Tuesday, January 3, 2012

ED HOOPER COMES UP WITH SOME OTHER LEGAL OPINIONS

Ed Hooper, the uneducated, he only has a high school degree, lives at home with his mother in Libuse, has been adjudicated to be a liar on his blog by a court of law, and hasn't held a steady job in many years gives us some of his uneducated and unwise legal opinions today on the Cleco versus Sam Sansing and David Pugh cases.

Hooper has even called the Pope a pedophile and the Queen of England an "old" queen ("head pedophile meets an old queen"). He is also known for his lies, his pro drug posts, calling the vast majority of people who are more educated than he is names, anti- Jewish posts, conspiracy theories (like the U.S. blew up the Twin Towers), and everything Christian.

Ed doesn't even have enough sense to use capital letters or link his blog posts correctly.

Hooper has no idea about legal matters, as I will now show as an example.

First, Ed writes, in his post entitled "cleco corporation vs samuel sansing, energy management services, l.l.c. and david keith pugh", that "we've noticed that since we've been posting some lawsuits and pleadings that we've been receiving some googlers from all over; we assume, judging from the keywords and search strings, looking for various types of pleadings to serve as a template for their own lawsuits".

A real lawyer finds that hard to believe. Some professional legal online databases, such as Westlaw, Lexis and Lois, provide us with forms, not Ed Hooper. There is also an excellent book entitled Louisiana Formularies that we use for forms. Most lawyers who do use those forms revise them to suit their own practices and knowledge of the law. Some do not even use a template instead relying directly upon the law.

Hooper also wrote that "compared to others that we've read, this one was horribly pled by mr. pugh's attorney, s. aaron siebeneicher (johnson & siebeneicher) and mr. sansings' timothy shumate (chris roy, sr.)".

How in the World would the uneducated Ed Hooper even know what is a good pleading? The attorneys for Cleco filed the La.-C.C.P. Art. 971 Special Motion to Strike, not the attorneys for Pugh and Sansing as Hooper seems to write. Also, since Alexandria Mayor Jacques Roy withdrew from the case in 2007, Bobby Beck has been Sansing's lawyer.

Hooper next wrote that "several of cleco's many attorneys richard a. rozanski, (wheelis & rozanski) and jennifer l. thornton, (stanley, fanagan & reuter), both of whom are freaking pit bulls, totally destroyed them in their opposition briefs and the trial court (judge george c. metoyer, jr.) eventually denied them".

I seriously doubt it if Hooper has even seen these attorneys in action or has followed their careers. I do know most of them, and I can say that Siebeneicher and Beck are definitely "pit bulls" as well.

And finally, Ed wrote that "after the supremes ruling in mid may 2009, it appears that cleco abandoned the case as there has been no activity since".

Once again, Ed's supposition is wrong. Once David Pugh filed for bankruptcy in 2010, the automatic stay went into effect. The cases against, at least David Pugh, is still viable.

Ed Hooper seems to never learn that he should avoid commenting on things he knows nothing about.

See Also:







Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)