
• Lack of empathy – Inability to feel sympathy for others or to understand the emotional consequences of their actions.
• Cold, calculating nature – The ability and willingness to use others around them to personal gain.
• Shallow emotions – Lack of real emotion in response to events, limited capacity to feel love.
• Narcissism – A personality disorder in itself in which the individual feels strong love and admiration toward themselves (often a defense mechanism against deep seated low esteem).
• Grandiose self-image – They might see themselves as someone who is superior to others and sometimes even experiences delusions.
• Charming – While the sociopath is unable to fully understand the emotions of others, they are capable but rather highly adept at mimicking them and might appear to be charming and normal at first.
• High IQ – Often sociopaths will exhibit a high IQ which they can use to manipulate and plan.
• Manipulative – Sociopaths use their superficial charm and high IQ to manipulate others to get their ends, and their lack of empathy allows them to do this with no sense of guilt or remorse.
• Secretive – Has little need for others and is highly secretive in their actions meaning.
• Sensitive to criticism – That said, like all narcissists, the sociopath will desire the approval of others and will be highly sensitive to criticisms. They often feel they deserve adulation and admiration of the world and might feel victimized.
• Paranoid – Often their lack of understanding of emotion along with their incongruous self-view means that they feel a lack of trust and paranoia.
• Lawfulness – Despite popular belief, a sociopath is not likely to be a problem to the law in later life, but rather will seek to find loopholes, to rise to a position of power, or to move to another area so that their behavior is tolerated.
• Low tolerance for boredom – Sociopaths require constant stimulation and get quickly bored.
• Impulsive behavior – A lack of regret and empathy means makes sociopaths more likely to make sudden rash decisions based on the current facts.
• Compulsive lying – As part of their facade, and as a means to an end, sociopaths are compulsive liars and will rarely speak truthfully making them hard to pin down.
Sociopaths of course vary in their symptoms and might act differently in different cases. However their main trait is presenting themselves as having the same empathy feelings and emotions as others when in fact they lack this emotional capacity. They are thus cold and manipulative and rarely see any problem with their actions.
Sounds exactly like Steve/Tony.
Hope,
It really seems like you are trying to distract from the fact that NCDC and NOAA keep adjusting raw temperatures, cooling the past and warming the present. Let’s say Steve doesn’t do interviews (really don’t believe you on that) it still doesn’t change the fact that NCDC and NOAA are adjusting temperatures. There really is no point to you complaining about fracking because Obama has indicated he is going to let it go, or at least be up to individual states. Would you care to comment on what you think about the temperature adjustments, or are you just going to post a youtube video of somebody lighting tap water on fire?
” NCDC and NOAA are adjusting temperatures.”
Fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Lying again…
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php
OH MY! Oh My!
Hope really does live in an alternate universe where anything she knows nothing about but dislikes is shrugged off as “Fossil fuel industry propaganda.”
No checking to see if the statement ”NCDC and NOAA are adjusting temperatures” is true, just denounce it as “Fossil fuel industry propaganda.” and off she goes as ignorant as she was before.
Gail, read what I wrote about directly under this comment.
She is pre-porgrammed, she can’t respond any other way because there is nothing else in her brain to respond with.
+1
A C Osborn,
You are correct. She is the product of Standard Oil brain washing techniques. The Rockefellers have been at it for over one hundred years.
In our schools: Dumbing Down America
In the changes in how we now raise children
The Hand that Rocked the Cradle: A Critical Analysis of Rockefeller Philanthropic Funding
And now the schools are drugging anyone bright enough to be bored to tears by the dumbed down syllabus.
Source Watch on Pharmaceutical industry
Take special notice that the Pharmaceutical industry now PAYS the FDA to speed up drug testing. Then add this. The FDA Underreports Scientific Misconduct In Peer-Reviewed Articles: The Benefits Of Negative Science
More details on druging of children as young as seven years of age:
link to older comment on drugging of school children
Yes I know and here is the proof
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121257/poll-90-percent-12-year-olds-accept-climate-change
It is exactly the same in the UK with my 21 year nephew, he has been totally brainwashed in to believing in CAGW at school and it does not matter what “facts” you show him, he just can’t bring himself to believe them.
It is very sad and an indictment of Modern Schooling and Government control over it.
Have you also noticed she keeps posting some Video, as if anyone believes anything on videos these days.
She probably thinks Al Gore’s film was actual reality, sad isn’t it.
People make money off YouTube videos. Hope is selling a product for profit.
First YOU have to show that Steve is wrong, about past temperature data being adjusted.
Don’t be silly sunsettommy, it is a warmist Troll you are talking about here, they don’t do any “proving” or “showing” they just say the same things over & over again as if that makes it real.
Perhaps that is how they were brainwashed in the first place.
Just putting her on the spot.
Come on Guys & Gals, give this poor deluded woman a chance.
You know she has come here with her preconceived (or should that be ill conceived) ideas and her pre-programmed warmist answers.
You have been confusing her with Facts and Data, which is just not on.
So show her some compassion, each time you confuse and confound her all she can do is parrot the things she has been programmed to say.
So come on no more nasty Facts, no more confusing data contradicting her worldview, just agree with everything she says, after all we don’t want her having a nervous breakdown do we?
Do we?
When you can’t dazzle them with brilliance then baffle them with BS, or just call the facts and data “fossil fuel talking points and propaganda” when frustrated. All that fossil fuel money is going to them and they desperately try to turn it around.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/07/24/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil-no-the-alarmists-are/
.. as you cite a well known fossil fuel industry propaganda machine … so you guy think this is a hoax, also?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
I y’all posted a fact, I would love it!
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
Love it! 😆
“The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. ”
No, the CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD;
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
Bipolar much? 😆
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING.
“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.”
The ruling was on procedure. The case has never been heard.
But no doubt no manner of fact can convince of these facts.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to post the same inane drivel AGAIN and make my point.
Thanks for showing everyone you lack the conviction of your rhetoric.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Moron! 😆
If an interview were ever to be done, I would suggest it be copyrighted with a commercial commons Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND license.
This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.
The advantage of this is that the power of copyright law can be brought to bear on any third parties that choose to edit and make derivatives of the interview.
There are other variations of the commercial commons license which may also be suitable. Information about these may be had at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Steve has become a target because he has shown the lies of Zeke, Mosher and Gavin.
Hope came here hoping to charm Steve into doing a video that she could slice and dice to create smear propaganda to marginalize Steve. Steve saw through her and demanded an agreement that the video would be live and shown as is with no editing. Hope balked and then showed her true colors.
Rosa Koire has articles written by the propagandists in the MSM and videos of the actual interview. It is obvious the American public is being deliberately fed lies by the MSM.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/video-and-smear-articles.html
Here is one of Rosa’s videos showing the goals and methods of the Globalists that are being applied to the USA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QK2sZUs2l_U
There is a lot at stake and most people do not realize that the Global elite are forging serf collars for all of us under the guise of concern about the environment and CAGW.
Hope is a Globalist enabler whether she knows it or not.
+1
“Hope came here hoping to charm Steve into doing a video that she could slice and dice to create smear propaganda to marginalize Steve.”
That is, in fact, not at all the case. But it is a good description of what Steve did with our emails….. propaganda smear.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I’m not interested in suing others. Steve/Tony is. You can mention this to him .. he doesn;t seem to appear here .. other than to post fake work. I have no problem with the work being edited. Poor edits, as Steve/Tony does, can be refuted.
Fake work like when Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA?
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
FACT: LOFTIN ruled on the ANTI_SLAPP CASE .. he did not hear the entire CASE .. the CASE has NEVER BEEN HEARD …
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
“Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.”
FACT … The court rules there WAS enough evidence for the case to proceed …
YOU could listen to RANGE tell you themselves RIGHT HERE:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
PROCEED to TRIAL .. CAN you READ???????
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Sad to see someone argue with themselves. Seek help Hope. 😆
CAN you read, Gator? Does it say ANYWHERE here that the CASE was heard and found FOR Range?
If so CITE IT:
“In re Lipsky: a husband and wife alleged that hydraulic fracturing near their property in Texas contaminated their water supply well. In July 2011, defendants Range Production Co. and Range Resources Corp. (Range) filed a counterclaim, alleging that plaintiffs and an environmental consultant conspired to harm Range’s reputation. Among other things, the company alleged that plaintiffs and the consultant conspired to persuade EPA to get involved in the matter by using false and misleading data. In January 2012, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims on jurisdictional grounds, holding that plaintiffs were required to appeal a March 2011 decision of the Railroad Commission of Texas that approved a
report finding that Range had not caused the contamination in plaintiffs’ well. In June 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss Range’ s counterclaims as barred by the Texas Citizens’ Participation Act, an anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute. In August 2012, an appellate court dismissed plaintiffs’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction, citing an earlier ruling that it did not have jurisdiction over
interlocutory appeals from trial court orders denying motions to dismiss under the anti
SLAPP statute. The appellate court granted plaintiffs’ request that the appeal be converted to an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus. In the original proceeding for a writ of mandamus concerning whether the trial court abused its
discretion in denying motions to dismiss Range’s counterclaims against the landowner plaintiffs and an environmental consultant (relators), the appellate court determined that relators had met their initial burden of establishing that Range’s counterclaims were based on relators’ exercise of their right to free speech and right to petition. The court of appeals further ruled that the trial court did not clearly abuse its discretion in
determining that Range had presented clear and specific evidence to establish a prima facie case for its defamation and business disparagement claims against relator Steven Lipsky, but that it had abused its discretion in determining that prima facie cases for such claims had been made against the other relators. The court also ruled that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motions to dismiss the civil conspiracy
and “aiding and abetting” counterclaims against all relators. Finding that relators had no adequate remedy on appeal, the court conditionally granted writs of mandamus and ordered the trial court to dismiss the civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims against Steven Lipsky and all claims against the other relators”
http://www.arnoldporter.com/resources/documents/July2013FrackingUpdate.pdf
My guess .. you will not read it .. you CAN’T cite ANY finding that Range’s case itself was even heard … but you will post some inane drivel about Steve’s guilt or some other 4th grade ignorance .. let’s see …
Hope says “you will not read it .. you CAN’T cite ANY finding that Range’s case itself was even heard … but you will post some inane drivel about Steve’s guilt or some other 4th grade ignorance”
Poor argumentation skills for starters. Anyway, I looked at it. The summary is difficult for me to follow; I can usually read legal briefs but since this one has a counterclaim, it is not clear at any moment who exactly is the “plaintiff”, who has been judged for and against; it appears to be in appeal and a trial seems to have been held already to which this brief refers.
No one here is involved in this litigation so far as I know; our participation is irrelevant. Consequently we are merely the “jury of the public” invited to view the evidence (a YouTube video) and arrive at our own conclusions. I conclude that the video is misleading and probably deliberately so; it does not accurately convey important information. It could have been made anywhere on earth and at any time since the technology came into existence to make it. The “5 W’s” are weak or not present, who what when where and why. It is even weak on the “what”.
Had I made the video intending to persuade others of my kind (probably won’t work on your kind but maybe BOTH kinds could be woven into one video), I would start out by declaring my identity, then where the video is being made. Ideally a high elevation view, a drone helicopter would be perfect for it; make a slow 360 degree view so you can match the location on Google Earth, then without break bring the view down to ground level and proceed with the demonstration. You’ve established where and who. Next is “what”. You must establish clearly that it is a water well, then establish clearly that it is emitting methane, but once you have flared the methane, that it does emit water and that’s what it is supposed to do.
Establishing the WHEN could be achieved by displaying a nationally recognized newspaper.
Of course, the younger generation has been raised on “Avatar” and knows that every single pixel of the video might exist solely in the electronic mind of a computer with zero correlation to reality whatsoever; but you have to make the claim then in court a living witness testifies that the claim is real and the entire credibility of the case then rests solely upon that witness and any physical evidence actually present at trial. If that witness is tainted by advocacy there’s no telling what will happen.
Declaring “what is wanted” should exist somewhere in the video. “I want…” whatever is wanted.
Be honest. If your desire is just for clean water you may get some sympathy. If you want to shut down all drilling everywhere on Earth and we all go back to hunting and gathering (gleaned from your founder’s website) then you won’t get much sympathy. My ancestors abandoned hunting and gathering ten thousand years ago (*) and so did yours.
* more or less. SOME hunting and gathering still takes place; I gather blackberries when I visit the pacific northwest and hunting is a popular activity in much of the United States
Be clear about any connection to advocacy groups. It will be discovered and if not declared will make it seem to be a conspiracy (duh).
Now let’s talk about those poor argumentation skills.
Or maybe not. Some other time 😉
P.S. Demonstrating that the methane came from Range’s drilling could be extremely difficult. Naturally existing methane is common and capturing it is the whole point of drilling.
I sense that the left chose their champion poorly. He’s a “one percenter” with a 15,000 square foot mansion.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/full/
“His company, Lipsky and Associates, was processing more than $1 billion a year in electronic mortgage payments for J.P. Morgan Chase … doing well enough to allow him to purchase a house and some seven and a half acres in the gated enclave Silverado-on-the-Brazos. … replatting and joining portions of the old property into nearly 15 acres of riverfront real estate.”
“Then Lipsky began construction of his dream home. He purportedly spent millions over the course of several years in construction and property improvements, even installing a state-of-the-art water filtration system to disperse the rotten-egg scent of sulfur typical for this portion of the aquifer.”
I wish I had his problems (and everything else he’s got!). Thanks to the detailed news report and Spokeo you can see it for yourself on Google Earth at N 32 33.759′ W 97 47.514′
Nice digs!
Now to see if I can find where Range was drilling.
“On December 7, 2010, EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz sent an email to anti-fracking blogger Sharon Wilson (known as Texas Sharon), Tom ‘Smitty’ Smith of Public Citizen and others: ‘We’re about to make a lot of news.’ ”
Why would the EPA be in private communication with anti-fracking bloggers? That’s a pretty serious revelation by itself.
“The EPA ordered the company to survey all private water wells within a 3,000-foot radius of its gas wells”
So it’s nearby with 3,000 feet and there it is (most likely): N 32 33.469′ W 97 47.257′ 2190 feet southeast from the house. It is odd to see the road (Lake Country Drive) bounded on both sides by singlewide trailers next to a huge 15,000 square foot mansion with boat docks and swimming pool. If you are going to flaunt wealth, do it right next do a few dozen poor families in trailers.
Holy smokes. I counted five wells nearby. Google Street view shows an active drilling rig; pretty cool actually, at N 32 31.934′ W 97 47.471′ Highway 51, Weatherford Highway.
I see about fourteen more wells just south of Weatherford Highway.
OMG. Zoom out a bit, look eastward to Interstate 20, in a big empty triangle north of Cresson to Hudson Oaks and west to the Brazos River. Hundreds of well sites. Keep going east past Pelican Bay, well sites are thicker than mosquitos at the Everglades. All the way to Denton they continue.
My conclusion: It is obvious this portion of Texas is rich in natural gas, a thing people should probably understand when poking their own holes in the ground. The natural gas hardly makes a distinction between Lipsky’s hole and Range’s hole, other than Range went a lot deeper and pushed water IN while Lipsky went shallow and pulled water OUT creating an underground “river” that also transports natural gas (and cow poop and everything else in the groundwater).
The good news is that it will soon “play out” and the problem goes away, leaving that portion of Texas “gas free” and thus better off than ever before, thank you very much.
“His company, Lipsky and Associates, was processing more than $1 billion a year in electronic mortgage payments for J.P. Morgan Chase….”
………….
ROTFLMAO!
RIIIiiiight, J.P. Morgan Chase, a combo of the Rockefellers and the Morgans. Rockefeller = Standard Oil and the guys funding CRU of Climategate fame, Greenpeace and all the rest.
J.P. Morgan is the dude who bought up the important MSM back in 1915 and has owned the MSM ever since. J.P. Morgan is also the company who was paying Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair when he was in the Middle East talking to Gadhafi before the decision was made to kill him. Blair was the one who got Gadhafi’s sone into the London School of economics.
So our little Hope is working with a Bankster Puppet. ROTFLMAO!!!
Gail says “So our little Hope is working with a Bankster Puppet. ROTFLMAO!!!”
Yeah, I noticed that. Lipsky could have remained a little Texas secret but now he’s been outed as a “one percenter”.
Another of Lenin’s useful iodiots 😆
So Lipsky aided in this?
In a nearly $13 billion settlement with the US Justice Department in November 2013, JPMorganChase admitted that it, along with every other large US bank, had engaged in mortgage fraud as a routine business practice, sowing the seeds of the mortgage meltdown.
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/03/jpmorgan-chase-engaged-mortgage-fraud-securitization-scheme-collapsed-housing-market.html
No wonder he yelled ‘squirrel’! Anything to gtake focus off of his relationship with another fraud. 😆
HOW can you DISCUSS anything here sans REPLY buttons??? Horrible!
No one “picked” Steve” as a “champion” ( TALK about poor argumentation, Mike) ..
… he just started having trouble with his well pump one summer, called for help and found he had 85 PPM methane in his water well that was not there before.
yes, his house was worth $4 MILLION before the water source was ruined. Now it is worth – hard to day – he’s not sure Texas will even allow him to sell it when there is no water sourse.
Steve has been paying nearly $1K a month for 4.5 years to bring in his own water and has a $3 million lawsuit hanging over his head form the same company EPA isotopic testing says contaminated his water well….
AND CON media/FF industry has spread this story that the case has been heard and found for Range .. entirely untrue.
He’s a dad w/ 3 small kids, a family man and yes, a Christian.
And we can look down this page and see the veracity of the propaganda spread about him.
No Corporation should be able to treat a US citizen this way .. in MY opinion.
So, maybe if you think about the larger story – it may put your hate filled bombast in perspective:
“So our little Hope is working with a Bankster Puppet. ROTFLMAO!!!”
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
Just try replying you fraud! Yes or no? 😆
“yes, his house was worth $4 MILLION”
The NYT article says he has succeeded in reducing the tax valuation to $300,000.
“Steve has been paying nearly $1K a month for 4.5 years to bring in his own water”
That is a LOT of water!
“He’s a dad w/ 3 small kids”
It is good they are small or they would not perhaps squeeze into 15,000 square feet.
I do not believe this is a David and Goliath story. Perhaps if you were to reveal his past and present monthly income I might feel just a tiny bit sorry that he is spending more on water than I spend on my mortgage. Texas is almost a desert. I wonder if he was simply pumping too much water and sucked the well dry creating an air pocket (methane pocket to be more precise). A pump wouldn’t even notice 85 parts per MILLION. What happens is the pump must be immersed to cool itself. When it starts sucking air it gets hot. It’s a wonder the well didn’t explode from a hot motor immersed in methane gas. They are supposed to have safety shutoff switches just for that possibility (running hot or dry, either or both).
http://inspectapedia.com/plumbing/Pump_Protection_Switches.php
Thanks Hope Grubered!
Every time you show up here the comments soar which only serves to give this site a larger audience/more credibility. Now….please…..continue…
SHows how the personal attack stories get lots of attention .. while the fake science stories ,… not so much.
Fake, like when Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
Are you REALLY THIS Ignorant??
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
THIS "Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA."
IS NOT an answer .. it's just the same inane drivel repeated ad infinatum. Proving you can not parse data or understand facts.
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
THERE HAS BEEN NO TRIAL. CALL Loftin ..CALL somebody … you seem unable to read up on it yourself.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
>>>>> “why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL” IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT?? <<<>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
if you can;t answer the question you should take NOTE OF that!
A ruling by the court is still a ruling by the court.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. And you admitted it. Or are you now calling yourself a liar? 😆
“Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. And you admitted it. Or are you now calling yourself a liar? :lol:’ gator
‘Are you REALLY THIS Ignorant??”ME .. ANSWER yes
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
AD INFINITUM … OR UNTIL THE CASE IS FINALLY HEARD.
You can;t just read the cite and stop your lies,can you Gator? Sad.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Sad to see someone argue with themselves. Seek help Hope. 😆
You can’t just read the cite and stop your lies,can you Gator? Sad.
No manner of fact can help you (23X)
“Rich and the Lipskys asked Judge Trey Loftin of Weatherford, Texas, to throw out the counter-suit on the ground that it violated a Texas law prohibiting so-called Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs. Loftin rejected that argument in February and the case was appealed. ”
You are so brainwashed, you may never figure out the truth
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/08/24/range-resources-wins-appeal-in-suit-against-texas-landowners/
Hope says: “SHows how the personal attack stories get lots of attention .. while the fake science stories ,… not so much.”
Precisely! People pay real money to sit and watch football or soccer. Back when Huffington Post was more in the “middle” it was a battleground with plenty of action in the comments. After they turned hard left and started purifying the comments I lost interest and so did a great many other people.
Same with Scientific American. They are so “pure” there’s hardly any reason to go there.
So Hope says the Judge who published the court findings that Lipsky was engaging in fraud “… goes to the same church as Lipsky?”
Lipsky must have pulled some really obvious fraud to get that type of ruling from a fellow church member. Of course the Judge would also have been well aware of the flaming water problem indigenous to the area.
Nice to know there are a few honest people still on the bench.
Loftin had to recuse himself after the ruling.
He simply rubberstamped Range Resources inane claims .. then bragged later about it in campaign mailers while still presiding over the ONGOING CASE.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2012/06/epa_nut-kicking_braggadocio_do.php
Gotcha! Now I have something concrete for the judge.
Thanks!
Certainly isn’t your thinking.
PLease do call him up …. though even when he tells you he ruled on the ANTI SLAPP aspect only .. you will not believe him .. you’ll think he’s also lying.
“why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL” IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
A ruling by the court is still a ruling by the court.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
slan·der
?sland?r/Submit
nounLAW 1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
“A ruling by the court is still a ruling by the court.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
slan·der
?sland?r/Submit
nounLAW 1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.”
yes .. a ruling is a ruling .. but you MISS WHAT the ruling was on .. it was on PROCEDURE .. STEVE was never found Guilty …Loftin didn’t take your call? Call any of the gas and oil friendly think tanks or groups .. maybe BSEEC .. they will tell you the same.
Calling me a bitch 25 times could be slander.
Claiming a person has been found guilty of fraud could be slander.
Pointing out that you repeatedly lie is NOT slander.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
STEVE HAS NEVER BEEN RULED GUILTY … no matter how many time you, Range resources or the fossil fuel industry's propaganda machine may lie about it.
A ruling by the court is still a ruling by the court.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. And you admitted it. Or are you now calling yourself a liar? 😆
Hope says that “STEVE HAS NEVER BEEN RULED GUILTY”. This is a civil case. You don’t rule people guilty in civil cases. In criminal cases people are found guilty, but not in civil cases.
Neal S says:
March 11, 2015 at 6:42 pm
You miss my point. While what you wrote was technically correct, it was also meaningless. It would be like me writing that “it has never been proven that man made CO2 increases the suns output”.
____________
It’s not actually meaningless that Steve has NOT been ruled against in this case .. and that the case has never been heard .. because, as you see, the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine and con media’s LIEs about the case confuse the public .. as we clearly see here.
The lies the fossil fuel industry is telling and the effect those lies have on the national conversation, as you can see, is very important ..
from “methane was always in the water” to “there has never been one case of water contamination from the fracking boom” to “nat gas is a bridge fuel” the FF industry’s propaganda is powerful and profoundly polluting to our decision making process .. democracy .. which relies on an alert and knowledgeable citizenry … not voters ginned up on industry lies.
“You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA”
DO YOU THINK EVERY CASE HAS ON:LY ONE RULING??
THIS CASE IS AN HISTORIC CASE WITH 9 rulings …
BUT STILL THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD.
The LOFTIN RULING ALLOWED THE CASE TO PROCEED.
You are simply proving you have no reading comprehension..
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Neal S says:
March 11, 2015 at 6:21 pm
Hope says that “STEVE HAS NEVER BEEN RULED GUILTY”. This is a civil case. You don’t rule people guilty in civil cases. In criminal cases people are found guilty, but not in civil cases.
______
Please post that to GATOR .. he is under the impression the case has been heard and Steve found guilty.
The case has never been heard … can YOU figure that out Neal? You seem a smart sort, I bet you could.
Just read the cite:
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
You miss my point. While what you wrote was technically correct, it was also meaningless. It would be like me writing that “it has never been proven that man made CO2 increases the suns output”.
“That’s pretty grandiose, and it sounded like he was referring to the case of Steve Lipsky, the Parker County guy who can literally light his well water on fire. ”
Water does not burn. It is the result of burning hydrogen in oxygen. It has already been burned.
“Of course the Judge would also have been well aware of the flaming water problem indigenous to the area.”
“Methane was always in the water” is a fossil fuel industry talking point.
Pecks drilling stated under oath the water well had no methane when drilled.
For the first 5 years the well was used it showed no methane.
When the methane hit the well, 5 year after use started, the well pump went out – siezing due to the huge amount of gas that hit it.
Do you really believe you could live for 5 years w/ this level of methane and not notice??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
You seem like a very reasonable person, I think you can easily research and find out the facts in this case. Even if you think the EPA is lying, faking their science.
Of course Gail seems reasonable, she does not defend people that the court ruled deceptive to the public and EPA.
Just left a message for Judge Loftis.
Super .. I eagerly await you apology.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
A ruling by the court is still a ruling by the court.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
slan·der
?sland?r/Submit
nounLAW 1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.
“Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.
slan·der
?sland?r/Submit
nounLAW 1. the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person’s reputation.”
FACT – LOFTIN rule son PROCEDURE.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
“Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA. ” GATOR
The court ruled there was enough PRIMA FACIa evidence for the CASE TO PROCEED.
THE CASE has Never been heard.
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:57 pm
“gator69 says:
March 11, 2015 at 4:17 pm
OK, so you are calling Judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR
You are CITING the ANTI SLAPP RULING
Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! 😆
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.
Case closed! :lol:”
No, GATOR – your MIND is closed ..
and you can;t answer WHY Range says the case is “proceeding to trial ” if Loftin ruled as you say .. so you just post the same lie and think yourself clever.
You’re actually making an idiot of yourself proving all you have is fossil fuel industry propaganda ,.. as I have said .. you are making MY CASE!
““But we’re confident that regardless of who considers the issue, the ruling by Judge Loftin is correct and Range’s claims, based on the false allegations against it,
>>> should proceed to a trial,” he wrote. ” <<<<
"why would it PROCEED TO TRIAL" IF LOFTIN RULED ON IT??
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-04-02/range-resources-frack-suit-should-be-reheard-appeals-court-says
The court has ruled, it is a matter of record that Steve Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA.
Are you calling judge Loftis a liar?
prima facie is used in modern legal English (including both Civil Law and Criminal Law) to signify that upon initial examination, sufficient corroborating evidence appears to exist to support a case. In common law jurisdictions, prima facie denotes evidence that, unless rebutted, would be sufficient to prove a particular proposition or fact.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Where has this been overturned? Are you calling judge Loftis a liar?
“The court has ruled, it is a matter of record that Steve Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA.
Are you calling judge Loftis a liar?”
Are you serious. I answered that 23X …
WHY does the case “PRCEED to TRIAL” GATOR – if as YOU CALIM – Loftin ruled on it?
Have you called Range yet? Call BSEEC, they are very pro-gas. or even any republican political office in Texas …
But so FUNNY – YOU posted the phone number fo rthe 43rd judicial district here … when you threatened to call Loften ..
you have no idea EVEN AFTER I TOLD YOU and CITED IT .. that Loftin lost his race and is now a divorce/family law lawyer:
Call him up – tell you are doing research for Steve Goddard and would like to ask a few cases about the Lipsky case .. see what he says!
“Fort Worth, TX Lawyer
Trey Edward Loftin, Attorney at Law
Trey Edward Loftin, Attorney at Law, offers professional, and client driven legal services and counsel in Fort Worth, TX. Serving clients from the surrounding counties, Loftin provides personal consultations with all of his clients, and explains the legal process in plain-language term. Edwards is a local product, and understands the legal system in the area, and can bring his unique background to each of his clients. Call today for all of your legal needs in Tarrant, Dallas and Parker Counties.
Contact Trey Edward Loftin, Attorney at Law today at 817-698-9696 for your free initial consultation.”
http://www.treyloftinlaw.com/
Go for it .. good luck .. just be sure and come back and apologize when he sets you straight .
Aw man .. GATOR!!!
I thought maybe you did what you said and called up Loftin today .. well .. I’ll just keep coming back until you do, I guess .. hurry up about it:
“Fort Worth, TX Lawyer
Trey Edward Loftin, Attorney at Law
Trey Edward Loftin, Attorney at Law, offers professional, and client driven legal services and counsel in Fort Worth, TX. Serving clients from the surrounding counties, Loftin provides personal consultations with all of his clients, and explains the legal process in plain-language term. Edwards is a local product, and understands the legal system in the area, and can bring his unique background to each of his clients. Call today for all of your legal needs in Tarrant, Dallas and Parker Counties.
Contact Trey Edward Loftin, Attorney at Law today at 817-698-9696 for your free initial consultation.”
http://www.treyloftinlaw.com/
Go for it .. good luck .. just be sure and come back and apologize when he sets you straight .
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
Hope,
so by your answer, you don’t believe that NOAA and NCDC adjust the raw temperatures?
NOAA says right here on it’s website that it adjusts temperatures:
http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
I have another question for you. Do you think that global warming skeptics receive more money from corporations than alarmists receive from corporations?
I don;t believe they adjust them in the nefarious ways they are accused of by the industry’s propaganda machine .. go ahead and cite a case…
lets talk about it.
I believe very few climate sconce deniers are funded by big oil.
Have you read Heartland’s budget to see a few?
I also know very few activists are funded by corps. Are you pointing to the Park Foundation myth?
Real simple one.
The switch from LIG to the new electronic measurement system.
Zeke says the new electronic measurement system tends to read about 0.5 C colder than LiG thermometers at the same location. This is based on fiddling with computers and not actually doing any side by side comparisons.
However a German meteorologist did do the side by side comparisons. He ran an 8.5 year side-by-side test. His results showed that on average the new electronic measurement system produced warmer temperature readings — a whopping 0.93°C warmer! The question is: Is this detectable in Germany’s temperature dataset? Do we see a temperature jump during the time the new “electronic measurement system was put into operation (1985 – 2000)? The answer? YES absolutely!
So that gives a bias of 1.4C in the wrong direction from just that one adjustment alone.
No wonder gardeners are noticing their tomatoes won’t set fruit!
Kinda hard to fool the plants and animals. They don’t believe government-funded studies like so many of the sheeple.
(I blame the schools for teaching kids to never question experts. I was one of those smart-ass kids correcting teacher’s work on the blackboard from the back of the class)
Tomatoes and peppers don’t do well for me anymore unless I use black plastic mulch. Much like the late 70s. Curious isn’t it?
Also interesting that none of the so-called climate experts have explained the record great lakes ice during some of the warmest winters evah *!!!
*Based upon liberally adjusted temperatures with a dose of snake oil.
You just can’t fool nature.
Reminds me of an old joke:
A farmer got pulled over by a state trooper for speeding, and the trooper started to lecture the farmer about his speed, and in general began to throw his weight around to try to make the farmer uncomfortable.
Finally, the trooper got around to writing out the ticket, and as he was doing that he kept swatting at some flies that were buzzing around his head. The farmer said, “Having some problems with circle flies there, are ya?” The trooper stopped writing the ticket and said, “Well yeah, if that’s what they are called — I never heard of circle flies.”
So the farmer says, “Well, circle flies are common on farms. See, they’re called circle flies because they’re almost always found circling around the back end of a horse.”
The trooper says, “Oh,” and goes back to writing the ticket. Then after a minute he stops and says, “Hey…wait a minute, are you trying to call me a horse’s rear end?” The farmer says, “Oh no, officer. I have too much respect for law enforcement to even think about calling you such a name.”
The trooper says, “Well, that’s a good thing,” and goes back to writing the ticket. After a long pause, the farmer says, “Hard to fool them flies though.”
Reality rules.
shazaam,
White clover is sensitive to high temperatures. It is a cool season plant. For the past two summers my white clover has been green and blooming all summer long here in mid North Carolina. Normally it dries up and goes crispy critter in June. Heck we never ran the A/C the entire summer for the last two summers.
White clover grows between 50 and 85 degrees., Optimal growth at 68 to 71 F
Could you cite this information? Thanks.
Here is one:
White clover (Trifolium repens)
….Growth is depressed at high temperatures (>35°C), due to moisture stress, which is induced by the excessive transpiration demand and the inability of the soil to supply adequate water even under irrigation. (35°C = 95°F) I do not irrigate since my land is pasture cross fenced for intense grazing. I am in the piedmont of NC we normally see temperatures hit 90°F in June and range into the high nineties and low 100s all summer.
Here is another on tomatoes.
It’s Cold, Just Ask The Tomatoes
The Tomato Knows
There have been discussions about ‘no tomatoes’ else where but these were the quickest to find.
Hey Gail! I had to give up on my tomatoes two tears ago. I used to buy my plants in Florida in April when visiting my mother for her birthday, and two cherry tomato plants would produce more tomatoes than I could eat, all Summer. In fact, my plants would still produce after my mother’s plants had stopped. But then came two cool Summers in a row and I got zip. Thank God for supermarket produce.
How about krigging, just making up temps where no data exists, like most of Africa, as just one example?
Hope,
here is a link to the World Wildlife Fund’s financials.
https://www.worldwildlife.org/about/financials
$12.3 million from corporations. Can you prove that Heartland received more corporate money from skepticism in 2014?
on the adjustments, here is a nice current one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/03/even-though-warming-has-stopped-it-keeps-getting-worse/
I wonder what changed from 2014 to 2015?
Did you not know Heartland refuses to discuss funding?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
We do know The poor, underfunded gas and Oil industry gives about $150 million a year to lobbying:
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01
Well we’re even then, Heartland won’t discuss funding and you won’t discuss science.
“and you won’t discuss science.”
Why not, I wonder?
She keeps discussing everything else she has zero knowledge of.
Seems science is very much a no-go area for this brainless ditz !!
But she is OURS now.. we have her on the line to troll as we please.. 🙂
All SG has to do is mention her name, and she will come, at his beck and call. 🙂
Hope says “Did you not know Heartland refuses to discuss funding?”
Yep.
“We do know The poor, underfunded gas and Oil industry gives about $150 million a year to lobbying”
Yep.
A sensible person (IMO) will then do a proper comparison, discovering how much money other organizations give, for any reason, to put this claim in perspective. But, it is a “squirrel” that distracts from whatever argument you were trying to make which by now I’ve forgotten anyway.
Hope,
here is a time article about the Sierra club taking over $25 million from gas companies, mostly Chesapeake.
http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/#ixzz1mZ1FzmOc
the article does note they have stopped taking money from them, but don’t you think it is a conflict of interest to not return the money?
Plus 100 million to Stanford for climate research.
Don’t forget the ‘Rockefeller Brothers’…
Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Bill McKibben’s 350_dot_org: 6 grants from 2003 totaling US$875,000.00
Bill McKibben’s 1Sky_dot_org: 7 grants between 2007-2011 totaling US$2,100,000.00
(includes US$1 million ‘start-up’ grant)
The Sierra Club: 12 grants from 2009 totaling US$1,665,000.00
Friends of the Earth: 7 grants from 2009 totaling US$777,500.00
The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): 5 grants between 2004-2008 totaling US$670,000.00.
http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search
And a further list..
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.fi/2015/03/big-money-from-bigoilnp-from-climate.html
And Hopeless want to compare these massive amounts to the piddling few thousand here and there for real scientists.. ie sceptics.
EVERY scientist should be sceptical.. of everything.
That is what makes a scientist, a scientist…. not blind acceptance of a fake consensus..
Michael Mann and his Hockey Stick Scam
Hockeystick creator raked in $6 million http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/02/manns-mad-money
Michael Mann Charges $10,000 Speaker Fee http://mediatrackers.org/florida/2013/01/16/climate-alarmist-michael-mann-charges-10000-speaker-fee
It’s impossible to know what funding groups like Heartland get – they hide their donors.
But from what we know “In February 2013, the Guardian reported that nearly US$120 million dollars from “conservative billionaires” were routed through two trusts, DonorsTrust and the Donors Capital Fund, who used a “secretive funding route” to channel the funds “to more than 100 groups casting doubt about the science behind climate change.” ”
$120 million = piddly ???
Heartland was funding Idso @$11K a mo and Singer @$5K mo:
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20%282%29.pdf
(page 7)
No, I’m sure the industry’s propaganda machine has convinced you that Big Oil is being beat up by Big Money enviros .. think about why they would forward that.
TRILLIONS vs millions.. 1000:1
Yes, piddling amounts. !!
So you failed basic maths as well. ?
$120 million……is that all? LMAO.
Just a small (very incomplete) list for you Hopeless.
Environmental Defense Fund – $111,915,138
Natural Resources Defense Council – $98,701,707
Sierra Club – $97,757,678
National Audubon Society – $96,206,883
National Wildlife Federation – $84,725,518
Sierra Club Foundation – $47,163,599
Greenpeace USA – $32,791,149
National Parks Conservation Association – $25,782,975
The Wilderness Society – $24,862,909
Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection – $19,150,215
Greenpeace Fund – $12,878,777
Total = $651,936,548
Note: This list does not include the $225 million sponsor donations given to the Stanford University – Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) of which $100 million comes from ExxonMobil and $25 million comes from Schlumberger.
http://web.archive.org/web/20110720050139/http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/sponsors.html
And the tax exemption status for pseudo-environmental political advocacy groups like WWF, Greenpeace etc etc.
Trillions vs millions.. 1000:1 !!
Funding 1000: 1 ……….
And the global warming agenda is still dying a NATURAL death. !
People like Hopeless are major contributors to this demise, but are so thick, they don’t realise it 🙂
gator, I’ve updated that list I made previously.
Just a wee small sample of ‘big oil funding’ from the The Rockefeller Brothers Fund and where it really goes to:
From 2003 to present;
Bill McKibben’s;
Step it Up (US$200,000)
1Sky.org (US$2,100,000)
350.org (US$875,000)
Total = US$3,175,000
The Sierra Club: from 2009 = US$1,665,000
Friends of the Earth: from 2009 = US$777,500
The Pacific Institute (President; Peter Gleick): from 2004 to 2008 = US$670,000
Greenpeace Fund = US$550,000
Center for Climate Strategies = US$5,171,600
The Union of Concern Scientists = US$75,000 (2009)
TOTAL = US$12,084,100
Sceptic ‘think tanks’;
The Heartland Institute
The Global Warming Policy Foundation
= US$0.00
Grants Search:- The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
http://www.rbf.org/content/grants-search
Do the search yourself Hope……I dare you!
Do they require these groups defend anti-climate science views as Donors Trust and DCF does w/ it’s funds?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/DonorsTrust
Hope says “Do they require these groups defend anti-climate science views as Donors Trust”
I’ll see your Donors Trust and raise you a Tides Foundation (then the Piece of Green on down the list we both know so well).
What’s anti-climate science? Is that something that you have learnt from John Cooks Climate Denial 101 course (or whatever it’s called)?
Seeing as you believe whatever scourcewatch or DeSmogBlog tells (teaches) you, can you ask them for me how much the grant was that The Rockefeller Family Fund gave to Bill McKibben’s 350.org in 2012? And can you also ask them how much the grant was to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in 2013?
BTW Hopeless, I already found another $3.6+ million…….and still….
The Heartland Institute
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT)
= US$0.00
No the donors to McGibbon et a,l require that they continue the global warming fraud.
Again, where do your funds come from, you could not possibly get enough donations from you crap little movies to buy even a cup of latte each week !!
So.. what is your funding?
This report examines in detail the mechanisms and methods of a far-left environmental machine that has been erected around a small group of powerful and active millionaires and billionaires who exert tremendous sway over a colossal effort. Although startling in its findings, the report covers only a small fraction of the amount of money that is being secreted and moved around. It would be virtually impossible to examine this system completely given the enormity of this carefully coordinated effort and the lack of transparency surrounding it.
The failure to openly acknowledge this force and the silence of the media with whom they coordinate further emphasize the fact that until today, the Billionaire’s Club operated in relative obscurity hidden under the guise of “philanthropy.” The scheme to keep their efforts hidden and far removed from the political stage is deliberate, meticulous, and intended to mislead the public. While it is uncertain why they operate in the shadows and what they are hiding, what is clear is that these individuals and foundations go to tremendous lengths to avoid public association with the far-left environmental movement they so generously fund.
Through these arrangements, the Billionaire’s Club gains access to a close knit network of likeminded funders, environmental activists, and government bureaucrats who specialize in manufacturing phony “grassroots” movements and in promoting bogus propaganda disguised as science and news to spread an anti-fossil energy message to the unknowing public. Not only is the system incredibly sophisticated, but the Club’s attorneys and accountants have mastered the loopholes and gray areas in the tax code, which enable them to obtain a full tax benefit, even when the recipient of the grant is not recognized as a public charity, and even if the money indirectly and impermissibly funds political activities.
Somebody has a hook in her mouth! 😆
You forgot the reference – The National Black Chamber of Commerce
“They hate industry as well as farmers, architects, engineers and construction. In fact, they despise anything that advances our economy and improves the quality of life for all of America. They have counterparts elsewhere in the world but they are rather mild when it comes to American environmentalists. I think the rationale for these groups and some political figures has been detected. It is all about the money. I’m talking about big money! Many of the funders are billionaires.”—-National Black Chamber of Commerce
They always reveal themselves, when frustrated, by yelling about the evils of Capitalism, fossil fuels, consumerism and overpopulation among others such as humans themselves.
Along with the monumental power grabs, there is Trillions at stake in carbon trading, oil companies are to receive loads of that pile. Then billions in wind and solar. Billions in grants to alarmist scientists. Millions more going to consultants. Govt entities have learned they can greatly increase their budgets by playing along. Oil companies stand to make billions more off gas. That is why Chesapeake Energy gave 26 million to the Sierra Club for its Beyon Coal campaign.
There is no conspiracy, just a huge bandwagon that is carrying a pile of cash. Come and get it, all you have to do is confirm the hypothesis. People will lie for money or to keep their jobs. What a surprise. Truth? They can’t handle the truth
Yes .. people WILL lie for cash .. why do you think Soon ONLY finds for climate denial, as paid?
And Idso, SInger page 7
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20%282%29.pdf
““They hate industry as well as farmers, architects, engineers and construction. In fact, they despise anything that advances our economy and improves the quality of life for all of America.”
Utter crap. “Othering” con BS.
“Yes .. people WILL lie for cash ”
And where does your income come from?
What you guys don’t realize is I get that same response often from the climate science denial side.
You mean now that nat gas is found to be dangerous and we realized all the sales pitches they gave were lies .. they should return the $$? Did Sierra Club promote Nat gas? I don’t follow them, so I don;t know if nat gas was widely supported by SC. I do know the legacy clean up costs for the million of abandoned wells the public will be paying to clean up in 20 years will be on the taxpayers dime, as it is now. I bet SC would be helping with that.
“The Sierra Club took 26 million from natural gas and Michael has the audacity to try to imply that skeptics are fossil fuel funded.” Marc Moreno
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/12/11/morano-smacks-down-sierra-club-director-sierra-club-took-26-million-n#sthash.GtcvgF0v.dpuf”
Moreno’s CFACT (that funds climatedepot) doesn’t disclose donors. When they did, they did receive FF$:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_Depot
I just read this in Scientific American:
“(Singer) also rejects the idea that he’s being paid by fossil fuel companies, apart from an unsolicited $10,000 donation from an Exxon foundation 12 years ago to the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which he founded.”
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/merchants-of-doubt-about-global-warming-hope-to-strike-back/
In fact – Heartland Institute was feeding him $5K a mo for his project: (page7)
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/%281-15-2012%29%202012%20Heartland%20Budget%20%282%29.pdf
Heartland also hides it’s funding, but has taken FF funds:
Opps Heartland link: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Funding
More hopeless attention seeking from a lonely blank minded fool !!
Now attempting to flood the thread with her inane babblings.
As I said before, these are tiny, insiignificant amounts compared to the trillions wasted on the warming agenda.
“What you guys don’t realize is I get that same response often from the climate science denial side”
oh.. The guys at SkS, Real Climate etc, actually let you post ???
I would have thought they would have been too embarrassed.
I’ve noticed you like Desnog, smear site of the ultra left communists.
Or maybe even Climate progress, lunacy personified on some sort of new hallucinogen, is your thing..
Maybe you and Joe Romm should get together and produce some cretins with fractional IQ’s
Hope says “You mean now that nat gas is found to be dangerous”
Yep.
I discovered gas to be dangerous way back in high school, filling it into a balloon and lighting the balloon on fire. It is quite impressive.
I suggest that all energy sources are dangerous; if not, they would not be energy sources.
And if we added up all of the right wing think tanks AEI et al .. .. I wonder what the total would be?
I was pointing to just one group.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
For goodness sakes. You are almost as bad as her. The two of you have hijacked this entire thread. Why don’t you both get a room. I’m trying to read about the substance of the thread about Steve’s interviews and his understandable demand that the contents of the interview not be selectively edited. But you have posted this same thing, whether factual or not, about one hundred times. You are helping her to just disintegrate the thread and avoid what the discussion is supposed to be about. Good grief!
Glad you have no issue with liars who cannot tell the difference between sworn Congressional depositions and Channel 8 News stories. Or fools who cannot tell biogenic gas from a frackiing operation. Maybe your kids won’t freeze to death thanks to frauds like Hope, maybe it will be somebody else’s kids and that will be OK with you.
But hey, enjoy your thread and don’t worry about who dies.
spren says “You are almost as bad as her.”
Or as good, or much better.
“Why don’t you both get a room.”
There is no “why” as both of them are almost certainly in their rooms as they comment.
“I’m trying to read about the substance of the thread about Steve’s interviews and his understandable demand that the contents of the interview not be selectively edited.”
The entire substance takes less than a paragraph and can be seen at the top. No further mention of that topic is to be found.
But you have posted this same thing, whether factual or not, about one hundred times.”
I’m glad someone is keeping count. I suspect you don’t get it, or are a sock-puppet. Hope wants juicy bits for her next video production. Gator gives her the exact same bit over and over; she is free to use the first or the 100th. It is a very clever strategy by Gator. I’ve never seen a fish stay on the hook this long.
Spren complains “The two of you have hijacked this entire thread.” It seems he does not understand that they ARE the whole thread. But I must admit, I had not realized previously that Gator was an englishman. Then Spren suggests they ‘get a room’. While I put nothing past his opponent, (except possibly adequate critical thinking skills) I seriously doubt that Gator would have any interest in her at all.
Bottom line is, while she could have offered to put the recording of the unedited live interview under Tony’s copyright with no-derivatives, and thereby satisfy Tony’s demand, she chose to dance around.
It was major grants from BP and Shell that established CRU. A climategate e-mail from Jones talked about him soliciticing monies from them. Cannot forget the 29 BILLION from the govt who is firmly entrenched in AGW. Over 2000 environmental groups received millions. WWF and Greenpeace both have oil executives sitting in positions of authority. If what they say is true about the propaganda machine, it would be like a Pepsi exec sitting on Coke’s board. Not likely.
Then there is the millions of Soros money funding the likes of Thinkprogess.
A lot of people here started out as an alarmist but then tried to find proof. One of the first things I came across was Gore’s statement of exaggerating and Schnider talking about scary scenarios. That was the red flag that it was not science but politics. It was downhill from there, lies, misleading statements and the one that confirmed it all was the way skeptics were treated by censorship, banning, and ad homs. They are their own worst enemy.
I had the advantage of a decades worth of geologic training and then climatology classes before the Great Global Warming Swindle came along. I got interested in geology during the Ice Age Scare, and graduated from a major university shortly before Hansen et al turned off the A/C in the Capitol and cried wolf.
My very first reaction to AGW was ‘BS’. But I read the papers I could find and made my own observations, it wasn’t until I found the data tampering that I figured out from where all this ‘heat’ was coming. Once I saw the fraudulent data fudging, I went from 99% sure it was BS, to 100% sure.
Most people have no idea that the IPCC was never set up to investigate climate change.
“ … to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.“
In other words, instead of the IPCC being an ‘investigator’, it was from the beginning a ‘prosecutor’.
That is why they never bothered to refute natural variability.
Actually it was Gore that was the first flag. Being from my State of TN, he could not even win his own state. People know what a crook and liar he is. If he was involved, then it was most likely BS.
USA UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ratified 21/03/94 (signed 12/06/92)
That’s from the official UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2536.php). The term specifically excludes all natural climate change, and even excludes any caused by humans due to, for example, land clearance or city building, considering only atmospheric changes.
So the public has been hoodwinked thoroughly. Of course that’s the idea. The Globalists can make all sorts of horrendous claims about “climate change” (assuming their definition), which ordinary people assume to apply, not “climate change”, but to a change of climate (meaning any change, whatever the cause or mechanism). So if they say, “climate change” is 1000 times more than it was 100 years ago, that may be true, but it might still be that the change of climate is negligible.
The IPCC mandate is similar:
So The IPCC never was about understanding the climate. It was really about ‘options for mitigation and adaptation. ‘ and this is the change wanted by the Globalists running the UN, the World Bank, and the WTO.
The IPCC’s ROLE
Yes .. and that entire process actually makes the IPCC more conservative .. not less:
The world’s climate change watchdog may be underestimating global warminghttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/10/30/climate-scientists-arent-too-alarmist-theyre-too-conservative/
(Gail – why would you expect a response from someone who you claim when called a bitch is an insult to female dogs?)
Y’all have outdone yourselves with the ad hom here.
Poor Hopeless one.. can find No peace.. (her ugly soul will not let her do so)
Think of the hours that she has wasted, that she could have spent with her child (or is that child at her husbands’ trailer)
And where has it got her.. absolutely BACKWARDS, never a forwards step, sinking further and further into the dark pit of her empty life.
She is know known to everyone here as a very silly, ignorant rasper, with zero conscience or morality… A brain-washed child-mind.
Yet this is how she is now destined to spend her days and nights, because she CANNOT escape. 🙂
We are now all she has in her self-deprecating life. ! 🙂
Think about that, little frightbat, your life is now truly HOPELESS. 🙂
LOVE IT! Thanks for making my point so well:
“Y’all have outdone yourselves with the ad hom here.” me
In response:
AndyG55 says:
March 12, 2015 at 6:59 am
Poor Hopeless one.. can find No peace.. (her ugly soul will not let her do so)
Think of the hours that she has wasted, that she could have spent with her child (or is that child at her husbands’ trailer)
And where has it got her.. absolutely BACKWARDS, never a forwards step, sinking further and further into the dark pit of her empty life.
She is know known to everyone here as a very silly, ignorant rasper, with zero conscience or morality… A brain-washed child-mind.
Yet this is how she is now destined to spend her days and nights, because she CANNOT escape. 🙂
We are now all she has in her self-deprecating life. ! 🙂
Think about that, little frightbat, your life is now truly HOPELESS. 🙂
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Got credibility? 😆
unfortunately, Hope might simply respond that the above information about funding is fossil fuel propaganda.hahahahaha.
Its obvious that she had a classical public non-education.
Ignorant of basically everything, and totally full of herself.
And even if she could bring herself to look at the real data, there is not enough of her brain left to comprehend it, just a cranium full of putrefying brain-washed sludge .
Yeah, the hopless hypocrite is silent on the large “fossil Fuel” funding for warmists groups.
” These people put words in other people’s mouths, and then they act all outraged about it, and they spread the claim that you said something that you never said. And then they threaten to sue you for it.””
Naomi nails it.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/merchants-of-doubt-about-global-warming-hope-to-strike-back/
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.fi/2015/03/big-money-from-bigoilnp-from-climate.html
How much are YOU paid that you are hiding.?
What SUV do you drive ??
How do you pay for your trailer and your SUV and gaudy makeup ??
Your video crap could never earn enough donations from your 3 or 4 viewers, so you have some other funding.. Come on.. out with it.
Are you claiming the fossil fuel industry has NOT funded a cabal of dialectal think tanks and groups?
Donors Trust .. just made up?
Can you imagine WHO might like YOU to believe this is a hoax? I can:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/DonorsTrust
I don;t understand how your side can;t see this is exactly the doubt sowing program the tobacco industry uses? Often even the same PR companies run these campaigns.
The science really IS solid, you are all being lied to. As conservatives and libertarians I’m sure that’s hard to hear and face. Inhofe is full of crap.
“DENIAL” not “dialectal think tanks and groups?” tho dialectical is actually also accurate!
Hope “dialectal think tanks and groups?”
It is a “dog whistle”; a metaphor for a word or phrase that only persons trained to hear it recognize (dogs able to hear the ultrasonic pitch of a dog whistle but people usually cannot hear it).
“Dialectal” is probably a misspelling of Dialectical and used pretty much only in Marxist discussion, usually “dialectical materialism” which by itself seems to mean absolutely nothing until a Marxist gives it meaning. To me it is still incomprehensible but it means something to you; ergo, you are a Marxist, trained in what it means, mistaking that it is a common word that will be understood by your readers. It is common for you but uncommon for regulars here (or so I suppose).
di·a·lec·ti·cal
2.
concerned with or acting through opposing forces.
“a dialectical opposition between social convention and individual libertarianism”
But to a Marxist it doesn’t mean that, either.
Ponder this and laugh or cry or scratch your head in complete bafflement:
“It is an eternal cycle in which matter moves, a cycle that certainly only completes its orbit in periods of time for which our terrestrial year is no adequate measure, a cycle in which the time of highest development, the time of organic life and still more that of the life of being conscious of nature and of themselves, is just as narrowly restricted as the space in which life and self-consciousness come into operation. A cycle in which every finite mode of existence of matter, whether it be sun or nebular vapour, single animal or genus of animals, chemical combination or dissociation, is equally transient, and wherein nothing is eternal but eternally changing, eternally moving matter and the laws according to which it moves and changes.”
Fredrick Engels
Dialectics of Nature
https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm
Consider (same source): “An example of dialectical reasoning can be seen in Lenin’s slogan: “All Power to the Soviets” spoken when the Soviets were against the Bolsheviks.”
I saw nothing but a typical Marxist slogan.
Where are they NOW? The Left coast, mostly. 😉
Your use of the word dialectic tells us everything. You are a commie.
Hope says “The science really IS solid, you are all being lied to.”
Got the second part right!
There is no “the science”. John Cook and his volunteers examined the abstracts of about 12,000 papers of “science” some of which was more solid than others.
An impressive number of scientific papers have turned out not to be science whatsoever:
http://www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gibberish-papers-1.14763
“Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers. Conference proceedings removed from subscription databases after scientist reveals that they were computer-generated.”
Michael,
Thank you, that is a very nice addition to my bulging Science Fraud folder.
Have a gander at Lipsky’s compound…
https://www.google.com/maps/place/127+River+Oak+Ct,+Weatherford,+TX+76087/@32.563016,-97.7917925,162m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8651e1f96b6fcff7:0xe642a1183d8ef77e
Sure not worried about his carbon footprint! 😆
Another pointless, meaning post, from a hopeless tired old nag.
Any tiny amounts paid to real climate researchers pale into insignificance compared to the trillions spent on the alarmist agenda, and now safely sequestered away in hidden banks, so they don’t to clean up after themselves.
So much of the taxpayers money WASTED on bankrupt solar and other non-alternative energy scams, and where has it all gone.. into some scammers pocket, you can bet on that. !
Obviously Hopeless has now gone totally frightbat…
……as well as seeking attention, tantrum-wise, like a spoilt little 5 year old.
She is trying to flood the forum with her endless weeping, ranting and carrying on.
Its hilarious to watch…., even if it is getting very boring.
Hope says:
March 12, 2015 at 5:02 am
Yes .. people WILL lie for cash ..
———–
Hope is a Paid Troll. Her/his/its job is to disrupt this blog, period.
In other news:
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/merchants-of-doubt-bombs-at-box-office/
Here’s your interview
http://kool.cbslocal.com/2013/10/18/steve-goddard-interview-with-the-rascals-drummer-dino-danelli/
It’s a RADIO DJ .. not THIS STeve/Tony.
Saw a great line somewhere recently.
“Science is all about dynamic knowledge.”
Its Hopeless when your knowledge is stagnant and putrefying and illogical, like the “settled science” of global non-warming.
Hope is a lunatic. She prefers the unknown (It’s impossible to know what funding groups like Heartland get – they hide their donors) and conjecture (THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD YET) to reality (Lipsky found to have committed fraud, and that ruling was never overturned), they have drugs to fix this brain chemistry imbalance, but she doesn’t take them It is often hard to get the insane to stay on their meds.
I know it is pointless, because Hope denies the reality that Lipskly was definitely found to have attempted to defraud the public and the EPA, and this court ruling has never been overturned. Of course Hope’s response will be that a case that has never been heard somehow exonerates Lipsky.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8GwT7ZotCg
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
And Hopeski’s response?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMLHh8KvxVE
Hopeski says: Call him up – tell you are doing research for Steve Goddard and would like to ask a few cases about the Lipsky case .. see what he says!
Why would I want to fantasize about a case that has not been heard? That is meaningless.
What does have meaning? This, because it is a ruling that has never been overturned. Heard, ruled upon, and a record of the court signed by a judge.
Now, before I call Judge Loftis again, are you saying he lied when he signed this court record?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
The Hopeless have left the building.
http://virtualfuture.info/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Leftthebuilding.jpg
At least Elvis took his meds. 😉
“Heard, ruled upon, and a record of the court signed by a judge. ”
Yes – RULED ON the anti-slapp Question .. NOT STEVE’S GUILT.
Ruled that evidence was supplied to let the case go forward ,, NOT ruled that the conspiracy DID take place or that ANY of Range’s accusation (which you sit here and post over and over) were true.
I know – that is fabulously hard fo ryou to understand.
Call Loftin at his divorce law offices .. or anyone else as I have instructed you and maybe they can set you strait.
Hope keeps talking about “STEVE’S GUILT”. Maybe she knows something we don’t. I’ve already explained that in civil proceedings people are not found guilty.
Ok. I just went over all mentions of guilt in the comments to this post. At the time of this writing there were a total 24 mentions spread across 15 comments. Of those one was Michael 2 quoting the bible, Another was Michael 2 quoting Hope. Edmonton al was talking about Sociopaths. In one comment I explain about guilty applying to criminal and not civil cases. In another I mention how Hope keeps talking about “STEVES GUILT”.
And in 10 different comments, Hope talks about Steve’s guilt and over and over how ” STEVE has NEVER been found Guilty” . No one else in the comments to this post (except in quoting hope) said that Steve was guilty. Hope is the one who keeps harping on something we never even said in the comments to this post. Makes one wonder …
“Fact: The court ruled Lipsky attempted to deceive the public and EPA.” GATOR (LIE)
IN fact the court has NOT ruled Steve did conspire in a conspiracy .. it ruled there was enough evidence to go forward .. how would YOU phrase the correct reply??
Maybe “The case was never found FOR Range”?? Would that language make you happier, Neal??
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
Before I call him again, please answer the question you keep dodging. Did Judge Loftis lie when he wrote signed this official court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Can you parse this data, GATOR?
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed …
….. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky.
The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him.
Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed … <<< THAT is the RULING you have been brainwashed into believing was a hearing of THE CASE!
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
I am calling YOU a LIAR for the 51st time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING? :LOL:
What a freaking psycho! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a lying paid shill? 😆
Can you parse this data, GATOR?
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed …
….. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky.
The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him.
Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed … <<< THAT is the RULING you have been brainwashed into believing was a hearing of THE CASE!
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
“It’s them trying to intimidate other people, meaning, ‘How dare you ever accuse us of something like this?’ ” Mr. Lipsky, who pays $1,000 a month to truck in water from nearby Weatherford, said of Range Resources.
Not mentioned is the 15,000 square foot house and swimming pool.
I pay about $15 a month for bottled water and I go get it.
Cry me a river of tears.
Sufficient clear and specific evidence has been presented in this thread of the blog that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, that elements of idiocy exist, and persist in attempts to defame and silence Steven Goddard.
Sufficient clear and specific evidence has been presented in this thread of the blog that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, that elements of idiocy exist, and persist in attempts to defame and silence Steven Lipsky.
Yep court records showing FRAUD will do that !!
You are ours, Hopeless.. you cannot escape.
You are destined to sprout your idiocy here for ever, as an irrelevant comedy act.
IN fact, little tool – you have given me everything I wanted 😉
Hope says “little tool – you have given me everything I wanted”
Of course. That is true of everyone here.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
What I proved is the power of the CON lie about STEVE is so powerful .. even when people SEE his water well and have the facts presented .. nothing can disabuse them of the CON lie they came to believe.
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed ( This is the RULING CONS use to CLAIM that Steve’s CASE was HEARD and FOUND for Range )
… the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky.
The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him.
(Oh boy .. that says the judge found for Range and Steve conspired .. right … /s ? )
Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
GATOR and CON media and the fossil fuel industry misinformation machine .. is FOS.
“even when people SEE his water well and have the facts presented”
The few people that have seen his water well (*) believe whatever they believe.
* in person
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
>>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<
It's NOT HARD to understand!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
You are still avoiding the question ,because you know you are lying.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
And just think, it is YOU that highlighted Lipsky’s background.
It is YOU that forced the issue , bringing up court records.
Your inept, moronic attempts to “help” have probably done more to damage his name than anyone else here.
What I proved is the power of the CON lie about STEVE is so powerful .. even when people SEE his water well and have the facts presented .. nothing can disabuse them of the CON lie they came to believe.
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<< (This is the one CONS use to CLAIM that Steve's CASE was HEARD and FOUND for Range)
the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. <>> The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. <<<<< (Oh boy .. that says the judge found for Range and Steve conspired .. right … /s ? )
Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely."
GATOR and CON media and the fossil fuel industry misinformation machine .. is FOS.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
>>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<
It's NOT HARD to understand!!!
Dummy, this is not about Gator.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
GATOR has NO USE FOR FACTS!!! He can ONLY repeat fossil fuel TALKING POINTS!
See .. now we prove you have NO use for facts 🙂
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
SO Fab ..
no manner of fact can help you ..
I would think your chums here can at least see how inane you are here.
Can’t parse data at all:
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
Now we have also proven that I can answer you 40 or 50 times, I wouldn’t matter you can do nothing intellectually with the information, but ask the same question over and over and over ..I remember when my kids used to do that .. when they were about 6.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
All this BS and Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Hope says:
Gail – why would you expect a response from someone who you claim when called a bitch is an insult to female dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hope why ever would you expect gentle treatment when you come on to this blog to dump you disinformation? Disinformation that is aimed at KILLING, yes KILLING, thousands if not millions of people?
One Quarter of the Brits live in Fuel Poverty. The recent cold snap KILLED 28,800 people died in the fortnight ending January 23. Thousands of people, mainly the old and the young die each year because of the CAGW anti-energy idiocy in the UK alone.
The Biofuel Laws passed here in the USA led to nearly 200,000 deaths (est) in 2010. In a study published in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Indur Goklany calculated the additional mortality burden of biofuels policies and found that nearly 200,000 people died in 2010.
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/biofuel_issues.html
Richard Courtney, one of my favorite socialists, predicted this back in 2006. link
So who profits? ADM profits soar 550 percent as ethanol margins improve
Monsanto’s Profit Rises 22%
I can only post 5 links but believe me I have pages of links connecting the deaths of people to the profits of the international corporations who are pushing this CAGW scam.
Start using your brain for thinking instead of emoting.
“Hope why ever would you expect gentle treatment ”
I would expect grown ups.
“Disinformation that is aimed at KILLING, yes KILLING, thousands if not millions of people?”
Sadly, again, as I have said, and you prove, this is a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point.
How is a future of fossil fuels that only pay for themselves when a barrel of oil sells for more than $50 going to help the poor pensioners you cite? Cheap fossil fuels are over . we have fracking and tar sands and if you listen to T Boone, methane hydrates as a future .. or we could set the world up on decentralized, power without externalities.
No one is claiming we should stop FF use, we must SWITCH. I don’t believe we are too stupid or too poor, we are too brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry who wants us to remain on it’s product.
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/fifty-states-renewables-022414.html
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Tease! 😆
Hope says:
March 12, 2015 at 5:39 am
“The court has ruled, it is a matter of record that Steve Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA.
Are you calling judge Loftis a liar?”
Are you serious. I answered that 23X …”
23X was not enough for you …. if I answer it again, will you be able to HEAR ME .. that’s the question … if a person answers a question with an answer the other person poes not want to hear .. does it make a sound … s/.
NO GATOR … LOFTIN in NOT LYING HE IS RULING ON PROCEDURE… ESP When he says the hose is hooked up to a gas well .. that’s Steve’s water well headspace.. which is now .. a gas well.
Please DO CALL HIM at his LAW offices .. not at the 43rd court # you had …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
GATOR has NO USE FOR FACTS!!! He can ONLY repeat fossil fuel TALKING POINTS!
See .. now we prove you have NO use for facts 🙂
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
>>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
SO Fab .. no manner of fact can help you ..
I would think your chums here can at least see how inane you are here.
Can’t parse data at all:
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
Now we have also proven that I can answer you 40 or 50 times, I wouldn’t matter you can do nothing intellectually with the information, but ask the same question over and over and over ….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
I remember when my kids used to do that .. when they were about 6.
All this BS and Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
BUt we DID Prove that you can not parse data ..
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
GATOR has NO USE FOR FACTS!!! He can ONLY repeat fossil fuel TALKING POINTS!
See .. now we prove you have NO use for facts 🙂
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
>>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<
It's NOT HARD to understand!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Court documents are not talking points moron. 😆
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
SO Fab .. no manner of fact can help you .. I would think your chums here can at least see how inane you are here.
Can’t parse data at all:
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
Now we have also proven that I can answer you 40 or 50 times, I wouldn’t matter you can do nothing intellectually with the information, but ask the same question over and over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
and over ..I remember when my kids used to do that .. when they were about 6.
All this BS and Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
GATOR – do you really not see you are making a complete arse of yourself?
everyone else can see I have answered 40 or so times ….
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
AND WE HAVE PROVEN YOU HAVE NO ABILITY TO THINK …. I GUESS AT ALL …
UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
GATOR
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
WRONG
I am calling you a LIAR and and an ignorant propaganda tool
for the 59TH TIME
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
Lie # 59.
Go ahead, call Loftin a liar, he is the party I am quoting dummy. 😆
gator69 says:
March 13, 2015 at 1:58 am
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
_______________________________
Hope says:
March 12, 2015 at 5:39 am
“The court has ruled, it is a matter of record that Steve Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA.
Are you calling judge Loftis a liar?”
Are you serious. I answered that 23X …”
23X was not enough for you …. if I answer it again, will you be able to HEAR ME .. that’s the question … if a person answers a question with an answer the other person dpoes not want to hear .. does it make a sound … s/.
NO GATOR … LOFTIN in NOT LYING HE IS RULING ON PROCEDURE.
Utterly stunning polemics.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 11:00 pm
“OK, so you are calling judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR (16th time)
No, I am calling YOU a LIAR/ignorant fossil fuel industry propaganda believer:”
Show us you have the conviction of you loud rhetoric, or be forever condemned as a fraud and liar.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
DO YOU BELIEVE NO ONE ELSE HERE CAN SEE HOW STUPID THIS REPLY IS??
HUH
gator69 says:
March 13, 2015 at 2:27 am
Show us you have the conviction of you loud rhetoric, or be forever condemned as a fraud and liar.
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
_________________________________________
Hope says:
March 12, 2015 at 5:39 am
“The court has ruled, it is a matter of record that Steve Lipsky attempted to defraud the public and the EPA.
Are you calling judge Loftis a liar?”
Are you serious. I answered that 23X …”
23X was not enough for you …. if I answer it again, will you be able to HEAR ME .. that’s the question … if a person answers a question with an answer the other person dpoes not want to hear .. does it make a sound … s/.
NO GATOR … LOFTIN in NOT LYING HE IS RULING ON PROCEDURE.
Utterly stunning polemics.
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 11:00 pm
“OK, so you are calling judge Loftis a liar. Right?” GATOR (16th time)
No, I am calling YOU a LIAR/ignorant fossil fuel industry propaganda believer:”
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
GATOR has NO USE FOR FACTS!!! He can ONLY repeat fossil fuel TALKING POINTS!
See .. now we prove you have NO use for facts 🙂
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
>>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<
It's NOT HARD to understand!!!
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS?
You don’t know what a “procedural” ruling is??
I’ll have to go with that. I can imagine no other reason for your sad display.
It is a court ruling dummy dumb dumb, a legal decision that has never been refuted, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling. You are worse than a lunatic, you are a liar and fraud.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
Go ahead and show us all you really believe what you spew, call Judge Loftin a liar.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.”
No, you are wrong when you say the court has RULES THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Poor Hopeski. 😆
See .. now we prove you have NO use for facts 🙂
“So I am lying when I post Judge Loftin’s ruling.” GATOR
No, you are WRONG when you say the court has RULED THAT STEVE COMMITTED CONSPIRACY – THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD!!
“Yes, a court ruling stated that Lipsky committed fraud to deceive the public and the EPA.” GATOR
WRONG!
a COURT RULING ALLOWED RANGE’S CASE TO PROCEED
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
>>>> After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<
It's NOT HARD to understand!!!
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
SO Fab .. no manner of fact can help you .. I would think your chums here can at least see how inane you are here.
Can;t parse data at all:
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD FOOL
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
Now we have also proven that I can answer you 40 or 50 times, I wouldn’t matter you can do nothing intellectually with the information, but ask the same question over and over and over ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
I remember when my kids used to do that .. when they were about 6.
Hope cannot back her ‘convictions’ (not) with a simple reply, what a fraud.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
GATOR – do you really not see you are making a complete arse of yourself?
everyone else can see I have answered 40 or so times ….
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
AND WE HAVE PROVEN YOU HAVE NO ABILITY TO THINK …. I GUESS AT ALL …
UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to post the same inane drivel AGAIN and make my point.
Please feel free to keep validating the court document! 😆
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS?
You don’t know what a “procedural” ruling is??
I’ll have to go with that. I can imagine no other reason for your sad display.
It is a court ruling dummy dumb dumb, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Hope says:
Sadly, again, as I have said, and you prove, this is a fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point.
How is a future of fossil fuels that only pay for themselves when a barrel of oil sells for more than $50 going to help the poor pensioners you cite? Cheap fossil fuels are over . we have fracking and tar sands and if you listen to T Boone, methane hydrates as a future .. or we could set the world up on decentralized, power without externalities.
No one is claiming we should stop FF use, we must SWITCH. I don’t believe we are too stupid or too poor, we are too brainwashed by the fossil fuel industry who wants us to remain on it’s product.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
#1. No matter how you spin it renewables do not make the grade based on PHYSICS. The energy density just isn’t there.
#2. Energy Returned On Energy Invested value for wind power is 0.29. The manufacture, installation and operation of wind power facilities will consume more than 3 times the energy they will ever produce. On top of that on average, wind turbines only produce about 20% of their nameplate rating and are not lasting nearly as long as advertised.
The biggest problem, aside from the fact solar and wind are enviromental disasters, is they are intermittent. The solution is turning off people’s power.
From the UK
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83851
http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=83847
You just can not run a technologically advanced civilization without cheap power.
…………….
Hope says: “No one is claiming we should stop FF use, we must SWITCH.”
You are incorrect Hope. the President’s goal to reduce emissions 83% by 2050, the expected pathway set forth in this pending legislation would entail a 30% reduction below 2005 levels in 2025 and a 42% reduction below 2005 in 2030. . I took a quick and dirty look at what that actually means:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/the-john-holdren-climate-refrigerator/#comment-316921
Finally the IPCC lead author for future Scenarios is Ged Davis. He was Shell Oil VP at the time.
CONTINUED….
Sounds great right?
But notice the switch is NOT to CO2 free Thorium Nuclear but to NATURAL GAS!!!!! (China and India are aggressively pursuing US thorium technology while the USA sits on its thumbs. link )
This is what a California Democrat, a government employee no less, says the actual implementation looks like: Transit villages
This is that implementation taking place RIGHT NOW. The Demise of Christ Church NZ Notice the people are NOT ASKED. It is not even coming from within the country.
In 1992, As Chairman Strong told the UN conference at Kyoto…
The same propaganda was repeated by WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy…
It is the international elite who are running this show and manipulating you. They do NOT want a free and wealthy middle class that challenges them.
My Silly Wild Ass Guess on what has been going on:
https://markstoval.wordpress.com/2015/01/04/the-classic-liberals-and-their-mistake/#comment-3205
“#1. No matter how you spin it renewables do not make the grade based on PHYSICS. The energy density just isn’t there.”
Stanford disagree don’t they? What did Marc Jacobson get wrong? I’ll be sure to pass long your critique to him. NOt much time to talk .. trying to keep up with Gators’ ignorance.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
@GATOR: “You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.”
What number did you call him on the first time, GATOR? The number YOU had posted here? For the 43rd district??
Please do, call Loftin, he’s not a judge anymore, as I told you over and over – he’s a divorce lawyer .. maybe you can get him to take your call ..
Quit begging for me to call when you are too frightened to answer the question Loftin and I need answered.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.”
AS I sad AD INFINITUM …..
THE RULING YOU SPAM THIS BOARD WITH DID NOT FIND STEVE COMMITTED FRAUD/CONSPIRACY
IT WAS ON PROCEDURE .. IF YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN … MAYBE KEEP THAT TO YOURSELF.
YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<<<<<<
the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely."
But YOU DO prove THAT PEOPLE CAN BECOME INSANE repeating FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TALKING POINTS.
"Steve Lipsky was ruled to have committed fraud" IS a fossil fuel industry talking point – it serves Range Resources , but is repeated by Energy In Depth, Levant, Nat Gas Now/Shepstone … and all con media coverage uses this WRONG statement.
The RULING was on PROCEDURE!
CAN ANY of you with brain functionality help this poor guy??
Quit begging for me to call when you are too frightened to answer the question Loftin and I need answered. I’m used to women begging, but not used to them not following through.
Your begging is sad.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
How dumb are you? 😆
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS?
You don’t know what a “procedural” ruling is??
I’ll have to go with that. I can imagine no other reason for your sad display.
It is a court ruling, and you admitted as much dummy, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Gator – you are losing it. I answered this, I count, 43 TIMES.
ANYONE CAN SEE THAT.l
All you are doing is proving all you can do is ask the same dumb question over and over.
You are certainly NOT making ME look bad!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
Quit begging for me to call when you are too frightened to answer the question Loftin and I need answered. I’m used to women begging, but not used to them not following through.
Your begging is sad.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Sad, Sad ignorance.
I answered you 45 times now. You humiliate yourself publically – must be a fetish of some sort.
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
Case closed. The court ruling stands whether or not Dopey understands.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to post the same inane drivel AGAIN
…. and make my point.
Thanks for showing everyone you lack the conviction of your rhetoric liar.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:”
Every time you refuse to simply read the case you make a fool of yourself.
THE RULING YOU POST IS A RULING ON PROCEDURE.
I have answered YOUR INANE DRIVIL ad infinitim.
So you ARE calling Loftin a liar when he signed this court document. Right?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Refusal to call Loftin a liar validates this document dummy. 😆
“Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:”
Every time you refuse to simply read the case you make a fool of yourself.
THE RULING YOU POST IS A RULING ON PROCEDURE.
I have answered YOUR INANE DRIVIL ad infinitim.
And that ruling you just validated (chickened out huh?) states this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
The ruling stands, you are a liar.
I am calling YOU a LIAR for the 50th time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING? :LOL:
What a freaking psycho! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
Hope says “(Responding to Gail: The energy density just isn’t there.) Stanford disagree don’t they?”
I do not know how to answer do they / don’t they questions. If I say “yes” is it to the “do” or the “don’t”?
Stanford is a university and will espouse standard academic theories.
Google is a business and will espouse standard business theories.
Take your pick and take your chances.
“What did Marc Jacobson get wrong?”
Sounds like an answer to a Jeopardy question: “He believes in a speedy transition to clean, renewable energy.”
“NOt much time to talk .. trying to keep up with Gators’ ignorance.”
Seems he has what he wants, too. You, on the other hand, have 45 copies of what you want.
True – it is a good example of what becomes of people when they buy fossil fuel industry talking points.
Michael,
Energy density can be calculated. It is the amount of sunlight per meter squared that falls on a solar panel that is set at a certain angle to catch the sun. Then you have to take into account clouds, aging…. Of course you can also do a lot of fudging with the numbers too.
Think about it. Sunlight is diffuse enough it doesn’t burn us.
Wind is even tougher because the wind is intermittent and too much – shut down, too little – shut down.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/wind_energys_ghosts_1.html
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Hope keeps saying “Fossil fuel industry propaganda talking point” never even bothering to look at a point that is being made or by whom. If it does not fit her world view it automatically is Big Oil propaganda. The following are a few comments from people who seem to know what they are talking about. Many are engineers or scientists talking about their field. I counted well over 300 who contribute to WUWT.
Oh, and I should mention I seriously looked at wind and solar for my farm and came to the conclusion Geothermal was the only reasonable ‘renewable’ outside of a wood stove. I am on the top of a hill with clay soil so pumped storage not batteries would be the best option. Because the wind blows most of the time we have no mosquitoes. I was not happy to figure out wind power was nothing but an expensive fraud. I really really want off the grid.
From WUWT:
@GATOR: “You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.”
What number did you call him on the first time, GATOR? The number YOU had posted here? For the 43rd district??
Please do, call Loftin, he’s not a judge anymore, as I told you over and over – he’s a divorce lawyer .. maybe you can get him to take your call ..
Quit begging for me to call when you are too frightened to answer the question Loftin and I need answered.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.”
AS I sad AD INFINITUM …..
THE RULING YOU SPAM THIS BOARD WITH DID NOT FIND STEVE COMMITTED FRAUD/CONSPIRACY
IT WAS ON PROCEDURE .. IF YOU CAN’T UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE WORDS MEAN … MAYBE KEEP THAT TO YOURSELF.
YOU ARE MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed <<<<<<<<<<<<
the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely."
But YOU DO prove THAT PEOPLE CAN BECOME INSANE repeating FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY TALKING POINTS.
"Steve Lipsky was ruled to have committed fraud" IS a fossil fuel industry talking point – it serves Range Resources , but is repeated by Energy In Depth, Levant, Nat Gas Now/Shepstone … and all con media coverage uses this WRONG statement.
The RULING was on PROCEDURE!
CAN ANY of you with brain functionality help this poor guy??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI
GATOR
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
WRONG
I am calling you a LIAR and and an ignorant propaganda tool
for the 57TH TIME
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
Lie # 57.
Go ahead, call Loftin a liar, he is the party I am quoting dummy. 😆
Quit begging for me to call when you are too frightened to answer the question Loftin and I need answered. I’m used to women begging, but not used to them not following through.
Your begging is sad.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
How many times must I ask Strawman? 😆
I thought you wanted me to contact the Judge? Lying again? 😆
Judge Loftin needs to know if you are calling him a liar, it is important for us to move forward.
Answer the question weasel liar! 😆
Begging me and then running away. Hope is a major lying fraud, who cannot back up her slanderous rhetoric with a spine, or ethics.
Hope does not have the conviction of her bluster and is admitting this document is valid.
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
Thanks for showing everyone you lack the conviction of your rhetoric.
Every time you refuse to call Loftin a liar, you are admitting the court document is correct. :lol:.
Hopeski, you do realize that you are showing us all without a doubt that you know you are lying. You refuse to discredit the signature on a court document, and are rendering it valid by your refusal to call the judge a liar.
All this BS proves Hopeski still is not woman enough to answer the question because she is a fraud and lliar.
Court documents are not talking points moron. ;lol:
Why can’t you answer the question? Lying yet again? 😆
Answer the question weasel! You begged me to contact Judge Loftin again, and I will, as soon as you answer this question.
Did Judge Loftin lie when he signed this court document?
Quit the ad homs and answer the question.
If you cannot call Loftin a liar, you are the liar.
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS?
You don’t know what a “procedural” ruling is??
I’ll have to go with that. I can imagine no other reason for your sad display.
It is a court ruling dummy, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
I am calling YOU a LIAR for the 49th time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING? :lOl:
What a freaking psycho idiot! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
GATOR
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
WRONG
I am calling you a LIAR and and an ignorant propaganda tool
for the 56TH TIME
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
So you lied for the 56th time. So what?
I am quoting a court ruling. Is that a lie? Please say yes! 😆
“HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING?”
You are MIS-QUOTING A COURT DECISION.
FOR the 63nd TIME:
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
THE RULING WAS ON PROCEDURE >> DiD NOT FIND FOR RANGE AS YOU CLAIM OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
But, it won’t matter of I answer you aptly — you’ll just keep posting the misinformation:
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
^^^^ WRONG WRONG WRONG ^^^^^
What part of this is wrong, liar. 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“How many times must I ask Strawman? :lol:’ Gator
.. possibly 1,000?
I think it would not matter how many times I answer …
you just want to make the point that you are an idiot.
PLEASE FEEL FREE to post the same inane drivel AGAIN and make my point.
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS?
You don’t know what a “procedural” ruling is??
I’ll have to go with that. I can imagine no other reason for your sad display.
It is a court ruling dummy, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
MAYBE YOU JUST HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF COURT PROCEEDINGS?
You don’t know what a “procedural” ruling is??
I’ll have to go with that. I can imagine no other reason for your sad display.
😆
How many times will you deny the court ruling. LIAR! 😆
It is a court ruling dummy dumb dumb, a legal decision that has never been refuted, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
😆
Still no way to refute the truth… unless you have the conviction of your rhetoric to call Loftin a liar.
And… you… cannot! 😆
The ruling stands dummy! 😆
It is a court ruling dummy dumb dumb, a legal decision that has never been refuted, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
I am calling YOU a liar for the 48th time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING? :LOL:
What a freaking psycho! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
GATOR
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
WRONG
I am calling you a LIAR and and an ignorant propaganda tool
for the 55TH TIME
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
Are you stating that Loftin lied and signed propaganda? Please say yes! :lol”
“HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING?”
You are MIS-QUOTING A COURT DECISION.
FOR the 62nd TIME:
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
THE RULING WAS ON PROCEDURE >> DiD NOT FIND FOR RANGE AS YOU CLAIM OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
But, it won’t matter of I answer you aptly — you’ll just keep posting the misinformation:
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
^^^^ WRONG WRONG WRONG ^^^^^
I am quoting the ruling verbatim you moron! 😆
You are too much of a chicken shit to call Loftin a liar, so you attack me.
You are a true POS.
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.” Gator
No
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.” Gator
no
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.” Gator
no
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.” Gator
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
Maybe that is clear enough for GATOR to parse .. I doubt it.
lol:
Still no way to refute the truth… unless you have the conviction of your rhetoric to call Loftin a liar.
And… you… cannot! 😆
The ruling stands dummy! 😆
It is a court ruling dummy dumb dumb, a legal decision that has never been refuted, and it said this…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
I am calling YOU a lair for the 47th time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
I am lying by citing a court ruling? 😆
LUNATIC and LIAR</B/! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
GATOR
I am calling YOU a LIAR for the 53rd time:
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
GATOR
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
WRONG
I am calling you a LIAR and and an ignorant propaganda tool
for the 54TH TIME
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING? 😆
What a freaking psycho B! 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.
Aren’t you upset about his carbon footprint, or are you just a paid shill? 😆
GATOR
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
WRONG
I am calling you a LIAR and and an ignorant propaganda tool
for the 60TH TIME
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
“HOW IS QUOTING A COURT DECISION LYING?”
You are MIS-QUOTING A COURT DECISION.
FOR the 61st TIME:
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
THE RULING WAS ON PROCEDURE >> DiD NOT FIND FOR RANGE AS YOU CLAIM OVER AND OVER AND OVER.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
But, it won;t matter of I answer you aptly — you’ll just keep posting the misinformation:
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
^^^^ WRONG WRONG WRONG ^^^^^
How many lies are you up you now? Prove that Loftin and I are lying dummy.
Go ahead, call Loftin a liar, he is the party I am quoting dummy. 😆
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
Can you read that Gator?
Can you read what these words say?
Does it say:
“A judge ruled that the Lipkys’ conspired against Range”??
or
“The judge found for Range”??
Look AGAIN .. REALLY CLOSE .. maybe look up words you don’t know:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
WHAT DO YOU THINK THOSE WORDS MEAN?
YOU ARE MISREADING THE RULING .. it’s on the ANTI-SLAPP procedures –
(71X)
Sorry dummy, but repeating a lie does not make it true.
Are you proud of lie# 69? 😆
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
Please show us where Loftin lied, or STFU dummy.
Maybe have your husband explain this to you, you don’y get it. 😆
(76X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
76X and Hope still has n ot provided proof that Loftin lied.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“How many lies are you up you now? Prove that Loftin and I are lying dummy.
Go ahead, call Loftin a liar, he is the party I am quoting dummy. :lol:”
YOU JUST HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE COURT DOC SAYS …
and you MISREPRESENT!
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
If you took the time to read, you wouldn’t have made this mistake!
I am quoting verbatim, Loftin’s words. You are calling Loftin a liar. Yes?
Chicken shit Hope calls me a liar for quoting judge Loftin, but would not dare to call Loftin a liar.
What a convictionless lying POS.
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
Can you read that Gator?
Can you read what these words say?
Does it say:
“A judge ruled that the Lipkys’ conspired against Range”??
or
“The judge found for Range”??
Look AGAIN .. REALLY CLOSE .. maybe look up words you don’t know:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
WHAT DO YOU THINK THOSE WORDS MEAN?
YOU ARE MISREADING THE RULING .. it’s on the ANTI-SLAPP procedures –
(70X)
Congrats on lie# 70! 😆
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
Please show us where Loftin lied, or STFU dummy.
Maybe have your husband explain this to you, you don’y get it. 😆
(76X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
Hope still got nuthin’. 😆
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
I can’t make it any clearer ..
If you simply READ about the case you would see:
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
THAT is WRONG. Range produced enough evidence for this judge to ALLOW THE CASE to go forward ..
if you can;t understand that, I surely can’t help… esp after 68 times repeating this to you!
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Chicken shit Hope calls me a liar for quoting judge Loftin, but would not dare to call Loftin a liar.
What a convictionless lying POS.
“Chicken shit Hope calls me a liar for quoting judge Loftin, but would not dare to call Loftin a liar.
What a convictionless lying POS.” GATOR
Goodness you are ignorant …. can you not understand what you read???
68 TIMES – I AM CALLING YOU A LAIR – YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THIS CASE
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
It was an ANTI-SLAPP ruling .. you have no idea that that means clearly.
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
(75X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
Still no word from Hope where Loftin lied.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
It’s YOU that has LIED 61 times:
“Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
WHY DON:T YOU just read the cites and research, instead of posting the same lies over and over ..
I am citing Loftin. That means you are calling Loftin a liar. Yes?
You just don’t understand what this means:
“Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim … ”
That’s WHY the NYT and other cites I’ve given you say
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
I am NOT calling Loftin a liar (again he rightly states the hose is hooked to a gas vent – Steve’s water line)
I’m saying for the 67th time .. the RULING was on PROCEDURE and ALLOWED THE CASE to PROCEED!
Chicken shit Hope calls me a liar for quoting judge Loftin, but would not dare to call Loftin a liar.
What a convictionless lying POS.
““Chicken shit Hope calls me a liar for quoting judge Loftin, but would not dare to call Loftin a liar.
What a convictionless lying POS.” GATOR
Goodness you are ignorant …. can you not understand what you read???
68 TIMES – I AM CALLING YOU A LAIR – YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THIS CASE
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
It was an ANTI-SLAPP ruling .. you have no idea that that means clearly.”
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
Please show us where Loftin lied in his court ruling chicken shit.
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
Can you read that Gator?
Can you read what these words say?
Does it say:
“A judge ruled that the Lipkys’ conspired against Range”??
or
“The judge found for Range”??
Look AGAIN .. REALLY CLOSE .. maybe look up words you don’t know:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
WHAT DO YOU THINK THOSE WORDS MEAN?
YOU ARE MISREADING THE RULING .. it’s on the ANTI-SLAPP procedures –
(69X)
Are you proud of lie# 69? 😆
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
Please show us where Loftin lied, or STFU dummy.
Maybe have your husband explain this to you, you don’y get it. 😆
(74X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
Hope is still barking, but no bite. 😆The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
“Chicken shit Hope calls me a liar for quoting judge Loftin, but would not dare to call Loftin a liar.
What a convictionless lying POS.”
Goodness you are ignorant …. can you not understand what you read???
68 TIMES – I AM CALLING YOU A LAIR – YO ARE LYING ABOUT THIS CASE
THE CASE HAS NEVER BEEN HEARD.\
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”” GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
Can you read that Gator?
Can you read what these words say?
Does it say:
“A judge ruled that the Lipkys’ conspired against Range”??
or
“The judge found for Range”??
Look AGAIN .. REALLY CLOSE .. maybe look up words you don’t know:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
WHAT DO YOU THINK THOSE WORDS MEAN?
YOU ARE MISREADING THE RULING .. it’s on the ANTI-SLAPP procedures –
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
Please show us where Loftin lied, or STFU dummy.
(72X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
(73X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
Read it and tell me where the lies are.
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
lol.. yet another tantrum from the 2 year old mind.
Its all she has, it is what she is.. a child’s tantrum !!
So funny to watch. 🙂
And the really funny thing is that she CANNOT escape.
She is stuck here by her own ego….
Glad she enjoys the company 😉
“Read it and tell me where the lies are.” GATOR
I did.
80X .. anyone can read it …
““After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED”
GATOR is still lying with NO IDEA .. 81 TIMES you’ve been SHOWN the facts:
‘The appeals panel had partially reversed
>>>> a trial judge’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion <<<<
(WHAT GATOR CITES when he SCREAMS says the case was heard and Range prevailed)
…. and threw out all claims against Shyla Lipsky and Alisa Rich, a contractor whose testing allegedly found pollutants in the Lipskys’ water supply."
http://www.law360.com/articles/570288/texas-high-court-takes-up-fracking-defamation-fight
I am NOT calling Loftin a liar (again he rightly states the hose is hooked to a gas vent – Steve’s water line)
I’m saying for the 81st time ..
the RULING was on PROCEDURE and ALLOWED THE CASE to PROCEED!
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
(82X)
“The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims.”
CAN YOU read THAT GATOR?
Does it say that the court considered Range’s case against Lipsky and finds in Range’s favor??
You are posting the debunking to your own inane con claims!
WHAT does THIS mean GATOR?
“denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims.””
You have no idea clearly.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.
Enough of your strawman, strawhead.
If you are calling me a liar, you are calling Loftin a liar. Right Chicken shit liar? 😆
Please show us where Loftin lied, or STFU dummy.
Maybe have your husband explain this to you, you don’y get it. 😆
Husband?? the guy would be in a loonie bin by now, or slit his wrists.
Nope.. no husband. !!
“Liar, I am quoting Loftin’s ruling and not commenting on a case that has not been heard.”
So, you have no idea what this means:
“The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims.”
(72X) for Gator!
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed..
…. the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor Gator, can’t read.
“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.””
GATOR
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
We have =established you are an ignorant Tool tho.
Good work!
You still have not shown a single lie in this document…
The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims. The court references with concerns the actions of Steven Lipsky, under the advice or direction of Mrs Alicia Rich to intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning. There is further evidence that Rich knew the regional EPA administration and provided or assisted in providing additional mislead information (including the garden hose video) to alarm the EPA. More over the emails in question which refer to this deceptive garden hose demonstration as a “strategy” appear to support that a “meeting of the minds” took place and that a reasonable trier of fact could believe, together with other evidence, That elements of a conspiracy to defame Range exist.
Therefore pursuant to Texas practice and Remedies code 27 as a finding of fact and conclusion of law, the court observes that Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim against plaintiffs and the third party action against Lisa Rich in that a reasonable trier of fact could believe that a conspiracy to defame Range existed between Lipsky and Mrs Rich.
http://www.barnettshalenews.com/documents/2012/legal/Court%20Order%20Denial%20of%20Lipsky%20Motion%20to%20Dismiss%20Range%20Counterclaim%202-16-2012.pdf
The ONLY liar here is the Hopeless one.
It has shown it has zero understanding or comprehension of even the most basic facts
She obviously has the intelligence of a ………!
Sorry, I really don’t want to insult amoeba, rocks or bricks.. so I have to leave it blank.
LOL…. The hopeless dope.. STILL ranting an raving
If only her poor child could see her now…. demented and frothing !!
(79X I tried to help GATOR)
Wow – the antics here are something to watch. Thanks for all of the great material.
I think my mistake was thinking that if Gator read the facts enough, he might see his mistake .. my bad.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
In the real world, the ruling Gator sites is the ruling on the Anti-SLAPP aspect of Range’s case against their own water contamination victims.
It ruled the case could go forward:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor GATOR reads that to say that the case was heard, Range prevailed and Lipsky’s appealed…. but again, no manner of fact can help an indoctrinated ignorant dupe.
‘The appeals panel had partially reversed
>>>> a trial judge’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion <<<<
(WHAT GATOR CITES when he SCREAMS says the case was heard and Range prevailed)
…. and threw out all claims against Shyla Lipsky and Alisa Rich, a contractor whose testing allegedly found pollutants in the Lipskys’ water supply."
http://www.law360.com/articles/570288/texas-high-court-takes-up-fracking-defamation-fight
'The trial court in Parker County, Texas denied the motions. <<< (does that say the court heard the case and found for Range? Or does it say it denied motions? POOR GATER can't tell!)
The Texas Second Court of Appeals decided that the trial court “clearly abused” its discretion in denying the Lipsky’s motions to dismiss all claims and in ruling that they had no remedy to appeal. The appellate court ordered the trial court to enter an order dismissing Range Resource’s claims based on conspiracy and aiding and abetting. "
http://www.texasattorneyblog.com/2015/01/fracing_case_goes_to_texas_sup.html
"Range asks the court to reinstate its claims that Lipsky and his wife and Rich conspired to fabricate evidence to defame the company. The court has not yet ruled on the petitions."
"The court has not yet ruled on the petitions."
That says the court has ruled on the petitions .. right GATOR?
After reading 4 cites showing the ruling you are using DOES NOT PROVE YOUR CLAIM:
"“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”” GATOR
.. and endless cites on the well itself, The EPA's isotropic testing the EPA's OIG findings … we can divine plainly that you could never be made to understand the facts.
And no, LOFTIN'S NOT LYING -YOU ARE … you are using a procedural ruling to claim the case has been heard and ruled on.
Now .. go ahead and spam the same lies … and scream about how I'm a bitch liar .. clearly that is all you are programmed to do.
CALL LOFTIN … It's Friday – you might get him .. tell him you're doing research (otherwise as a lawyer – pretty hard to get him to take your call) .. or maybe I will and record his answer and post here …. I could also do a short with BSEEC, or even the Texas Republicans … that would be helpful … but even if Matt Pizarella tells you the case has never been heard .. you will never believe him.
Hope says “79X I tried to help GATOR”
Some kind of record I think.
“I think my mistake was thinking that if Gator read the facts enough, he might see his mistake .. my bad.”
It is possible he comprehended your point the first time you made it.
“It is possible he comprehended your point the first time you made it.”
Yes ,maybe he just could never ever ever admit he is wrong..
Bad trait.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
(78X I tried to help GATOR)
Wow – the antics here are something to watch. Thanks for all of the great material.
I think my mistake was thinking that if Gator read the facts enough, he might see his mistake .. my bad.
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
LOFTIN RULING = PRIMA FACIA EVIDENCE = CASE CAN PROCEED
In the real world, the ruling Gator sites is the ruling on the Anti-SLAPP aspect of Range’s case against their own water contamination victims.
It ruled the case could go forward:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
Poor GATOR reads that to say that the case was heard, Range prevailed and Lipsky’s appealed…. but again, no manner of fact can help an indoctrinated ignorant dupe.
‘The appeals panel had partially reversed
>>>> a trial judge’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion <<<<
(WHAT GATOR CITES when he SCREAMS says the case was heard and Range prevailed)
…. and threw out all claims against Shyla Lipsky and Alisa Rich, a contractor whose testing allegedly found pollutants in the Lipskys’ water supply."
http://www.law360.com/articles/570288/texas-high-court-takes-up-fracking-defamation-fight
'The trial court in Parker County, Texas denied the motions. <<< (does that say the court heard the case and found for Range? Or does it say it denied motions? POOR GATER can't tell!)
The Texas Second Court of Appeals decided that the trial court “clearly abused” its discretion in denying the Lipsky’s motions to dismiss all claims and in ruling that they had no remedy to appeal. The appellate court ordered the trial court to enter an order dismissing Range Resource’s claims based on conspiracy and aiding and abetting. "
http://www.texasattorneyblog.com/2015/01/fracing_case_goes_to_texas_sup.html
"Range asks the court to reinstate its claims that Lipsky and his wife and Rich conspired to fabricate evidence to defame the company. The court has not yet ruled on the petitions."
"The court has not yet ruled on the petitions."
That says the court has ruled on the petitions .. right GATOR?
After reading 4 cites showing the ruling you are using DOES NOT PROVE YOUR CLAIM:
"“”Your boy was found to have attempted to deceive the public and EPA. Period.”” GATOR
.. and endless cites on the well itself, The EPA's isotropic testing the EPA's OIG findings … we can divine plainly that you could never be made to understand the facts.
And no, LOFTIN'S NOT LYING -YOU ARE … you are using a procedural ruling to claim the case has been heard and ruled on.
Now .. go ahead and spam the same lies … and scream about how I'm a bitch liar .. clearly that is all you are programmed to do.
CALL LOFTIN … It's Friday – you might get him .. tell him you're doing research (otherwise as a lawyer – pretty hard to get him to take your call) .. or maybe I will and record his answer and post here …. I could also do a short with BSEEC, or even the Texas Republicans … that would be helpful … but even if Matt Pizarella tells you the case has never been heard .. you will never believe him.
Oh God, you again? Gator has already dragged your ass to the bottom of your swamp and taken a chuck out of your ass. Your carcass is already rotting away to become more tender under some sunken dead fall and you don’t know it! Give it up! Your already dead meat!
Really?
Then you should be able to easily answer the comment.
Can you parse the data provided?
YOU claim GATOR is correct – are you SURE??
All I’ve had to do is read the exchange between you two in order to be POSITIVE! You lost it long ago. I have seen the pattern of your posts like those here Ad nauseam! If you don’t know what that means then look it up because it is the perfect definition of what you have doing here. No amount of words can make up for lack of content.
rah says:
March 13, 2015 at 10:41 pm
All I’ve had to do is read the exchange between you two in order to be POSITIVE! You lost it long ago. I have seen the pattern of your posts like those here Ad nauseam! If you don’t know what that means then look it up because it is the perfect definition of what you have doing here. No amount of words can make up for lack of content.
_________
YOU read GATORs misinformation and believed it true.
Hope that’s not always your MO. Do you ever do your own research?
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/
GATOR, GAIL and everyone else here so far, we have proven, do not.
It’s a Borg collective, rah. The ID code of this particular Borg is CAPS.
So you agree with GATOR, then ,.,, Colorado … Then you should be able to easily answer the comment.
Have you read much about the case we are talking about?
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/
So the Borg have CAPS under repair and they sent the ??????????_?????????? drone instead.
A machine cannot dictate terms, Borg. It doesn’t know how. Even a semi-intelligent human could explain why I asked you what is a voiced alveolar stop. A Borg machine finds it impossible to understand and it will fail.
What is it, Borg?
“AndyG55 says:
March 13, 2015 at 10:13 pm
Her carcass and mind have been rotting since the day she was born.
Putrification and pestilence is all that remains, from the outside to the very inside of her soulless existence.
Its who she is..
Its what she is.” Fab inane ad hom ..
Andy – sadly GATOR is wrong in this case … which puts your comment in perspective.
Poor ignorant little child..
Still batting zero !
That is your life. !
Her carcass and mind have been rotting since the day she was born.
Putrification and pestilence is all that remains, from the outside to the very inside of her soulless existence.
Its who she is..
Its what she is.
Hope says: “…(78X I tried to help GATOR)…”
What? tried to help Gator become ditzy like you?
There is a COURT RULING ON THE BOOKS. Get over it. It is real and All your whining and dancing will not make that COURT RULING go away. It is there in Black and White. LIPSHIT IS A FRAUD.
No one said there was not court ruling. The court ruling was on ANTI-SLAPP procedure, the CASE has never been heard.
Wow .. Gail .. you seem fairly well read .. you are definitly well spoken .. you can actually look at the information I provided .. and NOT SEE the ruling is on procedure only?
Really? I bet you really could parse this data if you tried:
““After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,
the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,”
EVEN you claim this says the case was heard and Range prevailed??
Would you be willing to read more about the case an ensure that is true?
” LIPSHIT IS A FRAUD.” Oh .. ok .. I just saw this … I give up hope on you, too.
Sad not one of you can do the simple reading to see that you are wrong and silly.
“The appeals panel had partially reversed a trial judge’s denial of the anti-SLAPP motion”
In your opinion, this says Loftin heard the case and found for Range.
Ok.
Give it Up Hope.
YOU are not going to sow your disinformation at this site.
YOU are not going to get in the last word and claim victory.
Even if we are not paid Disinfo-agents like you, we are NOT going to give up and there are more of us than of you, although I am fairly sure you are like the Strauß
“YOU are not going to get in the last word and claim victory. ”
Victory exists when the loser concedes. Science is settled when the last denier says it is settled. Supper is over when the last of the food is eaten.
Still, I’ve never seen kind of persistence except when something non-obvious is in play; perhaps a large bet on who blinks first.
Michael, we are dealing with someone who twists everything she touches as can be seen on her website and on her weird thinking on several topics discussed here.
I do not know what her actual goal is but she is not going to get the last word.
My goal is to get one of your to review and address the actual material.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/
Gail says “Michael, we are dealing with someone who twists everything she touches as can be seen on her website and on her weird thinking on several topics discussed here. I do not know what her actual goal is but she is not going to get the last word.”
She’s probably doing a “Lewandowsky” harvesting public comments right here; she has declared that she has gotten what she wants.
When she chooses sound bites from these comments for her next production she will indeed have the last word, but only among her followers.
Gator has also been very clever, issuing the same response over and over; giving her very little to work with.
“She’s probably doing a “Lewandowsky” harvesting public comments right here; she has declared that she has gotten what she wants.
When she chooses sound bites from these comments for her next production she will indeed have the last word, but only among her followers.”
“My goal is to get one of your to review and address the actual material.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
That isn’t fracking chemicals. It is natural gas in the water table. He could put a well head on it and make a ton of money selling it.
It’s so funny .. in reality y’all are sowing disinformation here:
“LIPSHIT IS A FRAUD.”
And what I note is none of you can address the cites or make a valid argument – just ad hom, bombast and hooey….
when the facts are right inf front of your face:
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2012-04-26/news/fire-in-the-hole/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
Gas hooked up to a gas pipe..
FRAUD !!
And your link goes to a meaningless rant in a far-left rag, describing the original fraud to gullible twerps like you.
The video can be found and it clearly shows gas coming from a second pipe, and NOT from the water pipe.
When the water pipe is supposedly showing gas burning as well, it is purposely blurred, they make sure there is never a clear picture. It could be any pipe at all.
It is stage managed FRAUD !!
You have been truly SUCKED IN , big time, you poor gullible little child mind. !!
We know the sort of FRAUD this guy is likely to try to get away with. (He failed last time)
It would be interesting to trace where that pipe with gas actually goes to.
Probably find a gas cylinder in the shed, containing gas from the place he is trying to implicate.
Sorry, but your little video is a put-up.. and I suspect that YOU had something to do with it.
“We know the sort of FRAUD this guy is likely to try to get away with. (He failed last time)”
Do you have any conspiracy theories about HOW someone would FAKE EPA isotopic testing? It’s impossible:
‘Region 6 also identified a nearby gas production well as a potential source and collected gas samples for is isotopic and compositional analysis from both the gas
well, operated by Range Resources, a nd the drinking water wells”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Hope says “Do you have any conspiracy theories about HOW someone would FAKE EPA isotopic testing? It’s impossible”
Nothing is impossible. The “how” exceeds my interest. But it is moot; the EPA’s own testing is inconclusive.
I bet you do .. trained.
I’ve posted every possible link on this page … have you missed them all?
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Try this .. are you familiar with isotopic testing?
Hope recommended an EPA document. It is interesting; I shall save a copy.
I noticed on page 5 this footnote:
“Subsequent to the emergency order, the EPA determined that it was unlikely that Range Resources’ gas well drilling and production activities had caused the contamination in Residential Well 2.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
“However, the EPA believed its prospects in this case were uncertain”
I concur. The chart on page 11 shows essentially the same C13/C12 ratio in all methane sources tested, at water wells and at Range Resource’s drilling well. (bottom axis). The left axis is percentage of dissolved methane and across the bottom the ratio of C12 to C13 as compared to a standard, and expressed in “mils” which is like percent except multiply by 1000 rather than just 100.
It appears every well tested, including production wells, have nearly identical C13/C14 ratios and that means that the test is not very useful in this present instance. There’s a difference in the amount of methane found, but not a difference in type. It also shows methane in every well tested. It is everywhere (hello, it is Texas, what did you expect?).
Thus it cannot be said with certainty whether the well contamination came from Range Resources based on this evidence. You don’t go to court on a precedent setting case with that much uncertainty.
But I’ll grant on a preponderance of evidence that Lipsky does indeed have a methane problem.
He should not have produced, or help produce, a video naming names without having an affirmative defense. Range Resources is off the hook and that puts him in a legally vulnerable position.
“Extensive geochemical gas fingerprinting, however, showed a natural source for the methane – not drilling (or “fracking”). An EPA official later ADMITTED UNDER OATH that the agency HAD NOT CONDUCTED EXTENSIVE FINGERPRINTING to find the source, and in 2012 the EPA dropped its case.”
http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Exhibit-022.pdf
Actually YOU Are sowing disinformation here .. and you refuse to take the time to do any reading on what you are claiming.
Through all of this drama, Range Resources has found time last year to launch a lawsuit against Lipsky. Last August, the company won an appeals court’s permission to pursue defamation and business disparagement claims against him.
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/06/steve_lipsky_flaming_methane_water.php
Do you feel good about supporting fossil fuel industry talking points:
“” LIPSHIT IS A FRAUD.””
That’s Range Resource fake position after EPA proved their gas was in Lispy’s water.
I am repeating what the court findings are PERIOD. It is YOU who twist and turn like a pinned snake.
If Lipsky was too arrogant to bother to go to the court house that is on his head. The court make an official ruling that still stands. The judge stated he committed fraud and this thread seems to indicate that you were/are aiding in further attacks on the reputation of Range Resources.
If you do slice and dice this thread, taking bits out of context to create a libelous hit piece, I and I am sure others here would be very happy to join any suit that Range may bring again YOU.
“That’s Range Resource fake position after EPA proved their gas was in Lispy’s water.”
Wait…what?
EPA’s own words from the report that you posted:
Hope is like virtually all the useful idiots I have dealt with, they are either unfamiliar with the source material or purposely misrepresent it. They get green industry talking points and repeat them without question.
Pollly wants a windmill! Braaaak! 😆
Dang, I screwed something up in the formatting. Let’s try again without tags:
EPA’s report said:
===========
Based on the evidence collected and its discussions with the RRC in
November 2010, Region 6 began coordinating with the EPA’s headquarters to
take emergency action under the SDWA. Region 6 issued an emergency order to
Range Resources on December 7, 2010, citing that the gas production well either
caused or contributed to the contamination in two residential water wells.6
===========
Footnote 6 said:
===========
Subsequent to the emergency order, the EPA determined that it was unlikely
that Range Resources’ gas well drilling and production activities had caused the contamination in Residential Well 2.
===========
The EPA proved nothing. They issued and emergency order on an assumption of guilt by Range, and then determined that the assumption was wrong. So what is the reason for your assertion, Hope? Are you too lazy to read, do you have trouble with reading comprehension, or are you purposely lying?
Mean while in the real world.
A blizzard and white-out conditions in Hawaii has caused evacuation of snow removal crew and all Mauna Loa observatory personnel from the Mauna Loa observatory.
Yea, and here we thought our winter was over.
Snow has also forced the closure of the Mexico City – Puebla City 150-D highway. This is near the equator at 19° N. Mauna Loa observatory is at 19.5° N.
A few days ago the heaviest 24 hour snowfall record was broken with 8+ Feet (100.8 inches) in just 18 hours in 18 Hours in the town of Capracotta in Southern Italy. Boston MA had 107.9 inches of snow during the entire season as a comparison.
I doubt Hope knows the significance of these events.
I’ve learned not to give a lot of credence to the opinions of well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda buyers ..so I wouldn’t take your word on the significance anyway .. bad track record.
No, you have brain-washed yourself to totally ignore anything that is remotely contrary to your rabid activist point of view.
Facts don’t matter to you. Just the cause.
Andy,
She also doesn’t have the reasoning ability or science background to look at information and evaluate it. All she can do is let someone else do all her thinking for her.
I have read a heck of a lot of scientific papers. Some are excellent work, some are interesting, some are questionable and some are outright B. S. Hope would never ever be able to evaluate the papers I have read. Heck I doubt she is capable of actually understanding 75% of them!
She is certainly is not familiar enough with climate science to understand why exceptionally cold temperatures in the upper troposphere in the tropics is so significant. If she was she would not have spewed that typical activist gibberish.
I am starting to suspect that Hopeless had a big hand in setting that film fraud up.
Its amateurish filming for sure.
It would explain why she is pushing it so hard as some sort of proof.
Probably paid by some anti-fracking group, who now pay her to travel around ranting and raving (its what she does naturally anyway)
They should have found someone competent instead. !
Somewhere in the 600 plus comments she said she videoed the Flaming Well twice. So that is a very good possibility. I am sure Range Resources will be happy to see that admission.
Yep, she rigged it twice.. obviously good friends with this Linsync guy.
I winder what sort of SUV she drove in to get there?
To Repeat:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hope says:
March 11, 2015 at 5:02 am
I filmed the water well twice.
You are only repeating the industry talking points as trained .. exactly as I said you would.
Lots of nice bombastic icing, too .. also as trained.
The evidence in the case is all over this page .. if ANY pf you WANTED to KNOW the fact – you could easily find them here.
“Yep, she rigged it twice.. obviously good friends with this Linsync guy.”
It’s IMPOSSIBLE that this is a hoax .. the EPA used isotopic testing to match the gas .. it’s impossible to FAKE that.
Does this LOOK faked to you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
Many university’s have also been out to test, this is not a hoax:
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/19/14103560/
“Does this LOOK faked to you?”
YES, absolutely !!!
That explains why I’m in the doghouse; I dissed the quality of the video, never mind what it was trying to portray. I didn’t know that Hope made it.
Probably gets paid for “hits” on the video. Contract with Lipsync.
Seems that Hopeless is very much PART OF THE FRAUD.
No wonder she is trying to defend it so monotonously.
Nope. Simply review the cite – there is no ad on the video = no pay. Pretty easy to see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
And the thing is .. I am right about the case:
“Through all of this drama, Range Resources has found time last year to launch a lawsuit against Lipsky. Last August, the company won an appeals court’s permission to pursue defamation and business disparagement claims against him.”
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/06/steve_lipsky_flaming_methane_water.php
SPRUNG !!!!!
Deny it all you want.. we know you are in inveterate LIAR !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
I’m starting a non-profit production company. Not funded by any group actually.
You can look right at the evidence .. and not see it.
“You can look right at the evidence ”
Yep, I see the fakery.. very obvious. !
a non-profit.. don’t BS !!!.
you can only be non-profit if you have alternate funding !!
AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:12 am
“Does this LOOK faked to you?”
YES, absolutely !!!
________________________________
Ok .. I thought you might say that …
… yet it’s impossible fool the EPA, Duke, UoT, and Isotec?
Did you just not read the citation?
“Region 6 also identified a nearby gas production well as a potential source and
collected gas samples for is isotopic and compositional analysis from both the gas
well, operated by Range Resources, and the drinking water wells”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
What I’m proving is no manner of fact presented can untrain a persona once con media/fossil fuel propaganda (they are the same in this case) was gotten them to buy the lie.
You make my point comment after comment.
AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:10 am
“You can look right at the evidence ”
Yep, I see the fakery.. very obvious. !
a non-profit.. don’t BS !!!.
you can only be non-profit if you have alternate funding !!
____________________________________________________
You can start a non-profit by living with low overhead, actually, as I prove.
So, you read the EPA OIG report:
“Region 6 also identified a nearby gas production well as a potential source and
collected gas samples for is isotopic and compositional analysis from both the gas
well, operated by Range Resources, and the drinking water wells”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
.. Range’s production gas got into Steve’s well .. how???
Imagine that you actually READ the material and find that THIS CASE has NEVER been heard and Lipsky has NEVER been found guilty?
Imagine that the stupid propaganda y’all repeat here is actually just Range Resources FALSE allegations against their own water contamination victim?
Can you imagine that?
Or can you only imagine up conspiracy theories when in fact it is YOU who is wrong?
That seems like a trained response to me. People are not naturally that hard headed.
“That seems like a trained response to me. People are not naturally that hard headed.”
ALL your posts are a trained response.
Of someone with only a wooden block as a brain.
And I agree, you are not natural. FAKE through and through.
Hope says:
“I’m starting a non-profit production company. “
…..
ROTFLMAO
At least in the 1970s the HIGHEST PAID CEO in the USA was the CEO of a ‘Non-profit’ called the Red Cross.
‘Non-profit’ is just a corporate TAX status.
The best way to hide Money Laundering is through a ‘Consulting Business’. Richard Muller, Judith Curry and Stan Greenberg all have consulting businesses.
Stan Greenberg is Rosa Delauro (D-CT) hubby.
DeLauro was pushing the Food Safety Modernization Act Monsanto’s dream bill for over ten years. Hubby was a Monsanto consultant —- Quelle Surprise!
Ohhh wow .. now I’m accuse don money laundering .
That’s hilarious.
But you can;t be bother ed to actually READ about the case, ban you?
Spend hours thinking up conspiracy theories .. but never take the time to find out you are wrong.
HOW would this guy FAKE an EPA isotopic test?
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
https://d3oilk4eevknv6.cloudfront.net/newsweb/mediatools/image/image/000/000/191/105_637x424_367861042_600x399.jpg
The Lipsync residence..
Which room do you stay in, Hopeless ?
I think we can all see where YOUR funding is coming from !!!!!!!!
And to think Hubby and I were up patching a roof on a house that looks lot like this today.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qx_tDkpi6y8/Ud5droO8g9I/AAAAAAAADD8/sGscTtyaV3g/s320/Old+Stage+Changeover+Shanty,+Amby,+known+as+Netting+Hole,+1875.jpg
(Ours has a few more windows)
Yep, becoming more and more obvious that Hopeless is helping Lipsync with his next round of anti-fracking propaganda.
He should have hired someone more competent !
Andy, Don’t forget this piece:
Again, as I said here .. the house was worth quite a bit .. how much is a house worth with no water source? The water source was ruined by Range, as per the EPA:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
And how long will well trained fossil fuel industry propagandists lie before they simply take the time to read the case?
We’ll find out.
But I do note that you will spend hours demeaning the person before you simply read up on the case.
Telling.
“Lipsky maybe trucking in water because he can’t stand the ” rotten-egg scent of sulfur typical for this portion of the aquifer” and figured he would hang the bill on Range.”
OR because his water well was contaminated by nearby gas drilling:
Region 6 also identified a nearby gas production well as a potential source and collected gas samples for isotopic and compositional analysis from both the gas well, operated by Range Resources, and the drinking water wells.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
It’s scientifically impossible he was able to pipe Range’s gas into his well himself, year after year after year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
Hope says: @ March 14, 2015 at 3:04 am
“I’ve learned not to give a lot of credence to the opinions of well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda buyers ..so I wouldn’t take your word on the significance anyway .. bad track record.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So After Hope declares ALL the IPCC reports are valid in another thread she doesn’t even KNOW the significance of snow in Mexico City and Hawaii.
HOPE, dear, GO READ THE IPCC REPORTS. They tell you what the significance is.
Oh thats right ,since I was going to cite the IPCC reports that makes them ‘fossil fuel industry propaganda’
Hey guys for once Hope actually stumbled across some truth!
And Hope notice everyone else here is aware of the significance of snow in Mexico City and Hawaii.
I love how you can spin, as you accuse others of spin:
‘ Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from the same source. Region 6, therefore, concluded that a gas production well owned by Range Resources caused or contribut
ed to the contamination in the groundwater.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
You can spin, but can you READ? And can you answer direct questions? Let’s see …
Do YOU support the rights of a gas company to pollute YOUR water, then sue you when you note the EPA’s isotonic testing proves they did?
Does Range have the right to destroy this family?
Con media and the brainwashed support of well trained dupes like you helps Range do that.
Why not read up on the case, Gail?
I support the LAW and not someone out to sue a company that did nothing to him. Lipsky KNEW before he built that the water was crap.
Pecks Drilling testifies under oath the water had no methane when drilled.
You may support the law .. but you refuse to take the time to read up on this case.
Hope says
“You may support the law .. but you refuse to take the time to read up on this case.”
Whereas I am taking the time to read up on the case, and the more I study it, the less impressed I am that Lipsky has a case; I wonder if you have studied the case.
The court says
“The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. [3 CR 733, 735, 739-40, ¶ 17; App. C] For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. [3 CR 638-39]. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads ‘DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.’ [2 SCR 646, Tab C, Slide 20].”
“In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas, as shown below”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=8575e012-8876-4480-961a-83258619c5d8&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=ec356c62-5109-46a8-9ecb-b37bec5901f4
Obviously the driller under oath saying there was no methane was either lying or mistaken.
“Not surprisingly, within months after moving into their house in September 2009, they began noticing that it took longer for the well holding tank to refill, “especially after agricultural watering was completed, a process which typically used 2000-3000 gallons.” [5 CR 1249-50]. The Lipskys’
increase in water usage, together with similar usage by other large homes in Silverado, reduced the Trinity aquifer water level such that naturally-occurring gas in the Strawn formation could more readily migrate into the aquifer.”
Well there you have it, just as I and others have suspected. Too much pumping drained the Trinity aquifer allowing natural gas from the Strawn formation, only 200 feet deep, to migrate.
I think that my involvement and interest in this affair is ended.
Michael 2
+10
Checkmate….end of debate…over…finished…
Unfortunately Hope never lets little things like FACTS stand in her way. All of this that Michael cited has already been brought up a couple of days ago and as usual Hope ignored it or called it ‘fossil fuel industry talking points ‘
Gail says “All of this that Michael cited has already been brought up a couple of days ago and as usual Hope ignored it or called it ‘fossil fuel industry talking points‘ ”
Ya think? 🙂
Now I have those same talking points under my cap and they’re pretty solid talking points.
Michael,
It was in the other thread. That Danger Flammable Gas warning sign on a water supply is a bit hard to forget.
https://i0.wp.com/3.bp.blogspot.com/-7BTnRqeqVxo/Usw2ugazZ8I/AAAAAAAA2Vw/Up68eQgj6Aw/s320/mother_nature_denies_global_warming.jpg
Mother Nature Strikes Another Blow against the theory of Global Warming.
Yes .. a perfect commentary on the mentality in here ….
Hope says:
March 14, 2015 at 3:11 am
Ohhh wow .. now I’m accuse don money laundering .
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There you go twisting things again.
My, My The guilty flee when no one pursueth.
Irony – you are the one misleading:
” LIPSHIT IS A FRAUD.”
The case has never been heard Gail – you are buying fossil fuel industry talking points without doing any research of your own.
I’d like to see how far y’all go with it .. is it actually IMPOSSIBLE to help people see the truth once they have been this brainwashed on a topic?
“The EPA was justified in concluding that the contamination in the residential wells constituted an ISE based on the data the EPA collected.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
“Last August, the company won an appeals court’s permission to pursue defamation and business disparagement claims against him.”
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/06/steve_lipsky_flaming_methane_water.php
permission to pursue
permission to pursue
permission to pursue
Read the facts!! You are being lied to.
“is it actually IMPOSSIBLE to help people see the truth once they have been this brainwashed on a topic”
Yep, you will not allow any reality past you brain-washed rabid activism.
Oh deary me… someone’s been caught out LYING again.. Hopeless little thing !!
“Extensive geochemical gas fingerprinting, however, showed a natural source for the methane – not drilling (or “fracking”). An EPA official later admitted under oath that the agency had NOT conducted extensive fingerprinting to find the source, and in 2012 the EPA dropped its case.
After the EPA withdrew the endangerment order, the Texas Railroad Commission – which regulates oil and gas in Texas – reaffirmed the lack of impact: “Range Resources’ Parker County gas wells did not contaminate groundwater.”
I invite people to read Exhibit 022.
http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Exhibit-022.pdf
And of course from the 2012 ruling of the Texas court
“intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – not to a water line – and then light and burn the gas from the end of the nozzle of the hose. The demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning … [and] alarm the EPA.”
This Lipsync guy is up to his neck in this fabrication, and Hopeless is right in there with him like a little yapping chihuahua.
🙂 Energy in Depth is the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine .. paid for by IPAA.
You are forwarding fossil fuel industry talking points 🙂
(Did you not look into the blog before you cited it’s materiel?)
They were formed to ensure no regulation was passed .. by forwarding mindless propaganda to people like you and misinforming the conservative voting base/politicians:
“EnergyInDepth.org
: a state of the art online resource center to combat new environmental regulations,
especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. ”
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf
Yes, they forward the same lie, as I have said.
They work for the fossil fuel industry against the public and forward every Range Resources claim, as paid.
” showed a natural source for the methane – not drilling (or “fracking”)”
Again, the testimony under oath of the driller proves the methane was not there before, but also the fact that the well pump functioned for the first 5 years, when the gas hit the well, the pump stopped functioning.
You could have read up a bit and known that.
Again … think up a great conspiracy their about how anyone could steal that much gas from a production well .. you refuse to admit that is impossible.
OR JUST read ABOUT the case outside the fossil fuel industry propaganda machine!
You have nothing.. you have been identified !!!
Exhibit 22 destroys every one of your arguments..
Run and hide little activist !!!
Quoting desmog will do you no good at all. Far left wing smear blog started by a criminal…. right down your alley !!!
Read the statement of facts in this legal brief. Sounds like a witch hunt to me, Range being the witch. And if Hope thinks it’s cheaper for a company to fight a lawsuit, and counter sue than it is to settle, then she’s not very bright.
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=8575e012-8876-4480-961a-83258619c5d8&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=ec356c62-5109-46a8-9ecb-b37bec5901f4
Andy in my other comment I mentioned Lipsky’s connection to J P Morgan and wondered if They could have a vested interest:
And there she is:
(I am no lawyer but this certainly looks interesting.)
http://biz.yahoo.com/e/141020/rrc8-k.html
Looks like if Lipsky could get the allegation to stick and organize the rest of his neighbors to go after Range, JP Morgan might end up with the company….
Another entanglement:
I also invite people to look at this page…
http://pennsylvaniafrack.com/category/sharon-wilson/
Compare the picture about half way down, and the attitude…. to the pic she posted earlier, link below. (if you can get past the supercilious grin and the gaudy makeup, they may be the same person)
ttps://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1555704708026159&set=a.1441836276079670.1073741829.100007599345181&type=1
ps, I have deliberately left the ‘h’ off the front so people don’t have to look unless they copy and paste and put the ‘h’ back
This Sharon Wilson (I suspect…. aka Hopeless) worked with an EPA official called Al Armendariz and local anti-frack activists to set this whole fraud up !!
http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/sharon-and-al.jpg
I’d be shocked if they were the same person. Different hairline, different teeth.
Related, or very good friends. They know all the same people.
All the scammers, like Lipsync,
It really is impossible to tell because of the gaudy street make-up on the original picture.
Sorry Andy they are not the same person. Look at the shape of the eyes.
Also Hope, in that picture, is a good ten or more years younger.
You might be interested in this broader history of this cast of characters and the movie in the making link
That article straightens out a lot of the twists Hope has tried to put into the story.
I did say maybe. Gaudy street make-up and a fuzzy lens can change a face radically.
But certainly from the same group of radical anti-anything activists.
Oh, I am sure Hope know all or most of this cast of characters. She is another face to add “concerned outsider’ to the scam. However given the information revealed, she is no outsider. Secretary, receptionist, daughter of friend?
Would be interesting to know who is paying for the roof over her head and food and heating and petrol for her SUV while she is doing her “non-profit” video thingy.
Don’t suppose we will find out though. Linked heavily to the scam no doubt !
—————————–
and you said “in that picture, is a good ten or more years younger.”
Sorry, but I think the gaudy make-up and camera blur have fooled you !
I would actually put Hope and S.Texan around the same age or older.
AndyG55 says “Would be interesting to know who is paying for the roof over her head and food and heating and petrol for her SUV while she is doing her non-profit video thingy.”
At some risk of sounding conspiratorial, it could be Range Resources themselves, removed by a couple of layers of indirection.
Sooner or later contamination will occur, or a well blow-out, and it could be spectacular. Just as vaccination gives you a small dose of a serious disease to build your immunities, you can also immunize yourself against adverse public reaction.
What you do is provoke a case against yourself. It has to seem legitimate enough but it has to have elements of absurdity that, once revealed, does at least two things:
1. Prepares public opinion to be sympathetic to industry and hostile to environmentalists and
2. Uncovers hidden alignments within the environmental industry.
Results reveal intentions.
This case was doomed from the outset, but extremely risky since you never know which way public opinion is going to go, and it is public opinion that eventually shapes juror’s views in the case that a trial actually happens.
The hints are there. The news articles, while seeming to be sympathetic to Lipsky’s, actually paint them as whining rich kids. The painting of them as rich is carefully done. The adults are not identified by age but their children are so identified, which gives an important clue. His employment with JP Morgan is highlighted.
So, while seeming to be sympathetic, in fact the Lipsky’s were “cut out of the herd” and made to be rich; producing a rich versus rich fight that most people don’t care about who wins and happens every day anyway. It is what rich people do.
With the adjacent wells flaring gas from day one of their drilling, four years before Range Resources comes drilling, sufficient evidence exists that I doubt any jury on Earth would find for the Lipskys.
These facts had to have been known to the litigants before they started this case. So you are you going to get willing to walk into this? You are right to think it is staged and a setup, but look deeper.
The next person that comes along complaining about contamination isn’t even going to get in the front door of the EPA. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.
It could also be what it seems to be. Maybe I have too much faith in human intelligence thinking that nobody could be that inept to think this case had a chance of going anywhere.
@ Mike
“What you do is provoke a case against yourself. It has to seem legitimate enough but it has to have elements of absurdity that, once revealed, does at least two things:”
How would you fool the EPA’s isotopic testing?
“Would be interesting to know who is paying for the roof over her head and food and heating and petrol for her SUV while she is doing her “non-profit” video thingy.”:
‘ petrol for her SUV w” Should I guess you are on Britain? Have no car, BTW, and am a vegetarian .. so I just live simply.
Asking about funding is so common from your side .. as many times as I tell you I receive none – I simply live on a very low budget and have a few friends that pitch in when needed. Like any person getting a business off the ground, you have to put in lots of unpaid elbow grease to get going. (study the sentence for your seed of a conspiracy theory – that’s the only way you read it – you can’t believe I am actually sitting here telling you boring truth! 🙂
Why would you spend more time guessing about me then you would reading up on the case? Could it be that the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine has trained you to? Nah.
Have you read this?
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
All of your guessing about me is hilarious .. if you took just 5 minutes to search me you would find Sharon and I are not the same person .. it’s pretty entertaining to see what kind of outlandish hooey y’all can come up with:
https://www.google.com/search?q=texas+sharon+wilson&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=D5MEVfC0EJPkgwS1YQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1280&bih=640
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=k361jo&s=8#.VQSUrOFAYrh
The question is … did you read it.
You certainly don’t help your case when you keep presenting reports that contradict your claims.
Even though the EPA is corrupt and lies about “climate change”, they’re not stupid enough to use something so easily disproved as evidence. Perhaps you should take a cue from them.
I answered this with this reply button .. but it put my post alone down lower .. please do read – this was a great link!
v v v v v v v v v v
darwin says:
March 14, 2015 at 8:24 pm
The question is … did you read it.
You certainly don’t help your case when you keep presenting reports that contradict your claims.
Even though the EPA is corrupt and lies about “climate change”, they’re not stupid enough to use something so easily disproved as evidence. Perhaps you should take a cue from them.
____________________________
No .. the question is DID YOU READ IT:
” The test results also showed benzene levels above the EPA published maximum contamination levels.
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater
and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from
the same source.”
PAGE 9 ….
“The EPA was justified in concluding that the contamination in the residential
wells constituted an ISE based on the data the EPA collected. The EPA water and
gas samples collected from the residential water wells were contaminated. Test
results on November 16, 2010, showed the presence of chemical contamination in
both wells. The contamination levels indicated a risk to a drinking water source—
the aquifer and the well s drawing from it.”
page 12
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor
to the Contamination The information that the EPA had in its possession was sufficient for it to conclude that the gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination of the aquifer that led to the ISE. It was the closest potential source
of contamination to the contaminated drinking water well and Range Resources
drilled the well shortly before the homeowners first reported the contamination.
Moreover, the EPA data showed the composition of the gas contaminating the
water wells to be nearly identical to that of the gas in the production well, and that
the gas from both types of wells was likely from the same source. ”
page 13
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
So your WFAA News story is wrong.
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 (catching my breath…) 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
I had a wonderful musical evening last night, blues great tribute concert, and no ignorant lying stupid activists anywhere near. Beautiful!
Then I log on my computer this morning and get one of the greatest gifts ever, a thorough trouncing of Hopeski’s hopeless lies.
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 (catching my breath…) 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
Great work digging through that case info Michael, I was working up the EPA report details but you beat me to that too! Awesome!
😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 (catching my breath…) 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆 😆
It is no wonder the EPA tucked its tail and ran from this fraud, AKA Steve Lipsky.
Please read and comment on the content of my comment below .. if you can muster the reason to actually discuss the material rial .. let’s do.
““denied a motion””
and
“The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims”
‘Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim”
These all say
“Your boy was found to be a fraud”
Right GATOR … the RULING itself DOES NOT SAY it is DENYING A MOTION or accepting PRIMA FACIA evidence …
You don;t see those words right in front of your face … for the 82x … right?
Did you call X judge Loftin – BSEEC? Range … are you ready to fight this to the end?
Because – Gator, Gail et al .. I am right – and con/fossil fuel industry propaganda is lying to you …
THIS CASE has never been heard.
http://www.wfaa.com/picture-gallery/news/local/2014/08/18/13985522/
We are not discussing an unheard case, that would be like talking about next year’s Superbowl winner. Stupid.
Now quit lying about identical isotopes…
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical…
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Gator – is EVERY court hearing a hearing the case – or does the court at times rule on procedure?
You are trying to claim that just because procedure was ruled on (ANTI-SLAPP)… the case was heard .. it’s a stunning display of ignorance after 82X being shown the facts.
Are you really admitting you can not read what this says?
“The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims”
‘Range has presented sufficient clear and specific evidence to maintain a prima facia case with regard to the counter claim”
“well were nearly identical…”
And you listened to the scientists tell you HOW nearly .. you can read the numbers yourself from this news coverage .. why don;t you look into how close of a match that is??
“Scientists: Tests prove fracking to blame for flaming Parker County wells”
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
It is IMPOSSIBLE that these tests show this is Strawn and/or biogenic methane .. at least admit the numbers prove that.
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical…
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
My DnA is nearly identical to yours. Are you suggesting my father had relations with your mother? 😆
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylk6SD2wiY0
https://www.google.com/#q=bigfoot+is+real
Advocacy groups are fun!
“Advocacy groups are fun!”
So are well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda believers who can’t tell big foot from water contamination …
and who can;t answer for their ignorance …. 84X
Actually they have refuted all of your lies.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/hope-and-choom/#comment-503091
So your WFAA News story is wrong.
Sorry, laughing so hard I copied the wrong link… 😆
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Yes …please take note of the author of the Forbes piece .. but also the piece has the information you need:
‘ In February 2012, Texas State District Judge Trey Loftin denied a motion by Lipsy and his environmental consultant, Alisa Rich, to dismiss the counterclaim.”
‘denied a motion”
So you READ “denied a motion” … you have read it many time here … but you refuse to admit that was ALL the Loftin ruling did .. it did not find Steve GUILTY as all of you have been trained to believe by con media and fossil fuel industry propaganda.
THINK about it – it seems that you are just trained to attack those you have been told are always lying = anyone who doesn’t disbelieve modern climate science … so you do no real research because you believe I am just a liar. And LOOK how WRONG you are!
“In its counterclaim, Range called the video a “gross distortion.” They stated that “The hose pictured…is not a water hose at all, but is used solely for the purpose of venting gas.”
This is the hilarious contamination Range makes (among many) in their lawsuit against their own water contamination victims –
Look again at the video .. what was the hose hooked to?
Steve’s water wellhead – which as Loftin noted – is now a gas vent “intentionally attach a garden hose to a gas vent – ”
Any of you know how or why the hose got connected to the water wellhead?
You would if you read the cites I gave and depositions form the case.
You can;t fool EPA Isotonic testing, esp reviewed by their Oig.
Steve didn’t steal all that gas from Range – that’s impossible.
Y’all are positing a scientifically impossible.
But it is interesting to see the lengths that you go to in doing so.
“Range called the video a “gross distortion.” ”
Dozens of people have been out an filmed, tested the well in the past nearly 5 years. Major US universities and new crews.
It it not a possibility that Steve faked this contam .. tho that is the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda .. that you repeat.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA0Kfh8GB2c&spfreload=10
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfi22e8UQYc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOBFwsZOkqk&spfreload=10
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/21/14223694/
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/19/14103560/
http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/local/investigates/2014/08/19/14067180/
http://www.wfaa.com/picture-gallery/news/local/2014/08/18/13985522/
“Extensive geochemical gas fingerprinting, however, showed a natural source for the methane – not drilling (or “fracking”). An EPA official later admitted under oath that the agency had NOT conducted extensive fingerprinting to find the source, and in 2012 the EPA dropped its case.”
I notice you don;t cite that .. you can;t.
It’s either Range, EID or the Railroad commission .. which is nearly the same thing.
The OIG report refutes that … obviously.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/static.texastribune.org/media/documents/Letter_from_Milton_Rister_RE_Parker_County_Water_Wells.pdf
But at least we have moved on to actually talking about the case .. that’s progress.
CITE IT Gator.
“Subsequent to the emergency order, the EPA determined that it was unlikely that Range Resources’ gas well drilling and production activities had caused the contamination in Residential Well 2.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
“However, the EPA believed its prospects in this case were uncertain”
“Residential Well 2.””
Not Steve’s well.
You can;t read all of the cites I have posted from this EPA OIG report that says you are wrong can you.
YOu can cite EID – the FF industry’s paid for PR group .. but you can’t read the scientific findings .. telling.
“The Trinity water aquifer that supplies water to the Lipskys’ water well had contained methane gas for many years before they drilled the well. [3 CR 733, 735, 739-40, ¶ 17; App. C] For example, test results for the public water supply system in the adjacent Lake Country Acres subdivision have reflected the presence of natural gas in the water for decades. [3 CR 638-39]. Indeed, one of the Lake Country Acres water wells contains a warning sign that reads ‘DANGER FLAMMABLE GAS.’ [2 SCR 646, Tab C, Slide 20].”
“In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas, as shown below”
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=8575e012-8876-4480-961a-83258619c5d8&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=ec356c62-5109-46a8-9ecb-b37bec5901f4
That’s it mole, keep trying to pop around and avoid the multiple citations. Whack! 😆
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical…
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
My DNA is nearly identical to my black friends, but clearly I am not from the same father.
“It is IMPOSSIBLE that these tests show this is Strawn and/or biogenic methane .. at least admit the numbers prove that.”
“My DNA is nearly identical to my black friends, but clearly I am not from the same father.”
DNA and isotopic testing = same??
Come on .. what are the numbers in this case, Gator?
I have cited them to you …
“An EPA official later ADMITTED UNDER OATH that the agency had NOT conducted extensive fingerprinting to find the source”
What don’t you comprehend about this ???
You truly are one of the most stupid people I have ever come across.
The EPA did NOT do proper fingerprint testing .. they admitted as such under oath !!
The fingerprint testing that was done, as Exhibit 022, totally exonerates Range
The whole FRAUD, by a bunch of rabid activists .. is BUSTED !!!!
Get over it !!!
“Subsequent to the emergency order, the EPA determined that it was unlikely that Range Resources’ gas well drilling and production activities had caused the contamination in Residential Well 2.”
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
“A professional drilling service drilled Residential Well 2 in August 2002 and Residential Well 1 in April 2005. ”
WHICH WELL IS WHICH GATOR??
” The test results also showed benzene levels above the EPA published maximum contamination levels.
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater
and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from
the same source.”
PAGE 9 ….
“The EPA was justified in concluding that the contamination in the residential
wells constituted an ISE based on the data the EPA collected. The EPA water and
gas samples collected from the residential water wells were contaminated. Test
results on November 16, 2010, showed the presence of chemical contamination in
both wells. The contamination levels indicated a risk to a drinking water source—
the aquifer and the well s drawing from it.”
page 12
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor
to the Contamination The information that the EPA had in its possession was sufficient for it to conclude that the gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination of the aquifer that led to the ISE. It was the closest potential source
of contamination to the contaminated drinking water well and Range Resources
drilled the well shortly before the homeowners first reported the contamination.
Moreover, the EPA data showed the composition of the gas contaminating the
water wells to be nearly identical to that of the gas in the production well, and that
the gas from both types of wells was likely from the same source. ”
page 13
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/hope-and-choom/#comment-503091
So your WFAA News story is wrong.
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.”
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/11/hope-and-choom/#comment-503091
YOU messed up the citation .. try again …
WHAT are you citing??
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
So your WFAA News story is wrong.
Feel better now? 😆
AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2015 at 8:20 pm
“An EPA official later ADMITTED UNDER OATH that the agency had NOT conducted extensive fingerprinting to find the source”
What don’t you comprehend about this ???
You truly are one of the most stupid people I have ever come across.
The EPA did NOT do proper fingerprint testing .. they admitted as such under oath !!
The fingerprint testing that was done, as Exhibit 022, totally exonerates Range
__________________________
I understand the propaganda … do you?
WHAT are you citing?
Notice how when I make a claim .. I CITE it – you can’t do that for a good reason ..
and I know what that is ..
now .. CITE the claim or prove me correct.
You have not cited anything anywhere.
Exhibit 022 DESTROYS your little attempt at fraud against Range.
The EPA admitted under oath that they had not done proper testing.
Live with it.. You and your rabid anti-frack activists have lost this round.
But I’m sure you will keep trying to rig something for the next fraudulent attempt.
AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2015 at 8:50 pm
You have not cited anything anywhere.
______________________________________
Wow .. so your blind. Ok. I count 14 citations just today.
Weasel talk from an environmental scientist, and another who doesn’t know what isotopes to use, but both admitted they are not identical.
Liars and fools of a feather! 😆
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
So your WFAA News story is wrong.
Ah, so you missed the link to Exhibit 022..
No wonder you are still so ignorant.
“So your WFAA News story is wrong”
According to ENERGY IN DEPTH … and WHO funds that GROUP, GATOR ..could it be the IPAA??
Could it be that ALL you are doing is forwarding the talking points of the entrenched power this working to destroy this and other neighboring families who now have the same problem?
Yes .. the fossil fuel industry paid for hack job propaganda machine EID will tell you Range is the poor victim.
What did you expect??
EID was created to use propaganda to stop regulation ..as per their own memo:
“EnergyInDepth.org
: a state of the art online resource
center to combat new environmental regulations,
especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing”
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf
It would NOT be possible for you to simply read the EPA’s OIG report (and no well 2 is not Steve’s well)
Hopeless, I cited the science. Refute it with science or STFU.
We have shown you that even the EPA says there is no case worth hearing.
Get over it! 😆
gator69 says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:18 pm
Hopeless, I cited the science. Refute it with science or STFU.
We have shown you that even the EPA says there is no case worth hearing.
Get over it! 😆
_____________________________
I have .. over and over ..
no manner of fact can help a poor trained fossil fuel industry propaganda believer.
” The test results also showed benzene levels above the EPA published maximum contamination levels.
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater
and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from
the same source.”
PAGE 9 ….
“The EPA was justified in concluding that the contamination in the residential
wells constituted an ISE based on the data the EPA collected. The EPA water and
gas samples collected from the residential water wells were contaminated. Test
results on November 16, 2010, showed the presence of chemical contamination in
both wells. The contamination levels indicated a risk to a drinking water source—
the aquifer and the well s drawing from it.”
page 12
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor
to the Contamination The information that the EPA had in its possession was sufficient for it to conclude that the gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination of the aquifer that led to the ISE. It was the closest potential source
of contamination to the contaminated drinking water well and Range Resources
drilled the well shortly before the homeowners first reported the contamination.
Moreover, the EPA data showed the composition of the gas contaminating the
water wells to be nearly identical to that of the gas in the production well, and that
the gas from both types of wells was likely from the same source. ”
page 13
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
That’s all EID is .. bought fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Your link is to the EPA, who have no faith in your hopeless case.
Come back when you have stopped hitting yourself! 😆
gator69 says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Your link is to the EPA, who have no faith in your hopeless case.
Come back when you have stopped hitting yourself! 😆
______________________________________
Yes .. they just have the evidence:
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor”
She can’t get over it. She is too invested in pushing the FRAUD.
Notice how she knows absolutely NOTHING about the science of Climate Change. She knows absolutely nothing about geology. However she has all the talking points pushing the Lipshitt fraud down pat. If you toss facts at her she always has some sort of come back ready to hand.
Hope is very much a disinfo agent. Given she has been pushing this for DAYS to people who are smart enough to see the fraud, you would think she would give up and pedal her snake oil to an easier audience.
Either she is planing to do a cut and paste propaganda piece on Steve using our comments or she is PAID to be here.
As I have already stated if she does a cut and past libelous piece, I think we should ask Range if we can join in a law suit against her libel.
The chemical analysis in Exhibit 022 showed with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that any gas in Lipsync’s well was from Strawn and NOT from the Barnett seams that Range are drilling.
Hopeless is of course totally unable to accept that this totally destroys any case Lipsync and his activist tribe have, that recent drilling has caused the small amount of gas in his well. (Must be a small amount otherwise he wouldn’t have had to resort to fraud to show it)
She has lost any argument here, its all over bar the continued screeching !!
“if she does a cut and past libelous piece,”
You mean like the one you are commenting on here on Steve’s blog 🙂
Steve has done no live interviews .. as he was claiming:
“Steve Goddard Hope Forpeace • 8 days ago
I’d love to. I do interviews all the time.
But I prefer live interviews so that people don’t selectively edit.”
this “article” is just such an ad hom hack job … as you sit here accepting it an adding to the ad hom hackery.
“She is too invested in pushing the FRAUD.”
I research the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda machine .. I ma here seeing how long well trained adherents can go without actually reading the material that would disabuse them of the industry’s lies.
Pretty darn far ya’ll have proven.
I’m also invested that making sure the families I have interviewed personally around the US that have been slandered by this propaganda
http://fracknationreview.blogspot.com/
… and ruined by the fracking boom .. get justice. As any good American would if they understood the facts.
You would back the Lipsky family over Range is you knew the facts.
You just refuse to look at them:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
“The chemical analysis in Exhibit 022 showed with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that any gas in Lipsync’s well was from Strawn and NOT from the Barnett seams that Range are drilling.”
If you would cite your source, I could help you. I’m guessing that is from the TRRC hearing from 2011??
We have looked at them all Hopeless, and they only exonerate Range…
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical…
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
So your WFAA News story is wrong, like all the others. 😆
If you believe fossil fuel industry propagandists … which you obviously do:
“Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other “tight” formations across the country.”
Of course the memo I just cited you shows they are actually formed to use propaganda to prove fracking is safe and need no more regulation.
DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.
gator69 says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:32 pm
DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man,
_____________________
Look how well trained you are!!
The link led to the actual memo, covered by many outlets …
why don’t you do your own research instead of just parroting the industry’s propaganda??
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf
Read the darn thing .. EID has never said it was not an original ….
“For months, IPAA’s government relations and communications teams have been working around-the-clock on a new industry-wide campaign – known as “Energy In Depth” (www.energyindepth.org) – to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. And, we’re seeing some outstanding results.”
Maybe you just can;t handle the truth.
Defending crooks again! How noble.
Got any legitimate science you would like to discuss?
Or is it back to the same old discredited sources? 😆
@Gail .. I’d really like to hear your thoughts on my reply … thanks.
GATOR = family whose water was ruined by big gas company according to EPA isotopic testing (no gator well 2 is not Steve’s well) = CROOKS
Multi-billion $ corporation that ruined a families water sources, then sues the family = victims
Perfect example of fossil fuel industry brainwashing:
“The test results also showed benzene levels above the EPA published maximum contamination levels. Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from the same source.”
2 scientists told you HOW near = match .. have you have the numbers analyzed yet?
And how did that call w/ esq Loftin go????
Why do you keep lying about an isotope match that isn’t, and was the wrong isotope test to begin with.
How stupid are you?
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
So your WFAA News story is wrong.
Yes .. as I have said and here prove .. all you can do is repeat fossil fuel industry talking points:
Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other “tight” formations across the country.
“For months, IPAA’s government relations and communications teams have been working around-the-clock on a new industry-wide campaign – known as “Energy In Depth” (www.energyindepth.org) – to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. And, we’re seeing some outstanding results. IPAA Vice
President of Government Relations Lee Fuller and Vice President of Public Affairs Jeff Eshelman are working on the “Energy In Depth” campaign that has garnered the at
tention of national news outlets, including The Wall Street Journal,The New York Times, The Washington Post, Reuters, the Associated Press, National Public Radio and more. The cooperating regional and state associations have been an integral part of this national campaign and they are working closely with their news media and policymakers using coordinated messages. ”
The fossil fuel industry thanks you for your service.
Which of IPAA’s funders is a convicted criminal? 😆
DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.
The EPA also DID NOT TEST the Strawn gas for isotopic similarity, only the Barnett.
They are similar isotopically, but very different in Nitrogen content. Dr Beak at the EPA noted that the isotonic tests were insufficient as a marker.
Further testing by Weatherford Labs proved conclusively that the small amount of gas was from the Strawn deposit NOT from Barnett.
CASE CLOSED. !
And I actually linked to Exhibit 022 before.. go and find it yourself…
It is totally immaterial and irrelevant if you accept the results in that exhibit or not.
Your puerile attempts to write it off as fossil fuel propaganda are from your addled, rabid activist, brain-washed mind.
You have presented absolutely NOTHING to counter the truth of the situation.
Useless , as well as Hopeless
@Andy:
“The EPA also DID NOT TEST the Strawn gas for isotopic similarity, only the Barnett.”
The results of the gas in the water well match to thermogenic, not biogenic gas.
Opps.
I do feel better .. I have proven mt thesis .. trained fossil fuel industry propaganda believers can not understand any facts outside the lies industry has fed them
Thanks
EID = fossil fuel industry propaganda:
Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other “tight” formations across the country.
Refute the science dummy. 😆
I have. Over and over and over. You just can’t face it:
“The test results also showed benzene levels above the EPA published maximum contamination levels. Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from the same source.”
That is clear on this page:
Even the wrong isotopes did not match. Period.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
Refute this while I burn some charcoal and eat meat. You have yet to bring anything but BIG Green propaganda from known frauds.
You are well programmed! 😆
Reposting: Read the statement of facts in this legal brief. Sounds like a witch hunt to me, Range being the witch. And if Hope thinks it’s cheaper for a company to fight a lawsuit, and counter sue than it is to settle, then she’s not very bright.
http://www.search.txcourts.gov/SearchMedia.aspx?MediaVersionID=8575e012-8876-4480-961a-83258619c5d8&coa=cossup&DT=BRIEFS&MediaID=ec356c62-5109-46a8-9ecb-b37bec5901f4
Read the documents that Range has supplied to the court, deposition testimony by Steve Lipsky and by the liar Alisa Rich. She had testimony in another case thrown out because she is a liar. Claimed she has a PhD when she has nothing of the sort. She has no experience in earth sciences, she herself is a fraud. Lipsky was asked in his deposition if he watched Gas Land, and his reply was, “I’m sorry to say, yes.”
Here’s my take. The Lipsky’s had gas in their water 4 years before Range fracked in the area. Evidence shows others in the area did too. After Range put in 2 wells near the Lipsky’s they claim their well now had gas from the fracking. Lipsky claims he called the department of health and the woman that answered the phone told him to watch Gas Land, so he did.
He then says he left a note at the Gas Land site. I am guessing they have a forum of some sort, or maybe he emailed someone involved with the mockumentary. Lipsky claims some woman there (Hope? lol) advised him on what to do next. That’s probably how he became acquainted with Alisa Rich. She performed tests of his water and air to by analyzed and she put things in motion for the EPA to become involved. Rich has a hard on (pardon my French) for Range, and that is probably the reason behind the fake video.
Maybe Lipsky began this with the hope that he could get some money out of Range, maybe he thought they would drill him a new water well, maybe both or neither, we’ll probably never know. There is some indication that Lipsky wanted his property devalued to lower his property taxes which were $50,000 a year. Can you imagine 50k? Most people don’t make that in a year.
I think once Lipsky’s attorney threatened Range with bad publicity it escalated the issue. Lipsky was placed in the position of dropping it or suing, and he decided or was persuaded, to sue. Now he was stuck in the grindingly slow wheels of justice. I think that’s why he expressed sorrow with watching Gas Land. He got caught up in a bunch of activist’s vendetta against fracking in general, and Range in particular.
I have no sympathy for him.
Read the docs I linked to, they are very interesting and enlightening. Oh, and that EPA guy that had to resign now works for The Sierra Club. No questionable relationship between activists and government, no. It’s big oil that are the crooks. You know that’s sarcasm, right?
This thread is taking so long to load for me. Can we get a Hope and Choom 2.0?
Nancy – you are citing Range’s brief .. of course it says that.
They are suing their own water contamination victims after EPA testing matched the gas.
“RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY AND RANGE RESOURCE
CORPORATION’S BRIEF ON THE MERITS”
Pure quoting of fossil fuel industry talking points.
Have you read the EPA OIG report??
“She has no experience in earth sciences, she herself is a fraud.”
Another fossil fuel industry talking point you could have easily disabused yourselve of:
“Alisa Rich PhD, MPH
Assistant Professor – SPH Environmental & Occup Hlth Professional Preparation
Doctor of Philosophy, Environmental Science, University Of Texas At Arlingt, TX
Master of Public Health, Environmental Toxicology, UNT-Health Science Center, TX
Bachelor of Science, Biology, University Of Nebraska – Omaha, NE”
That’s Dr. Rich to y’all.
https://profile.hsc.unt.edu/profilesystem/viewprofile.php?pid=100496&onlyview=1
“He then says he left a note at the Gas Land site. I am guessing they have a forum of some sort, or maybe he emailed someone involved with the mockumentary”
If I may ask .. what are you reading …
Not this clearly:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
FYI…
DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.
Look how well trained you are!!
The link led to the actual memo, covered by many outlets …
why don’t you do your own research instead of just parroting the industry’s propaganda??
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/HFUnderFire.pdf
Read the darn thing .. EID has never said it was not an original ….
“For months, IPAA’s government relations and communications teams have been working around-the-clock on a new industry-wide campaign – known as “Energy In Depth” (www.energyindepth.org) – to combat new environmental regulations, especially with regard to hydraulic fracturing. And, we’re seeing some outstanding results.”
Maybe you just can t handle the truth.
DeSmogBlog is a smear site founded by a scientifically unqualified public relations man, James Hoggan and funded by a convicted money launderer, John Lefebvre. The irony here is their favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by “dirty money”. Since it’s creation in 2006 the site has done nothing but post poorly researched propaganda with a clear intent to smear respected scientists, policy analysts or groups who dares oppose an alarmist position on global warming. Their articles frequently reference unreliable sources such as Wikipedia and Sourcewatch since they are unable to find any fact based criticisms of those they criticize in respected news sources.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-truth-about-desmogblog-and-sourchwatch
Still hanging with crooks and liars I see! 😆
Still brainwashed by fossil fuel industry talking points
(92X)
I see …
It’s an IPAA memo .. GATOR .. you are just afraid of the truth.
It’s first source material … but at least you can admit EID is founded and funded by the fossil fuel industry??
Nah .. I’m still not sure you can read it all ..
but go ahead and make an arse of your self and post the same thing that you can;t discuss 90 X.
The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor
to the Contamination
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
http://lib.law.virginia.edu/Garrett/prosecution_agreements/sites/default/files/dockets/NETeller.htm
A crook funds your source.
Although the EPA does receive oil money, I still don’t see why you disagree with their decision that Lipsky is not worth defending.
How stupid are you? 😆
How stupid is she??
EXTREMELY !!
gator69 says:
March 14, 2015 at 9:55 pm Although the EPA does receive oil money, I still don’t see why you disagree with their decision that Lipsky is not worth defending.
How stupid are you? 😆
_________________________________________
OIG review says you are are ignorant:
It states the Order was valid and correct. You can;t read it.
So why are they not suing? Because they are frauds.
“Debating alarmists on the topic of science is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.”
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor to the Contamination ”
NO. You lying, ignorant twerp.
That was a preliminary decision based on minimal information.
The EPA withdrew it because they knew they didn’t have leg to stand on.
The ONLY real finger-printing showed conclusively that the small amount of gas in Lipsync’s wells came from the Strawn , NOT for the Barnett where Range was drill.
Anything else is immaterial.
This attempted FRAUD by little gang of rabid anti-fracking misfits and liars is over. !!!
Lipsky… FRAUD
Rich.. (had to withdraw the word “engineering” off her company name, not an engineer, no PhD.. liar and a FRAUD)
You .. aiding and abetting FRAUD using faked videos.
AndyG55 says:
March 14, 2015 at 10:41 pm
“The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor to the Contamination ”
NO. You lying, ignorant twerp.
That was a preliminary decision based on minimal information.
The EPA withdrew it because they knew they didn’t have leg to stand on.
_________________________________________
No.
That’s from the EPA’s OIG report.
The Office of The Inspector general’s review of the original EPA Order.
Which the OIG upheld.
And do you think this looks like a small amount of gas?
Really? Why not actually view the link?
Do you realize it’s been like this for nearly 5 years??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxIquKcGSAI&spfreload=10
A small amount of gas.. quite normal in many areas.
Been there since well before fracking in the area.
and in Lipsync’s case, PROVEN by real chemical analysis to be from the Strawn seam ..
…… NOT the Barnett.
Just seepage from the nearby Strawn seam, probably because of water drawdown.
Your HOPELESS attempts at showing anything else, is just a load of manufactured BS.. tantamount to FRAUD.
Lipsync… FRAUD
Alsia Rich.. FRAUD
You… FRAUD.
Thanks for keeping this in everyone’s face…
.. you are doing the rabid anti-fracking activist groups like yours immeasurable damage, by showing just how deeply into FRAUD and LIES you are prepare to go… 🙂
Wow, a gas pipe with gas in it..
and a small leak of gas (identified as from the Strawn seam), in the water.
Nothing unusual in many areas., that’s why they have gas release vales etc on wells. !!
Again, your fraudulent little films mean NOTHING, they are clearly identifiable as a fabrication.
So let’s recap.
1- A court ruling stated that on the face of evidence presented (which has never bee overturned) Lipsky intentionally attempted to defraud the public and EPA.
2- Desmog is funded by a convicted criminal.
3- Even the EPA will not defend Lipsky
4- The inept ‘scientists’ who claimed that there was ‘nearly’ a match tested the wrong isotopes.
5- There has never been a case of contaminated well water from fracking (Lisa Jackson testimony for congress)
6- Hope is a liar (see above)
I’m sure I missed a few but I am on my way to a BBQ and will pummel you again later. 😆
1- A court ruling stated that on the face of evidence presented (which has never bee overturned) Lipsky intentionally attempted to defraud the public and EPA.
—————————————————-
Yes – that is the industry funded propaganda you can not be disabused of.
In reality the ANTI-Slapp aspect was ruled on:
‘The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims.”
——————————————-
2- Desmog is funded by a convicted criminal.
———————————————–
The CITE is to FIRST SOURCE leaked memo from IPAA ..as it’s first source material, I have no doubt you would be unwilling to read it – it proves you are simply forwarding fossil fuel industry propaganda
————————–
3- Even the EPA will not defend Lipsky
———————————-
The EPA OIG report completelys defend all of their actions around the EPA’s Order:
http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
————————————————
4- The inept ‘scientists’ who claimed that there was ‘nearly’ a match tested the wrong isotopes.
————————————————
Who knows where you came up with that, but the OIG report 100% refutes that. It upholds all testing.
——————————————————
5- There has never been a case of contaminated well water from fracking (Lisa Jackson testimony for congress)
————————————————————
The fossil fuel industry talking point that the TRRC is working here to protect.
Yet there have been many many cases of water contamination since the fracking boom began:
DEP: Water Wells Were Contaminated by Drilling 243 Times
http://www.politicspa.com/dep-water-wells-were-contaminated-by-drilling-243-times/60091
“n at least four states that have nurtured the nation’s energy boom, hundreds of complaints have been made about well-water contamination from oil or gas drilling, and pollution was confirmed in a number of them, according to a review that casts doubt on industry suggestions that such problems rarely happen.”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-drilling
YOU can use the industry’s protestation that the horizontal portion of the hydrofracturing stimulation process is in no way related to drilling and is the only portion of the process that should be discussed .. but .. again, you’d be making a fossil fuel industry propaganda argument 😉
—————————————————
Gator is a well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda repeater. (see above)
And you are a very UNTRAINED but rabid activist.
They really should have found someone who could make a case.
Instead they send a useless brain-washed ditz..
And you haven’t made one correct observation all day.
My sources are not funded by frauds, and you still have not refuted the science.
Go chase Bigfoot you moron.
So let’s recap.
1- A court ruling stated that on the face of evidence presented (which has never bee overturned) Lipsky intentionally attempted to defraud the public and EPA.
2- Desmog is funded by a convicted criminal.
3- Even the EPA will not defend Lipsky
4- The inept ‘scientists’ who claimed that there was ‘nearly’ a match tested the wrong isotopes.
5- There has never been a case of contaminated well water from fracking (Lisa Jackson testimony for congress)
6- Hope is a liar (see above)
I’m sure I missed a few but I am on my way to a BBQ and will pummel you again later. 😆
Reply
Proper chemical test have shown conclusively that the Lipsync gas is from Strawn not Barnett.
All of the Hopeless cabal’s attempts at fraudulent videos, and other blustering are now immaterial and irrelevant.
The EPA has backed down against this evidence, because they know their own testing was totally inadequate (admitted in court documents)
The only people left are the lying scam artists who tried to de-fraud the system..
And LOST !!
It turned out that the well wasn’t contaminated at all, but contained levels of methane typical in the area and below levels that the federal government considers a threat to health. “Area residents,” Loyola writes, “had found natural gas in their water wells years before any drilling for natural gas. Some water wells were even ‘flared’ for days after drilling, to release dangerous levels of methane. One area subdivision’s water tanks warn ‘Danger: Flammable Gas.’” This naturally occurring methane explains the starkest evidence against fracking — a handful of flaming faucets in Colorado, supposedly rendered flammable by fracking. They were the stars of Gasland, the anti-fracking film by propagandist Josh Fox, who seeks to be the Michael Moore of natural gas. The state’s oil-and-gas commission issued a careful rebuttal explaining that in the area in question “troublesome amounts of . . . methane” had been documented in the aquifer SINCE 1976.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/295188/epa-abuses-first-apologizes-later-mario-loyola
Then there is that flammable gas sign on the water tanks.
And the EPA had just lost a Supreme Court case barring them from issuing emergency orders, then begin fining without a hearing as was the case of a couple being accused of violating the Clean Water Act and wetlands by moving dirt and rock in order to build on a lot, near Priest Lake, in Idaho. They knew they would lose the Range case.
Trouble is that Hopeless’s puerile little anti-frack group is very much in league with a particular EPA official name Al Armendariz. Hope even brags about get her photo taken with her idol.
All part of the same scam !!!
EPA was forced to back out when a competent chemical study revealed that any gas in Lippy’s well was from the Strawn seam. and TRC reaffirmed that, “Range Resources’ Parker County gas wells did not contaminate groundwater.”
But Hopeless and her little band of scammers still want to have another bite at the scam because their brain-washing and baseless egos are totally able to accept the REALITY of the SCIENCE before them..
Al now works for the Sierra Club after stepping down since he admitted to trying to crucify oil companies. He was always an activist.
gofer says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:30 am
It turned out that the well wasn’t contaminated at all, but contained levels of methane typical in the area
_____________________________________
The deposition of Peck’s Drilling refutes that. Please read it.
It’s been like this for nearly 5 years .. MANY MANY people (not just me) have recorded it:
https://www.youtube.com/feed/history
can you believe what you see with your own eyes?
And yes, as I have said, con media will forward Range’s positions. Thanks for proving my point.
The EPAs OIG report refutes Nat Reviews crap reporting”
‘EPA should never have issued the order in the first place.”
BS as per OIG.
You have nothing but fraud to show.
Get over it, and get on with the rest of your meaningless life.
Yes, lets do recap.
That’s easy – mo matter what facts you are shown, all you can do is repeat fossil fuel industry talking points.
“My sources are not funded by frauds, and you still have not refuted the science.”
If you are talking about desmog – for the 7th time – the cite is a first source document from IPAA .> so for THAT reason, you could call the funding (IPAA) a fraud .. but I have no doubt you can;t face the truth of that cite ..
i t tells who and why EID is … fossil fuel industry funded propaganda.
YOU may think it clever to rep[eat your mistake … instead you simply make my point –
once you have bough the con media/fossil fuel industry’s lies .. no facts can help you.
But you have NO facts, just fraudulently manufactured LIES.
The gas is natural.
It comes from the Strawn seam.
END OF STORY !!
None of your groups lies and fabrications can change those real facts.
You continue to hide your IGNORANCE and INCOMPETENCE behind the mantra, “fossil fuel industry funded propaganda”.. because its all you have. Evasion of FACTS
You cannot and have not countered any of the facts behind your group’s scam. !!
AndyG55 says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:49 am
But you have NO facts, just fraudulently manufactured LIES.
The gas is natural.
__________________________
EPA = THERMOGENIC
How about Regurgitators Anonymous ..
You could sit around and try to think for yourselves.
Hope says “The gas is natural.”
Indeed. That’s probably why it is called natural gas.
Very ugly that this is now her life.
Trying to defend the indefensible on a site where she has gone backwards at every step.
Stupid in the extreme.. Now she has nowhere to go.
She is stuck here, because her baseless ego will not let her leave.
Good thing that someone else is paying her mortgage and food etc.
The DAMAGE she will have done to the anti-fracking lobby through her stupidity will be very large indeed.
She has totally FAILED to make any case whatsoever. Lies, and fraud are her only input.
This will not go unnoticed by SG’s many readers from both sides of the fence.
They will assume that EVERY rabid anti-frack activist is just as stupid and brain-washed.
And they will be pretty much correct.
Projection is a sad mental disorder. Hope, seek help immediately.
Hopeski has yet to refute these points…
So let’s recap.
1- A court ruling stated that on the face of evidence presented (which has never bee overturned) Lipsky intentionally attempted to defraud the public and EPA. Not a talking point, a court document.
2- Desmog is funded by a convicted criminal. Not a talking point, a court document.
3- Even the EPA will not defend Lipsky. Not a talking point, the EPA’s own words.
4- The inept ‘scientists’ who claimed that there was ‘nearly’ a match tested the wrong isotopes. Not a talking point, but actual science.
5- There has never been a case of contaminated well water from fracking (Lisa Jackson testimony for congress). Not a talking point but actual congressional record.
6- Hope is a liar (see above). Not a talking point but a verifiable fact proven on this thread.
Hope continues to lie and smear, with nothing but known frauds and liars as references..
What’s wrong Hope? Thought I logged off already/ 😆
Out of the millions of fracked wells, there has only been 3 cases of well contamination, all dismissed. Anti frackers are only out to grab the money from the ignorant public that pays them to “protect the earth.” They are carpetbaggers.
Cute .. Gator thinks if you write lies in BOLD they are true!
Refer to my reply .. you regurgitation you … 🙂
gofer says:
March 15, 2015 at 1:53 am
Out of the millions of fracked wells, there has only been 3 cases of well contamination, all dismissed.
______________________________
Read often?
DEP: Water Wells Were Contaminated by Drilling 243 Times
http://www.politicspa.com/dep-water-wells-were-contaminated-by-drilling-243-times/60091
“In at least four states that have nurtured the nation’s energy boom, hundreds of complaints have been made about well-water contamination from oil or gas drilling, and pollution was confirmed in a number of them, according to a review that casts doubt on industry suggestions that such problems rarely happen.”
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/some-states-confirm-water-pollution-drilling
If you want to use the industry’s propaganda and claim that the only contamination that counts is that which can be directly proven came from the horizontal only during the stimulation process . than you can flip off all the cases .. but the people had their water ruined from drilling related practices … I call it the fracking BOOM.
DO you deny these cases occurred?
“1- A court ruling stated that on the face of evidence presented (which has never bee overturned) Lipsky intentionally attempted to defraud the public and EPA. Not a talking point, a court document”
Except the prima facia evidence was over turned .. you’ve never read the writ of mandamus .. GATOR:
“the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
But these are ALL PROCEDURE .. the CASE itself has never been heard:
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed”
Do you know the difference between “proceed” and “heard”???
Nah.
EPA CASES, not all claims. Pavilion, Wy, Dimrock, Pa, and Parker Cty, Tx. and gas contamination, not fluids, which none were ever found according to testimony by Lisa Jackson.
No one takes that kind of bombastic hyperbole serious … outside this blog.
And nobody outside your little group of activists takes you seriously.
You are being LAUGHED at for your utter incompetence and ignorance. 🙂
You are a hopeless joke. !! You are so hopeless you don’t even realise it.
But that is what your life is destined to be. 🙂
Andy, you might look into Bombast Anonymous
…. they have a support group for people who get off on 6th grade mockery.
6th grade?
Seems I’m aiming way to high for you then.
Did you ever even get to 6th grade?
Please go and get some REALITY into your sad, sad life. !
Stop trying to get above what you are ever going to be capable of.
Find a way to release your moronic brain-washed stupidity.
You are being LAUGHED at !! 🙂
In response to Hope’s reply to me up above. Depositions are sworn testimony, to be used in court, and Range has the better evidence. As someone that has been a juror, and a defendant, and a witness, I think I understand how the law works.
Deposition of Steve Lipsky as entered into evidence:
Q-How did you come about hiring Alisa Rich at Wolf Eagle Environmental?
A-Called back to the Health Department. The woman there told me to watch gas land, watch gas land, and then someone referred me to her and others.
Q-And who was this woman at the Health Department?
A-I have no idea. Whoever answered the phone at the Health Department.
(Clarification on which health department)
Q-When you say she told you to watch gas land, what is “gas land”?
A-A documentary footage about problems with water wells that could light a fire.
Q-Did you watch gas land?
A-I’m sorry to say, yes.
Q-Sir?
A-Yes, I did.
Q-After watching gas land, what did you do?
A-Called everybody I could think of to try to find out what was wrong.
Q-And do you recall who gave you the name of Alisa Rich, or Wolf Eagle Environment?
A-No, I can’t remember their name.
Q-Do you remember it was a woman that referred you to her?
A-It was a woman, yeah, but I can’t remember her name. I haven’t talked to her for a long time.
Q-What context did you know her?
A-I didn’t. She–I–contacted me, again, I think through the website “gas land,” because I made a note on there. And I got referrals of numbers for EPA, railroad department; I mean everywhere. TCEQ, I mean, just attorneys, this, that. I mean, anything and everybody. Testing facility, people that do it. It was a whole list of names. And I just basically used that list and started calling.
Continued in next post…
Deposition of Alisa Rich entered into evidence:
Q-Was that part of your coursework at the University of Nebraska?
A-No sir. That was a job.
Q-And what job was that?
A-I was the assistant to the director–excuse me–the department chair of dermatology.
Q-Was that a part-time job?
A-No, sir. No, sir. That was a full-time job.
Q-Did you work on any environmental issues as assistant to the department of dermatology at the University of Nebraska at Omaha?
A-We worked on cases of environmental exposure, as well as genetic exposure.
Q-When you say we worked on cases of environmental exposure–
A-Uh huh.
Q-What are you talking about?
A-Oh, the–Dr.–Dr. Bradford, who would be the lead on that, would deliver me patient records or would ask me to obtain patient records and investigate cases if there was an unusual case that was valuable in writing manuscripts. And then we published the manuscripts.
Q-Did you publish any manuscripts with this Dr. Bradford?
A-Yes, sir, I did.
Q-And are you an author of any papers with Dr. Bradford?
A-Yes, sir.
Q-And what are those papers?
A-Those are very difficult. It’s been a long time.
One was investigating infantile cystic acne, and the other one was a manuscript on the lymphocyte of Jessner’s, which is a disease. And both of those, I–that is not the exact title of them. I do have them in my CV, and I believe you have a copy of that already.
Q-Do either one of those papers have anything to do with environmental issues?
A-I would have to review the lymphocyte of Jessner’s. I’m not sure on that one.
The cystic–infantile cystic acne is a genetically oriented disease, so that would be no.
Q-Other than working for the assistant to the department of dermatology and the two projects you’ve told me about at the University of North Texas, did you ever work on any other projects prior–environmental projects prior to forming Wolf Eagle–
A-Uh huh.
Q—in 2004?
A-Not that I recall.
Q-Ms. Rich, you do not have a PhD in any field of study, is that correct?
A-No, sir. Not yet.
Q-I’ll show you what I’ve marked as Exhibit 3 to your deposition.
A-Yes, sir.
Q-Have you seen this transcript before regarding statements you made to the Town of Flower Mound Oil & Gas Board of Appeals in March of 2008?
A-Yes. In our last deposition together you presented this to me.
Q-If you’ll look over on the third page of Exhibit 3, which is the twenty-sixth page of the transcript, do you see up at the top it says: Board Member Rich, and it says, My name is Alisa Rich, there?
Q-Yes, sir.
Q-And then if we move on down the page, beginning at Line 13 it says: I have a PhD. in air pollution control design.
A-Uh huh.
Q-Do you see that?
A-I do, sir.
Q-And that just was not a true statement at the time you made that, was it?
A-That was a misstatement that I made at the time, and I have recanted that statement since then, yes, sir. I do not recall stating that, although I have a transcript in front of me that says I stated it; so I must accept that I did state that in a public meeting, yes.
Q-And if we move on down, it says–after you said, I have a PhD. in air pollution control design, you further stated: If that does not satisfy you, I don’t know what possibly could?
A-That’s correct.
Q-Was that a misstatement as well?
A-No, I don’t believe that part was a misstatement at all. We were at an oil and gas board meeting which individuals challenged the fact that many of us should be sitting on the board, based on the fact that we had absolutely no education in oil and gas. So, no, sir, I believe that that was a very honest statement. Not the part about the PhD. that was a misstatement that I’ve mentioned several times, in fact publicly in a news article, stated that if I stated that, that was a misstatement. There’s no question, sir.
Q-Moving on down, on Line 15 of the transcript, it says: I’m a specialist in the oil and gas. Do you see that?
A-That’s correct.
Q-But you’ve never worked for any oil and gas company, have you?
A-I’ve never been asked to work for any oil and gas company, no, sir.
Q-You’ve never provided any consulting services for any oil and gas company, have you?
A-I have never been asked to work for any oil and gas company, no, sir.
Q-You go on to say: I am not only a specialist, I’m a consultant to oil and gas to provide the most possibly environmentally sensitive, environmentally supportive industry technology that gives the rights to the landowner, but at the same time, protects human environments as well as environmental–as well as animal environments?
A-Correct.
Q-You represented to the Flower Mound Oil and Gas Board of Appeals that you were a consultant to the oil and gas industry, didn’t you?
A-No, sir. That’s not what I said.
Q-You said that I am a consultant to oil and gas?
A-That’s correct. Many of my mineral–many of my–many of my clients are actually in the business, and they are mineral-right owners; and they actually asked me to work with them on their oil and gas projects.
I did not state that I am a consultant to the oil and gas industry, although I could very well be a consultant to the oil and gas industry if they would like to hire me. But they have never asked to hire me.
Q-Did you say that you are–that many of your clients work in the oil and gas industry?
A-They own mineral rights, and they own and work in the industry, yes.
Q-Can you identify any of those clients that own mineral rights and also work in the oil and gas industry?
A-There have been several along the way, yes, sir. One specifically, Mr. Steven Brock, I believe his first name is Charles. He works in the industry.
Q-Where does he live?
A-He lives in Montague–I’m sorry–Montague County.
Q-Do you know what oil and gas company he works for?
A-No, sir, I do not.
Q-Can you identify anyone else that you say–
A-Uh huh.
Q—is an individual who has worked in the oil and gas industry?
A-Mr. Robert Browder. And I believe he worked with–I can’t–I don’t know exactly right off the top of my head. He currently is in business as a mineral-right owner with Danbury, who has now sold to somebody else, and Crosstex, who may have sold as well. They change very quickly. So in the last–since January of 2011, some change has occurred on one or both of those companies. And I believe he was a linesman for one of the energy companies.
Q-Do you know what Mr. Brock did in connection with any energy company?
A-Mr. Brock is a–he works at one of the plants. And I’m not sure I would call him a plant manager, but he works at one of the–the plants.
Q-What type of plant?
A-It’s natural gas. I don’t know if it’s a processing center. That’s–I’m not exactly sure what he does there. Or what his title is there.
Q-You weren’t giving Mr. Brock any advice about the oil and gas industry, were you?
A-No, sir.
Q-You weren’t giving Mr. Browder and advice about the oil and gas industry, were you?
A-The industry per se?
Q-Right.
A-No. Just the issues related to their specific issue, environmental issue.
Q-And just to be clear: You’ve never–you’ve never been a consultant to any oil and gas company in connection with anything to do with the environment?
A-No oil and gas company has ever called my firm to employ us. Although we are and always have been available as a consultant to them if they choose to do so.
Q-Reading on down in the transcript, on the third page of Exhibit 3, the last sentence there in that same paragraph, you state: I have a doctorate in air pollution.
A-Uh huh.
Q-Do you see that?
A-I do see that.
Q-Was that also a misstatement?
A-Again that was done in about less than 30 seconds. The beginning of Line 13 to 21 takes less than 22 seconds to–for me to read. So I imagine it takes even less for me to actually state. Again I have stated that that has been a misstatement without a question. I have recanted those statements many times, including publicly in a news article. So we made sure that we–I was aware of the article and that it was a misstatement. And I believe I apologized for that misstatement as well. However, at the time I was in my doctorate, as I am now in my doctorate program. And I had completed all my doctorate classes, I believe, at that time as well.
Q-But as you sit here today, you still do not have a doctorate from any institution, correct?
A-I am one month from completing my doctorate. I am through two of the three exams for my doctorate. But as of right now, I do not have a doctorate, that is correct.
Q-These statements in Exhibit 3 were made in March of 2008, almost three years ago–
A-A long time ago–
Q—correct?
A—yes, sir.
Q-Let’s talk a little bit about this Wolf Eagle entity that you created. As you’ve indicated, when you first formed the company, you called it Wolf Eagle Engineers and Consultants, LLC, correct?
A-Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers and Consultants, LLC.
Q-You are not an engineer, are you?
A-No, sir, I am not.
Q-You’ve never been an engineer?
A-No, sir.
Q-You hold no licenses from the State of Texas or any other state as an engineer, correct?
A-That is–that is correct, yes, sir.
Q-You’re not a geologist?
A-No, sir.
Q-You’re not a geophysicist?
A-No, I would not consider myself a geophysicist.
Q-You’re not a petroleum engineer?
A-I am not a petroleum engineer, no.
Q-You’re not a medical doctor?
A-Oh, no, sir.
Q-You’re not a toxicologist?
A-No, sir. Although we deal a lot in toxicology, but I am not a toxicologist.
Q-You’re not a hydrogeologist?
A-No, no. I am not a hydrogeologist technically. We deal a lot in hydrology, just lime we deal a lot in geology; but I would not call myself a hydrogeologist.
Q-The Texas Board of Professional Engineers required that you remove the word “engineering” from your company name, didn’t they?
A-No, sir, they did not.
Q-Did you voluntarily remove the name “engineering” from your company?
A-Yes, sir, I did.
Q-And you voluntarily removed it after having been contacted by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers–
A-Uh huh, uh huh.
Q—raising questions and concerns about you using that name in your company name, correct?
A-They had requested–they had asked if we were intending to continue to use the word “engineer” in our name, and if so, if we would comply with their–ordinances? Regulations?
Q-Let me show you what I’ve marked as Exhibit 4–
A-Sure.
Q—to your deposition.
A-Uh huh.
Q-Is this a true and correct copy of a document that you received from the Texas Board of Professional Engineers in October of 2009?
A-I believe it’s the cover letter, yes.
Q-And it’s addressed to your company as it was named at the time, Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers and Consultants?
A-That’s correct.
Q-And the second paragraph of the letter from the Texas Board of Professional Engineers states that: Section 1001.405 of the Texas Engineering Practice Act stipulates that business entities are prohibited from engaging–
A-Uh huh.
Q—in the practice of professional engineering in this state unless the entity is registered by the Texas Board of Professional Engineers. Board Rules 135.1, 135.3, 135.5, so forth and so on, provide information on the initial registration, the annual renewal, and firm compliance requirements. Do you see that?
A-Yes, sir.
That’s all their was. The next document is a copy of a letter signed by a judge excluding Alisa Rich as an expert witness in a case involving Scott and Rebecca Law against Range Resources.
Alisa Rich is a liar. She may now have a doctorate, but she didn’t when she gave sworn testimony in two lawsuits even though she previously presented herself as such.
Hope, you may be able to fool low intelligence people at some sites, but that isn’t us. And fooling a court isn’t an easy thing to do, I have every reason to believe the evidence Range supplied. So Hope, fnck off. The only trained lapdog here is you.
Uh, typo. Lime should be like.
“I have every reason to believe the evidence Range supplied”
Well said.
Since you have reviewed the EPA’s OIG report, the testing of Duke, and the results of these findings: http://www.pnas.org/content/111/39/14076.abstract
.. right? YOU have reviewed all the scientific data in this case .. right?
YOu read Pecks deposition, stating the methane was not in the water when they drilled it?
Did you read about Richter or Scott the Fire Marshall?
WHO was the first person to set the gas in this water on fire?
Who attached the fitting for the garden hose?
What date did Steve first contact the EPA?
What date does Range say Alisa sent Steve an email encouraging him to call the EPA?
How many news outlets did Steve send that original video to?
Since you are not a “low intelligence person” you would h=not have sided with Range without thorough research … right?
And so you are sure that Range is justified in cooking up these conspiracy charges and suing their own water contamination victim.
Since Range ruined the home’s water well – rendering the home sans water source, Range is entitled to $3 million on top of the other losses -including Steve’s cost to ship in water to his family every month??
YOU have every reason to believe that .. and I could guess at what those reasons are.
… may I start by asking – did you cut and paste this comment from the depositions themselves? Did you redo all the formatting yourself? Dedicated .. or did you find the citation elsewhere?
—————————————————————————————
Calling Alisa Rich a liar/fraud is a popular fossil fuel industry talking point. She was starting an environmental testing company when the fracking boom hit Texas around 2005. Industry worked hard to destroyer her, as they do with anyone who doesn’t fellate them.
__________________________________________
“Q-And then if we move on down the page, beginning at Line 13 it says: I have a PhD. in air pollution control design.
A-Uh huh.
Q-Do you see that?
A-I do, sir.
Q-And that just was not a true statement at the time you made that, was it?
A-That was a misstatement that I made at the time, and I have recanted that statement since then, yes, sir. I do not recall stating that, although I have a transcript in front of me that says I stated it; so I must accept that I did state that in a public meeting, yes.
Q-And if we move on down, it says–after you said, I have a PhD. in air pollution control design, you further stated: If that does not satisfy you, I don’t know what possibly could?
A-That’s correct.
Q-Was that a misstatement as well?
A-No, I don’t believe that part was a misstatement at all. We were at an oil and gas board meeting which individuals challenged the fact that many of us should be sitting on the board, based on the fact that we had absolutely no education in oil and gas. So, no, sir, I believe that that was a very honest statement. Not the part about the PhD. that was a misstatement that I’ve mentioned several times, in fact publicly in a news article, stated that if I stated that, that was a misstatement. There’s no question, sir.”
The Phd accusation:
In a public meeting, in which she was accused of having no education in oil and gas, Alisa misstated her credentials – and posted a recant in a public news article.
She never claimed to be an engineer, but had “Engineers” in the title of her company, as had an engineer on staff when she employed an engineer. .And yes, Range has her removed as an expert witness. That’s not a surprise.
What IS a surprise to me is the length all of you will go to to prove the fossil fuel industry’s talking points … but how little research you will do on the actual case.
If you really think Alisa is a fraud – you must not understand the hiring practices of an institution like U of T.
https://profile.hsc.unt.edu/profilesystem/viewprofile.php?pid=100496&onlyview=1
“I only stated that a judge had deemed the video of the flaming water a fraud, which is a fact backed up by documentation”
Yes .. but that is the trouble .. it is impossible to help any of you see that is untrue.
The judge found there was enough evidence to proceed .. that’s why I posted the citation .. it was a ruling on the ANTI-SLPP aspect of the case …
Loftin did not hear the case and find for Range …
… he found there was enough evidence supplied by Range to allow the case to proceed.
Can you see that?
“After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed, the Second District Court of Appeals in Fort Worth ordered that court to set aside all charges except the defamation and disparagement allegations against Steve Lipsky. The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him. Now, the Texas Supreme Court will weigh in, with oral arguments scheduled for Dec. 4. First Amendment lawyers, who say lower courts have inconsistently applied the law, will watch closely.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/us/highest-court-to-weigh-in-on-a-dispute-over-water.html?_r=0
“”After a lower court allowed Range’s lawsuit to proceed,”
This was Loftin’s ruling on the prima facia .. please look into it. Later these charges were overturned.. so if y’all want to go with a court ruling why not use the ruling in the writ of mandamus?
‘The court said Range provided no clear evidence that the others had conspired with him.”
Have you read that finding?
The case has never been heard. I’m sure you can see that.
From your NYT link…
We deny the remainder of the relief sought by Steven Lipsky, thereby leaving pending Range’s claims for defamation and business disparagement against him
Now who is quoting procedures! 😆
The higher court saw fit to allow Range to proceed against Lipsky, who admitted he followed the advice of Rich, who admitted under oath that she repeatedly lied.
Nice heroes! 😆
So let’s recap.
1- A court ruling stated that on the face of evidence presented (which has now been allowed to proceed) Lipsky intentionally attempted to defraud the public and EPA. Not a talking point, a court document.
2- Desmog is funded by a convicted criminal. Not a talking point, a court document.
3- Even the EPA will not defend Lipsky. Not a talking point, the EPA’s own words.
4- The inept ‘scientists’ who claimed that there was ‘nearly’ a match tested the wrong isotopes. Not a talking point, but actual science.
5- There has never been a case of contaminated well water from fracking (Lisa Jackson testimony for congress). Not a talking point but actual congressional record.
6- Lisa Rich admitted under oath that she lied. Not a talking point, but a matter of court record.
7- Hope is a liar (see above). Not a talking point but a verifiable fact proven on this thread.
Hope continues to lie and smear, with nothing but known frauds and liars as references.
I have read all of the depositions.
If you have an admitted understand of legal proceeding, you should be able to tell us what this means:
Can you?
“The court, having reviewed the law and evidence as well as motions, briefs and arguments of the counsel of this case denies plaintiffs section 27 Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss Range’s counter claims.”
Does that say the case was heard and found for Range?
Or does it say the motion to dismiss was denied?
Were you trying to make a certain point with this post?
You asked what I was reading. Even after I posted a link to what I was reading. I never said the lawsuit was over on either side. I only stated that a judge had deemed the video of the flaming water a fraud, which is a fact backed up by documentation. I said Alisa Rich was a liar, backed up by her own testimony. I said Lipsky got advice from the Gas Land site, backed up by his own testimony. The EPA backed off because they have nothing, money is no object for a government department, so you lied about that.
I don’t know why you want to hold a public trial on this case because what any of us thinks doesn’t matter. It only matters what a jury thinks. Personally, I hope the Lipsky’s lose their house, and I hope they go after those that gave them such bad advice as to create a fraudulent video. They wouldn’t want me on the jury.
From the legal brief:
In 2005 (four years before Range drilled the gas wells at issue), a water well drilled in Silverado, approximately 800 feet from the Lipskys’ water well, contained so much natural gas that it forced water out of the well without any pump, and also flared gas, as shown below:7
http://s5.postimg.org/va0079npz/image.jpg
7 Mr. Lipsky was aware in 2005 that this water well had gas in it because he testified he saw the gas fumes.
Yep, naturally occurring gas.
If Lipsky hadn’t tried on the Big Con, he and his group of witless gullibles wouldn’t be wasting their meaningless lives trying to defend him.
But he let himself be talked into being greedy and to commit fraud to try to blame Range.
Silly, silly boy.. !! He deserves what he gets for letting the anti-frack activists persuade him.
And his followers are even sillier……. As we are all witnessing.
You are again simply forwarding Range’s talking points.
Again, please review the deposition from Mr Peck who drilled the well, there was no methane in the well from 2005 – 2010.
In 2010 so much methane hit the well the well pump seized and no longer could operate.
The well had been used for 5 years before that.
And please remember – the EPA also found benzene.
again, I study fossil fuel industry polemics .. and I am seeing if any manner of fact can help a person see the facts after they have believed fossil fuel industry propaganda.
Hope says “I am seeing if any manner of fact can help a person see the facts after they have believed fossil fuel industry propaganda.”
Absolutely, and those facts, or the closest thing any of us here are going to get to facts, is found in the legal documents. Once I saw those facts I made my decision. Apart from that, it’s a case of he-said-she-said. So, I go with the filings and the he-said-she-said is basically a waste of time.
AndyG55 says:
March 15, 2015 at 2:19 am
Yep, naturally occurring gas.
____________________________
AGAIN, Andy – the EPA proved the gas was thermogenic in Steve’s case ..not biogenic.
You Hopeless fool. , you have no hiding place.. you are looking so desperate
Proper chemical studies show that the gas is from the Strawn seam.
GAME OVER….. You have NOTHING !!!
You cannot hide behind your childish, dim-witted, brain-washed, anti fossil fuel meme any more.
I repeat.. GAME OVER.
SET and MATCH.
Please leave the pavilion and stop being a SORE LOSER.
It belittles you even more than you have already managed, and that’s saying something.!!
Andy .. maybe you should form a new support group:
“Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Believers Anonymous.
Y’all could sit around and admit to yourselves that you no longer have full ownership of your minds.
Hope says “Fossil Fuel Industry Propaganda Believers Anonymous.”
Well, start with whoever here is anonymous. 🙂
Someone has the try to counter the rabid anti-life fraud that you and your lot are fabricating. !
They surely used a high-pressure hose when they brain-washed you.. left nothing behind. !!
“stevengoddard says:
March 14, 2015 at 4:39 am
That isn’t fracking chemicals. It is natural gas in the water table. He could put a well head on it and make a ton of money selling it.”
____________________________________________________________________
I hope STEVE/Tony will be able to admit finally that he is a well trained fossil fuel industry propaganda repeater – as are all of his followers here .. this is a good place to look for proof:
Range Resources says the water is naturally occurring (” It is natural gas in the water table) …
The fossil fuel industry as a whole claims there has never been one case of water contamination from fracking … all cases are naturally occurring.
If ANY of you have the bravery to watch this short – you will see that though the fossil fuel industry talking point that gas is naturally occurring is crap, you can not be disabused of that propaganda:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Hope says “Range Resources says the water is naturally occurring”
I’ve noticed that too, naturally occurring water. It is a bit scarce in some places, too much in others. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, just right!
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Science denier! 😆
It’s science GATOR – Science performed in front of your face – measuring the methane .. but you wouldn’t know that – you posted your fossil fuel talking points before you even viewed the facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
As trained.
It is a story, told by journalists, with zero scientific background. Are you as stupid as you pretend? 😆
Meanwhile, here are experts sworn to tell the truth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
But please do keep blaeting on about a news story, it helps your paid cause so much. 😆
I hope anyone else stopping by down here will give some thought to the facts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Then why do you keep posting Big Green industry propaganda?
We prefer statements by authorities under oath.
Was that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Keep stamping your feet though!
It is science, Gator – it is the findings of many many scientific studies of Steve’s well .. but no doubt you prefer the fossil fuel industry’s talking points .. as I have always stated .. and you now prove correct:
If you had any integrity you would at least view the material you call a lie .. or do they have you so well trained you don;t even review the facts anymore??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Many well produce gas, gees they even build them with a gas release pipe..
The FRAUD behind the Lipsync group is that they are trying to blame natural seepage from the Strawn seams on Range, to stop them drilling in a different seam. And you are now very much part of the FRAUD !!
It has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that the gas in Lipsync’s well is from Strawn, not from the seam that RANGE is drilling..
But science was never your strong suit was it Hopeless.. just FRAUD and rabid brainless advocacy. Its all you have , Its all you are. Thus is your meaningless life.
And despite your hatred on fossil fuels you are still TOTALLY ADDICTED and TOTALLY RELIANT on them for all of your miserable lying existence.
“The FRAUD behind the Lipsync group is that they are trying to blame natural seepage from the Strawn seams on Range,”
Did you watch the clip?
The chemical signature matched the Barnett (not the strawn) two scientists explain that to you in the film…
… do you just need help with the science .. or are you proving no manner of fact can disabuse you of the industry’s talking points?
“It has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that the gas in Lipsync’s well is from Strawn,”
That is utter hooey – the chemical fingerprint is shown to you in the film ..
it matches the Barnett –
… you didn’t have the bravery to watch it … did you .. admit it …
Quit lying.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
In depth info, including actual well tests, should put an end to it ……but won’t.
http://energyindepth.org/texas/texas-fracking-contamination-report-embarrassing-media-blunder/
The average nitrogen reading for the water wells was 51.99 percent. Samples of Barnett gas production data (p. 17), however, have an average of only 1.92 percent. (Not even close).
This is consistent with the Weatherford Labs report from 2011 that proved the gas was not coming from the Barnett Shale, but rather the shallower formations from which Range Resources was not producing:
“The natural gas component of the most recent Lipsky well headspace gas samples contains higher N2 [nitrogen] than is encountered in Barnett gas.”
The Weatherford analysis also observed that “high N2/low CO2 samples are characteristic of gases produced from Pennsylvanian reservoirs,” referring to rock strata far shallower than the Barnett Shale.
“Hydraulic fracturing was performed in the Barnett shale which occurs at approximately 5,700 feet below ground surface.”“The base of the aquifer and the Barnett shale are separated by approximately 5,300 feet of geological strata. Seismic reflection data submitted by Range Resources to the RRC do not show the presence of faults above the Barnett Shale beneath the neighborhood.”
Water wells have been punctured through the aquifer into the Strawn showing the shallowness. The Barnett is over a mile deep with no geological communication pathways to the aquifer. Here is where logic should be applied. What would be the likely source? Then there is the “Warning, Flaming Gas” on the water tank.
The Hopeless Slave of the Elite must be getting paid for either her comments or for the views of her Propaganda vid. Either that or she is a masochist.
Gail – by refusing to look at the truth … and simply repeating fossil fuel industry propaganda .. what do you prove?
You are well trained. You can’t face the truth.
You should think about that. And how you are complicit in this families suffering:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Many wells produce gas, gees they even build them with a gas release pipe.
The FRAUD behind the Lipsync group is that they are trying to blame natural seepage from the Strawn seams on Range, to stop them drilling in a different seam. And you are now very much part of the FRAUD !!
It has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that the gas in Lipsync’s well is from Strawn, not from the seam that RANGE is drilling.. Where is that in your propaganda video.
A LIE of omission is still a LIE.
But science was never your strong suit was it Hopeless.. just FRAUD and rabid brainless LYING advocacy. Its all you have , Its all you are. Thus is your meaningless life.
And despite your hatred on fossil fuels you are still TOTALLY ADDICTED and TOTALLY RELIANT on them for all of your miserable lying existence.
“The FRAUD behind the Lipsync group is that they are trying to blame natural seepage from the Strawn seams on Range,”
Did you watch the clip?
The chemical signature matched the Barnett (not the strawn) two scientists explain that to you in the film…
… do you just need help with the science .. or are you proving no manner of fact can disabuse you of the industry’s talking points?
“It has been SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN that the gas in Lipsync’s well is from Strawn,”
That is utter hooey – the chemical fingerprint is shown to you in the film ..
it matches the Barnett –
… you didn’t have the bravery to watch it … did you .. admit it …
How many f-ing times must I show you are a lying POS?
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Refute the science or STFU liar. 😆
Hopeless is so SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT that she doesn’t know the difference between a simple low level isotropic test which badly conducted by the EPA, and a full chemical analysis.
ALL gas wells in the area hav gas release pipes, and guess what.. when you attach a hose to it, and light it, you get a flame as you relase it.
But the FULL CHEMICAL ANAYLSIS shows conclusively that the gas in Lipsync’s well is from Strawn, Not from Barnett. The EPA was FORCED to back-down because of this study.
Case CLOSED..
Little game of FRAUD…. OVER !!!
There was a short write-up by American Bar Association. Since lawyers make money no matter who wins, they have no axe to grind and do not favor one side over the other.
———————–
Lipsky v. Range Resources Corp., CV11-0798 (Dist. Ct., Parker County, Tex., Jun. 20, 2010)
In this very contentious case, husband and wife property owners brought suit against a
natural gas drilling company after discovering a large amount of methane gas in their water well.
The Lipskys had drilled the water well in 2005 to provide water to their home and property. In
2009, Range drilled two natural gas wells near the Lipskys’ property. According to the plaintiffs,
they then began to notice problems with their water well. The plaintiffs alleged that defendants’
Barnett Shale gas extraction activities very near to their residence had contaminated their well.
Lipsky created a video of flames flaring from the end of a garden hose that he had connected to
his well, claiming that the methane in the well was caused by defendants’ fracking operations.
When it was discovered that Lipsky had connected the garden hose directly to the water well’s
gas vent, Defendants filed a counterclaim for defamation.
Lipsky also sought to entreat EPA’s involvement, and in December 2010, six months
after the Lipskys filed suit, EPA issued an emergency order against Range, finding that
hydrocarbons from Defendants’ operations may have caused or contributed to the contamination
of the well which could be hazardous to the Lipskys’ health. EPA’s order required Range
immediately to provide potable water to the Lipskys, to install meters to detect for explosive gas
at their property, and to take many actions to investigate and halt leaks from the Barnett Shale
wells. The RRC also investigated the contamination of the Lipskys’ well. After holding a
hearing and taking testimony of several witnesses in January 2011, the RRC issued a unanimous
decision in March 2011 that Range’s operations were not responsible for the contamination in the
Lipskys’ water.
10
The RRC found that water wells in the area had contained methane gas for many years, which came from a formation thousands of feet above the Barnett Shale formation.
The RRC concluded that hydraulic fracturing of the Barnett Shale had not caused any
communication with the aquifer.11
The Lipskys declined to participate in the hearing.
Because the RRC had determined that defendants’ gas wells were not the cause of the
water well contamination, the trial court subsequently ruled that plaintiffs lacked legal standing to
sue. Any challenge to the RRC ruling had to be filed in Travis County, the proper venue for
challenging RRC orders. By this time, however, the statute of limitations had expired on
challenging the RRC’s order. Consequently, the trial court’s order had the effect of dismissing
the plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants. The case continued against the plaintiffs, and
plaintiffs’ environmental consultant, on Range’s counterclaims of defamation, business
disparagement, and conspiracy under the Texas anti-SLAAP Act. Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss
the anti-SLAAP counterclaim was denied, and they appealed. The Second Court of Appeals
determined that it had no jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal but could determine the case
by accepting the appeal as a request to seek mandamus relief.12
The appellate court thereafter
ordered the trial court to dismiss all claims against Lipsky’s wife and the consultant, to dismiss
two claims against Lipsky for civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting, and left pending Range’s
claims for defamation and business disparagement against Lipsky.13
—————————————————-
You can read the document with footnotes at …
http://www.jgdpc.com/Hydraulic-Fracking-Litigation-Survey-Paper-for-ABA-SEER-Section-Fall-Meeting-2013.pdf
The above excerpt is on pages 4-5
Then a pretty good filing that should give more details than any would care to know …
http://www.scribd.com/doc/60284845/Lipsky-vs-Range-2011#scribd
So the Lipskys had their court case and for a multitude of reasons basically lost. In the USA anyone can sue anyone for anything (except our own government where we need the govs permission to sue them) and there would be nothing stopping Lipsky from bringing another suit, if it weren’t for the pesky fact that there is no way he could ever win, so it would be a colossal waste of money and other peoples time. All that is pending is the defamation counter-suit against Lipsky.
But trying to talk science with the un-named one is like trying to play chess with the unruly pigeon.
Didn’t she say she worked for a nonprofit? Hope has said…
I am a AK Productions producer…
I took this film myself…
And what did you think of my video of the level of methane coming from this well?
I filmed the water well twice.
Sounds like someone who has an investment to me.
And she calls us paid shills. Pure projection.
I love how you spend your time trying to apply some negative image of me .. why not just review the material?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
(I am starting a non-profit production company, very small now)
I have already refuted your ignorant claims but you do not have two brain cells to rub together to realize it.
Your own posts admit there is not an isotope match, even when Thyne tried his best by using incorrect isotopes. Then I showed that when proper isotopes are used it becomes even more evident that the gas in Lipsky’s well is not from Range’s fracking.
You are the biggest liar I have ever had the displeasure of confronting. Go fuck yourself.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Find a new hobby, you really suck at this, and the EPA agrees with me.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
It amazes me how easily these type of people are radicalized into spreading fear in the face of established facts. We are cold and hungry and want the earth to warm. City folks only imagine what climate is. I work outside and live in the climate. Its getting colder people.
It amazes me how easily these type of people are radicalized into spreading fossil fuel industry propaganda in the face of established science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Same old Biog Green propaganda, over and over. What a moron.
“Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.”
I hope Lipsky thinks he has got his money’s worth.. lol
I bet he wishes he had hired someone with some basic competence instead, rather than his puppet shill / occasional.
What a pointless little LYING PROPAGANDA film.
Its so obviously a put up, that I’m surprised even you dare to post it.
Of course, with your total reliance on, and addiction to, FOSSIL FUELS, I can understand why you would post such a poor quality propaganda film.
You are certainly NOT helping the Lipsky’s cause by doing so. Perhaps that is your aim.
The damage you have done to his cause must be quite alarming to him.
Ask him next time you nip over for dinner then breakfast.
Now I understand you guys will take the side of Range, whose test show zero methane as you watch the 4 foot flame from the water well.
I’m guessing you think all 30 victims are all lying and colluding – with the TRRC (whose testing shows a chemical match) Duke, Stacy Systems and EPA ..
So your PhD tells you all these people are faking this contamination…
thanks for the verification of your mindset.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jA0Kfh8GB2c
No, we take the side of truth, and the folks in these three videos were sworn to tell the truth, unlike a news channel whose motto is ‘If it bleeds, it leads”,
Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Dumbass Gator cannot tell the difference between science and fossil fuel propaganda propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Maybe he will be brave enough to handle the truth someday.
Science trumps sworn testimony Tool.
I have already refuted your ignorant claims but you do not have two brain cells to rub together to realize it.
Your own posts admit there is not an isotope match, even when Thyne tried his best by using incorrect isotopes. Then I showed that when proper isotopes are used it becomes even more evident that the gas in Lipsky’s well is not from Range’s fracking.
You are the biggest liar I have ever had the displeasure of confronting. Go fuck yourself.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Find a new hobby, you really suck at this, and the EPA agrees with me.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
gator69 says:
March 18, 2015 at 7:58 pm
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
_____________________________________________
I LOVE your reply!!! FABULOUS.
You posted it 2 minutes after mine .. proving you did not review the material .. you post INHOFE who claims the Bible proves climate change is a hoax ..
… and you miss all of the science.
AND YES, GATOR – there IS congressional testimony in the short – not doubt you haven’t the balls to actually watch it.
But, clearly, Gator – you can’t care about the science – the perfect chemical match between the gas in Steve’s water + Range production gas ..
you are only here to forward fossil fuel industry talking points as trained ..exactly as I have said.
Perfect. Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Still shillin’ for Big Green with the same piece of propaganda over and over, and then accusing me of being repetitive and a shill. 😆
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
GATOR:
All you can do is spam fossil fuel industry talking points ..
I love how I can prove you can’t handle the truth:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
You and your fellow fanatics don’t know how to properly attack the fossil fuel industry. Simply stop using anything powered by and made with fossil fuels.
If all your fellow fanatics did this then you could bring them to their knees. As with any business, when the customers leave then there is nothing to be gained by continuing.
Get together with your local herd and talk about how you can really put the hurt to those fossil fuel meanies.
A suggestion: Start a commune. Since you will no longer be living on the grid you must band together for many of the mundane tasks that fossil fuels do for you today. Hunting, farming, shelters and clothes making will be easier if done by a large group. Plus at night you can huddle together for warmth.
Remember, no wood fires either.
GATOR you prove you are not trained by fossil fuel industry propaganda … by posting fossil fuel industry propaganda ….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
YOU also prove you lack the bravery to face the truth … but I knew that all along ..
keep on spamming for fossil fuels propaganda ..
go ahead .. the more you do it, the more you make my point:
No, we take the side of truth, and the folks in these three videos were sworn to tell the truth, unlike a news channel whose motto is ‘If it bleeds, it leads”,
Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
I dub thee, Hope Forbrain 😆
darwin says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:32 pm
You and your fellow fanatics don’t know how to properly attack the fossil fuel industry. Simply stop using anything powered by and made with fossil fuels.
____________________________________________________
Sure, when you requite all Tea Party and Republicans to stop using all public aide of any kind.
Deal?
(BTW – it’s a stupid fossil fuel industry talking point)
I have already refuted your ignorant claims but you do not have two brain cells to rub together to realize it.
Your own posts admit there is not an isotope match, even when Thyne tried his best by using incorrect isotopes. Then I showed that when proper isotopes are used it becomes even more evident that the gas in Lipsky’s well is not from Range’s fracking.
You are the biggest liar I have ever had the displeasure of confronting. Go fuck yourself.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Find a new hobby, you really suck at this, and the EPA agrees with me.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
“you are only here to forward fossil fuel industry talking points as trained ..exactly as I have said”.
If that’s true then you’re only here to forward Russian, Saudi and fanatic anti-capitalist talking points.
You’re probably raking in Russian and Saudi money … funneled to you through “donations”. A quaint term for laundered foreign money.
The word Traitorous comes to mind.
What do you call serving a corporation that sues it’s own water contamination victim after isotopic testing proves they contaminated the families well?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
What do you call mindlessly believing the billion dollar company and in service to their interests calling this family a fraud?
What do you call an idiot who believes a news channel whose motto is ‘If it bleeds, it leads”, over sworn Congressional testimony by experts?
Hope!
Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Yes .. exactly like that.
In fact, I am here defending a family destroyed by Range Resources ..
a family this crowd is trained to call frauds:
Can YOU handle the TRUTH?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
The EPA in the Obama administration is a corrupt organization with a goal of pushing the green agenda and ending capitalism and America as we know it.
If your story had any legs at all not only would the EPA not dropped it but they would have used every trick in the book to spread it far and wide. In addition, they certainly wouldn’t have let a single state like Texas stop them. They are a federal agency and they could have at any time not only sued Texas, but gotten the DOJ and Holder involved to make life miserable for Texans.
They haven’t and won’t because you’re stuck on something that even the corrupt EPA doesn’t care about.
Best to retreat and start building your commune.
Now that Hopeless has helped bring to EVERYONE’S attention that the gas in Lipsky’s wells is NOT from the seam that Range is drilling, but is from the Strawn seam, and due to seepage, probably because Lypsky has drawn down the water too much in his greed or water on his multi-million dollar property.
Can we close this thread?
Its now go so long that it hogs the processing on this poor old machine !
AndyG55 “Its now go so long that it hogs the processing on this poor old machine!”
I’ve had pretty good luck with “dnsproxy” in Linux helping out with some of that problem.
MICHAEL:
“Now that Hopeless has helped bring to EVERYONE’S attention that the gas in Lipsky’s wells is NOT from the seam that Range is drilling,”
The SCIENCE matches the GAS TO THE BARNETT …
DO YOU realize you are lying?
Hope says “The SCIENCE matches the GAS TO THE BARNETT”
There is no such thing as “the science”. Be specific. Some tests match, some do not. After all, there’s methane in your flatulence suggesting the EPA might find you guilty of something from a simple chemical test which is, after all, “the science”.
“DO YOU realize you are lying?”
No. I wonder about you, however. What is your purpose here?
You go with the politicians .. I’ll go with the science..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
and what I can see with my own eyes…
a luxury you have had to give up as a trained tool of the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda.
Since you made this film AFTER you knew the truth of the origin of the Lipsky gas, Range should be coming for YOU shortly. ! 🙂
You can join Lipsky as a defendant in the defamation case.
Good luck, you are really going to need it ! 🙂
Yes Hopless Slave of the Elite we are trained. TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
Unlike you both gator and I have degrees in the hard sciences.
So do I , Gail. 2 degrees and a PhD in Science and Engineering.
If you are “TRAINED IN THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.” you would see this can not be faked.
It’s scientifically impossible.
Have you even watched the clip, Gail?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Nobody disputes Lipsky drilled into a known contaminated aquifer. Stupid strawman argument.
Now deal with the facts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
I watched it. To anyone not experienced in recognizing propaganda it could be quite believable (just like the evening news). Since I’m not gullible and have a bit of experience in identifying propaganda I don’t.
Since you produce propaganda for a living you’ve probably reached the point where you believe what you produce. It’s a hazard in your occupation.
Darwin,
How do you account for the repeated testing Range/TRRC did showing little or no methane and the testing done in front of your face on camera showing explosive methane?
Do you think DUKE is lying?
“Nobody disputes Lipsky drilled into a known contaminated aquifer.”
That’s what Range would like you to say.
The gas matches the Barnett. The numbers prove that and you know it.
You just can’t face it.
The basic EPA test also match Strawn
The more complete tests match Strawn ONLY.
LYING by omission is still LYING.
Good luck when Range pulls you into the defamation case too. 🙂
Hope says “you would see this can not be faked.”
Everything can be faked. The movie “Avatar” is a masterpiece of fakery. A more persuasive argument is whether you, or your sponsors, can afford the cost of computer generated imagery.
And to think that there is one of those types born every minute with a new crop everyday. Townies for the most part living empty lives, clustered together without any real sense of community, looking to belong to something bigger than themselves.
The Hopelss Slave of the Elite is a product of John Dewey’s modern brainwashing aka Progressive Education. It is so bad that Stalin tried Dewey’s education system, found it turned out idiots and abandonned it!
GAIL: And yet YOU are the one that is wrong here.
You say you have a scientific background .. can you address the fact that the gas in Steve’s well matches Range production gas?
Or do you just refuse to look at the facts?
Quit lying. You have been shown your claim is bogus.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
The average nitrogen reading for the water wells was 51.99 percent. Samples of Barnett gas production data (p. 17), however, have an average of only 1.92 percent.
This is consistent with the Weatherford Labs report from 2011 that proved the gas was not coming from the Barnett Shale, but rather the shallower formations from which Range Resources was not producing:
“The natural gas component of the most recent Lipsky well headspace gas samples contains higher N2 [nitrogen] than is encountered in Barnett gas.” (p. 3)
The Weatherford analysis also observed that “high N2/low CO2 samples are characteristic of gases produced from Pennsylvanian reservoirs,” referring to rock strata far shallower than the Barnett Shale.
“Hydraulic fracturing was performed in the Barnett shale which occurs at approximately 5,700 feet below ground surface.”“The base of the aquifer and the Barnett shale are separated by approximately 5,300 feet of geological strata. Seismic reflection data submitted by Range Resources to the RRC do not show the presence of faults above the Barnett Shale beneath the neighborhood.”
There were water wells drilled through the aquifer into the Strawn,showing the shallowness, and the Barnett is over a mile deep with no geological path to the aquifer.
To prove that you don’t forward fossil fuel industry propaganda .. you forward fossil fuel industry propaganda:
“Launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) in 2009, Energy In Depth (EID) is a research, education and public outreach campaign focused on getting the facts out about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resource base – especially abundant sources of oil and natural gas from shale and other “tight” formations across the country.”
The segment featuring Thyne is on the TRRC testing, now isn’t Gator?
Even your fossil fuel industry propaganda cant address that .. the numbers match.
Even with the fact before you, you can’t admit the whole thing is not a hoax.
Are you proud of how they get you to demonize a family that has been ruined by Range?
Range thanks you for your service.
Hope says “Range thanks you for your service.”
Who is thanking you for your service?
So Lisa Jackson is a liar? Right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Have your husband explain this to you, as you are eitehr drunk, stoned or legally incompetent.
No Gator – have your husband explain this to you, as you are eitehr drunk, stoned or legally incompetent.
As I have claimed all along – even if you see the wells and the methane with your own eyes, see the testing being done, see results from DUKE and the lies of Range Resources (even you are not stupid enough to think there is ZERO methane coming from that well) …
.. that you would not be able to face the truth …
and that you would continue to posit fossil fuel industry propaganda ..
thanks for your help.
@ Gofer “This is consistent with the Weatherford Labs report from 2011 that proved the gas was not coming from the Barnett Shale, ”
The TRRC testing you see at the end was done in 2013.
But the idea that nitrogen testing is more reliable is a Range Resources position.
If you note, it’s the TRRC testing that shows the match to the Barnett,
You guys keep repeating the same comments – do you posit then that Steve IS a fraud? As Gator and Steve/Tony do?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
You keep posting an outdated news story, which proves nothing. Show me where those reporters were sworn to tell the truth or face perjury, or STFU you dizzy putz.
So are you calling Lisa Jackson and the other witnesses liars? 😆
Should I call them next? 😆
Apparently the Big Green industry propaganda is your entire show. How sad.
Still shillin’ for Big Green with the same piece of propaganda over and over, and then accusing me of being repetitive and a shill. 😆
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
You have fossil fuel industry talking pints – that you believe instead of checking thew science ..
as I have said over and over ..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
but do keep repeating them .. as I say you do.
Dope is still shillin’ for Big Green with the same piece of propaganda over and over, and then accusing me of being repetitive and a shill. 😆
Poor stupid Hope thinks the most ant-fracking administration in history is lying under oath! 😆
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
If you had the balls to watch the film you would see I have the science you have the politicians.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
But I don;t see you growing a pair any time soon.
Hope you ignorant slot. I watched the news story, and was unimpressed, as were my balls.
Give me the contact info on your thirty so called ‘experts’, and I will embarrass them aas well. You are a barking dog, that is why I properly id’d you as a bitch last time.
I have already refuted your ignorant claims but you do not have two brain cells to rub together to realize it.
Your own posts admit there is not an isotope match, even when Thyne tried his best by using incorrect isotopes. Then I showed that when proper isotopes are used it becomes even more evident that the gas in Lipsky’s well is not from Range’s fracking.
You are the biggest liar I have ever had the displeasure of confronting. Go fuck yourself.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Find a new hobby, you really suck at this, and the EPA agrees with me.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
I am so glad you have stuck around to prove the fraud of Lipsky’s claim, you have done more damage to anti-fracking movement than anyone else in history. I have two new files on this fraud thanks to you, and Range’s legal department was very pleased with the new info.
CONGRATULATIONS! 😆
Please keep giving us more ammo!
“prove the fraud of Lipsky’s claim, ”
Yet you see all of the other impacted families – are they ALL frauds?
You see how Range lies about their testing and you see testing done on screen showing 3X explosive levels not just at Steve’s –
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
The only fraud is the one you forward – which is a fossil fuel industry talking point.
Well trained … as I prove with each post.
What other families? The families on Mars? Pluto? Uranus (where you seem to pull your info :lol:)
Your own beloved EPA says you are wrong.
Both isotope tests said it is not a match, and you are wrong.
Bark all night for all I care, it just shows what a lying POS you are.
Be that pigeon that craps all over the thread and declares victory, and I will file this to embarrass you and your ill ilk for years to come.
You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are a clueless vapid zealot who supports liars. Tony is giving you miles of rope with which to hang yourself.
Good riddance! 😆
Just to be clear, you have zero science backing your assertions, and that is not my claim, but Lisa Jackson’s sworn testimony. But hey, call her a liar too. 😆
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. A well trained useless idiot you are! 😆
I will save this info, and embarrass you each and every time you show your vacuous head.
My deepest sympathies to those who actually know you. 😆
You have politicians ..
I have science, the word of families whose contamination you can see with your own eyes and findings that the TRRC is corrupted by campaign contributions….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Many familes have been ruined by Range, thanks to the support of well trained cons like you.
I feel good about this,.. Australia will soon become the world’s biggest exporter of coal seam gas, due to some 30,000 “fracked” wells being sunk in Queensland. The supplies of gas in Australia are stunningly HUGE. 🙂
Do you feel good about US families being ruined in this case?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
I feel great knowing that the most ant-fracking administration in history swears there is no problem.
Still shillin’ for Big Green with the same piece of propaganda over and over! 😆
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
@Gator
You have is fossil fuel industry propaganda talking points.
You definitely don;t have the guts to face the science:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Well trained you are! 😆
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1ugtJEQ40A
.. or listen to science and reason:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
All the folks in these three videos were sworn to tell the truth, unlike News Channel 8, whose motto is ‘If it bleeds, it leads”,
Dumbass Hope cannot tell the difference between Congressional testimony, and Big Green propaganda, Sad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Hope thinks the Five O’Clock news is ‘science’! 😆
What is so comical, Gator – is because you are too pussy to watch the film …
…. you don;t know what science based testing it covers ..
plus the fact that the contamination is widespread .. NOT the HOAX you were trained to believe …
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
… unless you think all 30 people with elevated methane are all lying together – along with DUKE, Stacey Systems and the TRRC – whose testing ALSO matched the gas in Steve’s well to production gas.
Why don;t you look into their faces and call them liars … because you can’t.
Give me the contact info on your thirty so called ‘experts’, and I will embarrass them aas well. You are a barking dog, that is why I properly id’d you as a bitch last time.
I have already refuted your ignorant claims but you do not have two brain cells to rub together to realize it.
Your own posts admit there is not an isotope match, even when Thyne tried his best by using incorrect isotopes. Then I showed that when proper isotopes are used it becomes even more evident that the gas in Lipsky’s well is not from Range’s fracking.
You are the biggest liar I have ever had the displeasure of confronting. Go fuck yourself.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Find a new hobby, you really suck at this, and the EPA agrees with me.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
I am so glad you have stuck around to prove the fraud of Lipsky’s claim, you have done more damage to anti-fracking movement than anyone else in history. I have two new files on this fraud thanks to you, and Range’s legal department was very pleased with the new info.
CONGRATULATIONS! 😆
Please keep giving us more ammo!
“you have done more damage to anti-fracking movement than anyone else in history. ”
Posting on Steve/Tony’s blog as clearly made you insane.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
I would say though – that the material I have gathered here does help prove my thesis – that once people buy the fossil fuel industry’s propaganda .. no manner of fact – even what they see with their own eyes ..can ever disabuse them of the lies.
Hope says “no manner of fact – even what they see with their own eyes ..can ever disabuse them of the lies.”
Agreed. That is why I have not even tried to persuade you of the truth. I wonder why you are still here?
It quite simple , Hopeless made this little film , and is trying to push it as some sort of proof.
It isn’t.
The truth is that Lipsky and his little group of FRAUDSTERS has been found out. They tried it on , and FAILED.
All that is left now is the Range DEFAMATION case.. Enjoy !!
Gail. Thankfully we were taught to think well before we went to school. Both my daughters are well on their way to their own PhD’s. My father came home from ww2, he always warned us about the Big Red Plan.
Were you taught to review material before you call it a hoax?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Yep, and so was the EPA.
Is that congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Go ahead, call Lisa Jackson a liar idiot! 😆
Since when does a well trained conserva-tarian take the word of public officials over science?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TsjdZQb1_-U
Since you were trained to by the fossil fuel industry.
I know you can;t watch the film – you can;t face the science it covers .. but that was my whole point all along.
But just be sure, I won;t let you forget it:
You can’t face the fact this is not a hoax.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
All of your sad well trained spamming now comes back to haunt you 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂
Science does not speak you ignoramus. 😆
But people do. And when faced with jail time if they lie, this is what they say.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
Keep burnishing your village idiot credentials, it is helping destroy you sick dreams. 😆
So you admit you believe politicians over science .. STeve/Tony would be horrified!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Give me the contact info on your thirty so called ‘experts’, and I will embarrass them aas well. You are a barking dog, that is why I properly id’d you as a bitch last time.
I have already refuted your ignorant claims but you do not have two brain cells to rub together to realize it.
Your own posts admit there is not an isotope match, even when Thyne tried his best by using incorrect isotopes. Then I showed that when proper isotopes are used it becomes even more evident that the gas in Lipsky’s well is not from Range’s fracking.
You are the biggest liar I have ever had the displeasure of confronting. Go fuck yourself.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation :
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
http://energyindepth.org/national/putting-to-rest-the-silly-theories-about-parker-co/
Find a new hobby, you really suck at this, and the EPA agrees with me.
Are your links to congressional testimony?
NOPE!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIsQ-q4IhIc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im-yJhCHhCo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsjdZQb1_-U
I have sworn depositions in front of congress, and all you have are Big Green talking points. Well trained you are! 😆
I am so glad you have stuck around to prove the fraud of Lipsky’s claim, you have done more damage to anti-fracking movement than anyone else in history. I have two new files on this fraud thanks to you, and Range’s legal department was very pleased with the new info.
CONGRATULATIONS! 😆
Please keep giving us more ammo!
I know you can;t see that all you have there is fossil fuel industry talking points.
Of course it’s ridiculous for you to believe politicians over science …
and in fact I do a great service to the cause of truth when I show time and again,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
those who have bought these fossil fuel industry talking points loose their ability to reason
.. you fit that definition perfectly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILHoXrQQmGM
Conservative support for these lies is destroying families .. that is what they have trained you to do.
Come back when you have some science refuting the science you provided. 😆
“Come back when you have some science refuting the science you provided. :lol:”
Gator.
Now you are babbling.
You watch an actual test being done showing 150K ppm at Steve and at Shelly’s.
No manner of fact can help you.
Maybe you can never be disabused of the industry propaganda you have bought.
Sad for these families conservatives are like this.
Another amateurish propaganda video..
All show, zero science.
Yes, wells get gas in them, IDIOT, particularly when you draw water from near surface seams like Strawn. Why do you think they all have a gas release built in, and have for decades. Again, no mention of the fact that PROPER CHEMICAL ANALYSIS has shown the GAS IS NOT FROM the seam Range is drilling.
Get over yourself, you are only important to yourself, little child.
Your whole life’s feeble effort, and we are laughing at it.
No wonder the poor child is so distraught. 🙂
roflmao !!
“All show, zero science. ” ANDY
Isotopic testing is not science for you Andy? Ok.
Sorry you are afflicted with bombast. It’s such a disgusting ailment .. all that mental puss leaking …..
Pity you are TOO IGNORANT to understand the difference between a basic isotopic test that showed the gas could come from either Strawn or Barnett.
Pity you are so scientifically ignorant that you can’t even start to comprehend that the FULL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS totally exonerates the Barnett seam as being the source.
I won’t however pity you when you find that your STUPIDITY has made Range decide to include YOU in the DEFAMATION suit against Lipsky.
You deserve all that you get taken for 🙂
AndyG55 says:
March 19, 2015 at 5:41 am
Another amateurish propaganda video..
All show, zero science.
Yes, wells get gas in them, IDIOT, particularly when you draw water from near surface seams like Strawn.
_________________________________
Anyone who watched the coverage can see you’re lying .. does that not bother you?
You helped me prove that even if you see the evidence for yourself (the numbers match the Barnett clearly) you can not be disabused of the fossil fuel industry talking points that have trained you.
The numbers of the basic testing also match Strawn..
LYING BY OMISSION YET AGAIN, hey, Hopeless. Your m.o.
Once proper testing was done, by someone competent (not the EPA) it was shown that the gas in Lipsync’s well came from the Strawn seam, NOT from Barnett.
Given this TRUTH, the EPA had no choice but to withdraw the complaint. CASE CLOSED
Its only your little group of fraudster misfits that is keeping this going, but Range will have its day in court for DEFAMATION, and I hope you are dragged in as a defendant and hit really hard, and all the fossil fuel trappings you have in your insignificant little existence taken from you.
I am really looking forward to this DEFAMATION case, should Range proceed. 🙂
Once proper testing was done, by someone competent (not the EPA) it was shown that the gas in Lipsync’s well came from the Strawn seam, NOT from Barnett.
Given this TRUTH, the EPA had no choice but to withdraw the complaint. CASE CLOSED
Its only your little group of fraudster misfits that is keeping this going, but Range will have its day in court for DEFAMATION, and I hope you are dragged in as a defendant and hit really hard, and all the fossil fuel trappings you have in your insignificant little existence taken from you.
AndyG55 says:
March 19, 2015 at 8:12 pm
The numbers of the basic testing also match Strawn..
LYING BY OMISSION YET AGAIN, hey, Hopeless. Your m.o.
Once proper testing was done, by someone competent (not the EPA) it was shown that the gas in Lipsync’s well came from the Strawn seam, NOT from Barnett.
____________________
And again I tell you .. ad infintum .. testing that SHOWED the MATCH was done by the TRRC.
Thyne looks at you and SAYS BARNETT , DIRECTLY FROM THE BARNETT .. the numbers MATCH Barnett, not STrawn AND the testing talked about in the last segment was done by the TRRC.
LOOK UP WHO THAT IS ANDY!
Geoffrey Thyne — who has done work for the ANTI-FRACKING group Earthworks in the past, and whose previous research attempting to link drilling in Colorado to degraded water quality has been DEDUNKED — made the exact same claim in January 2013, despite mounds of evidence confirming, based on geochemical FINGERPRINTING, that the gas was not originating from production wells.
This time, Thyne was asked by WFAA to analyze the data released by the Railroad Commission last month. He concluded the composition of methane in the water wells was almost identical to what’s being produced from the Barnett Shale. Both Thyne and WFAA cite an “isotopic analysis” showing similarities between the methane, presumably establishing a link.
But in its analysis, the Railroad Commission addressed that very concern, noting that “the isotopic signature changed in certain water wells,” and for that reason, “THE ISOTOPIC DATA ALONE DO NOT APPEAR TO BE DIAGNOSTIC OF A SPECIFIC SOURCE OF GAS ”
When assessed for nitrogen content, however, the methane in question matches what’s also found in the shallower Strawn formation, into which several local landowners drilled their water wells. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME NITROGEN CONTENT AS BARNETT SHALE GAS”
Reviewing the data tables compiled by the Railroad Commission confirms this fact. In the “Summary of Gas Data” table (p. 15), the average nitrogen reading for the water wells was 51.99 percent. Samples of Barnett gas production data (p. 17), however, have an average of only 1.92 percent.
This is consistent with the Weatherford Labs report from 2011 that proved the gas was NOT COMING FROM BARNETT SHALE, but rather the shallower formations from which Range Resources was not producing.
The Weatherford analysis also observed that “high N2/low CO2 samples are characteristic of gases produced from Pennsylvanian reservoirs,” referring to rock strata far shallower than the Barnett Shale.
Even less defensible is that Thyne completely mischaracterizes the drilling and completion process to implicate “fracking,” when clearly that process is not to blame.
The Railroad Commission also directly refuted this possibility in a list of facts at the end of its recent report……
•“Hydraulic fracturing is performed in the Barnett shale which occurs at approximately 5,700 feet below ground surface.”
•“The base of the aquifer and the Barnett shale are separated by approximately 5,300 feet of geological strata. SEISMIC REFLECTION DATA submitted by Range Resources to the RRC do not show the presence of faults above the Barnett Shale beneath the neighborhood.” (emphasis added)
…………………..
So basically, Thyne STUFFED UP………………… AGAIN !!!
As activists are very often bound to.
……………………..
Good luck in the upcoming defamation case, because you will now be target number 2, after Lipsky. 🙂
Do you think Lipsky will fund your lawyer, after what you have done to rake his muck back up again. 😉
Hope Forpeace has earned the worker’s gratitude.
1) She’s as capable as the Strauß.
2) She lasted over 10 days on Steven Goddard’s blog.
3) She can use lower and upper case interchangeably.
That’s more professional accomplishments that Hillary Clinton.