Send a Message
to Up Up and Away

Comments

855

Joined

Jul 28, 2012

Up Up and Away Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Huntington, TX

Huntington City Meetings - Posted

Whether I requested records from Huntington, Lufkin, or Ten Buck too, or anywhere, It is my right to do so. As for as Manuela or Inacar, they are grown ladies with a Mind of their own. I don't entice them to do anything. They read what I say on Topix and do what they want to do. It is you didly who has a burning desire to entice people. YOu want people to hate me. If they do, they do. But at your age, it is a plain shame you can't have higher morals and ethics. If you think you have caused me to be upset or lose sleep, you are dead wrong. All you do is amuse me. I enjoy occasionally responding to your nonsense. It keeps interest in Topix alive. They say its bad when people think you are a fool. What is even worse is when you open your mouth and prove it to them. scientia est potentia  (Mar 29, 2013 | post #380)

Huntington, TX

Huntington City Meetings - Posted

From http://www.statute s.legis.state.tx.u s/Docs/GV/htm/GV.5 51.htm Sec. 551.071. CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY; CLOSED MEETING. A governmental body may not conduct a private consultation with its attorney except: (1) when the governmental body seeks the advice of its attorney about: (A) pending or contemplated litigation; or (B) a settlement offer; or (2) on a matter in which the duty of the attorney to the governmental body under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas clearly conflicts with this chapter. Added by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 268, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1993. Up Up and Away is BACK!  (Mar 29, 2013 | post #375)

Huntington, TX

Open Records Requests for City of Huntington

COMPLIANCE Attorneys and pro se litigants who appear in this court must comply with the deadlines set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas and this order. A party is not excused from the requirements of a Rule or scheduling order by virtue of the fact that dispositive motions are pending, the party has not completed its investigation, the party challenges the sufficiency of the opposing party’s disclosure, or because another party has failed to comply with this order or the rules. Failure to comply with relevant provisions of the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or this order may result in the exclusion of evidence at trial, the imposition of sanctions by the court, or both. Counsel are reminded of Local Rule AT-3, particularly AT-3(I) & (J).   So ORDERED and SIGNED on February _____, 2013. 14 __________________ __________________ ______ Ron Clark United States District Judge  (Mar 21, 2013 | post #195)

Huntington, TX

Open Records Requests for City of Huntington

Initial mandatory disclosure pursuant to Rule 26(a)(1) shall be completed not later than 28 days after the deadline for the Rule 26 attorney conference and shall include the following in addition to information required by Rule 26(a)(1): 1. The correct names of the parties to the action. 2. The name and, if known, address and telephone number of any potential parties to the action. 3. The name and, if known, the address and telephone number of persons having knowledge of facts relevant to the claim or defense of any party, a brief characterization of their connection to the case and a fair summary of the substance of the information known by such person. This may be combined with list of persons required under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) so two lists are not needed. 4. The authorizations described in Local Rule CV-34. 5. A copy of all documents, electronically stored information, witness statements, and tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the disclosing party that are relevant to the claim or defense of any party. This may be combined with disclosures under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii) so duplication is avoided. In cases involving a disproportionate burden of disclosure of a large number of documents on one party, the parties may agree on prior inspection to reduce the need for copy. Parties are encouraged to agree upon provision of information by electronic means. See Local Rule CV-26(d) for meaning of “relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” A party that fails to timely disclose such information will not, unless such failure is harmless, be permitted to use such evidence at trial, hearing or in support of a motion. A party is not excused from making its disclosures because it has not fully completed its investigation of the case. Discovery shall not commence until the deadline set for the attorneys to confer under Rule 26(f). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Depositions may be taken, and initial mandatory -4- Case 9:12-cv-00210-RC Document 4 Filed 02/14/13 Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 15 disclosure shall occur, before the Rule 16 management conference, so that counsel are in a position to intelligently discuss additional required discovery, and scheduling of the case. Following the management conference, the court will enter a scheduling order setting deadlines controlling disposition of the case. If the court concludes that a management conference is not necessary after receiving the parties’ 26(f) report, it may enter a scheduling order and cancel the management conference. The fact that the scheduling order will have a deadline for completion of discovery is NOT an invitation, or authorization, to withhold documents or information required to be disclosed as part of initial mandatory disclosure, under the guise of “supplementation.” Attorneys are expected to review their client’s files and to conduct at least preliminary interviews of their clients and potential witnesses under their control, so as to fully comply with the initial mandatory disclosure requirements by the deadline set in this order. This will allow experts to be timely identified and prepared to testify, witnesses to be efficiently deposed, and any follow-up paper discovery to be completed by the deadline to be set for completion of discovery. The court expects that, in most cases, after reading the pleadings and having a frank discussion of the issues and discovery during the Rule 26 attorney conference, a review of the opposing party’s initial disclosures should alert an attorney to any remaining information which should have been disclosed, so that such information can be provided before the Rule 16 management conference. A party asserting that any information is confidential should immediately apply to the court for entry of a protective order. Unless a request is made for modification, the court will use the form found on the Eastern District website  (Mar 21, 2013 | post #193)

Huntington, TX

Open Records Requests for City of Huntington

11. The names of the attorneys who will appear on behalf of the parties at the management conference (the appearing attorney must be an attorney of record and have full authority to bind the client). 12. Any other matters counsel deem appropriate for inclusion in the joint conference report. CONTESTED MOTION PRACTICE Counsel and parties shall comply with Local Rules CV-7, 10, 11, and 56, in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Local Rule CV-7 requires you to attach affidavits and other supporting documents to the motion or response. Labeled tabs on the attachments to the courtesy copy will make it easier to find them. If the motion with attachments exceeds 20 pages, the court requests that you bind (spiral or otherwise) the courtesy copy at the left to make it easier to read. Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(b), highlight in the courtesy copy, the portions of the affidavits or other supporting documents which are cited in your motion or response.  (Mar 21, 2013 | post #192)

Huntington, TX

Open Records Requests for City of Huntington

Case 9:12-cv-00210-RC Document 4 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 11 DEADRA L. COMBS § § V. § CASE NO. 9:12-CV-210 (RC) § CITY OF HUNTINGTON, TEXAS § § ORDER GOVERNING PROCEEDINGS This Order shall govern proceedings in this case. The following deadlines are hereby set: 1. Rule 26(f) attorney conference on or before: March 5, 2013. 2. Complete initial mandatory disclosure required by this Order: 28 days after deadline for Rule 26(f) conference. 3. File joint report of attorney conference: 35 days after deadline for Rule 26(f) conference. This should follow initial mandatory disclosures, so a realistic proposal regarding depositions and other discovery can be included. 4. The case is SET for a Rule 16 management conference on June 6, 2013, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom #2, Jack Brooks Federal Building, 300 Willow Street, Beaumont, Texas. Lead counsel for each party, with authority to bind their respective clients, and all unrepresented parties, shall be present. Continuance of 1 the management conference will not be allowed absent a showing of good cause . 1 Before the case management conference, counsel and unrepresented parties should review the most recent versions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas. The Local Rules are available on the Eastern District of Texas website (http://www.txed.u scourts.gov). Case 9:12-cv-00210-RC Document 4 Filed 02/14/13 Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 12 RULE 26(F) ATTORNEY CONFERENCE Rule 26(f) requires attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties to confer and attempt in good faith to agree on a proposed scheduling order (see Appendix 1) and to electronically file a joint report outlining their proposals. The conference may be by telephone. Before commencing the Rule 26(f) conference, counsel must discuss settlement options with their clients, including whether an offer or demand should be made at the Rule 26(f) attorney conference. Counsel should also inquire whether their clients are amenable to trial before a United States magistrate judge. Parties willing to consent should file the appropriate form electronically (see page 10 of Appendix “B” to the Local Rules for the Eastern District of Texas or hyperlink on the docket sheet) as soon as possible, so that the case can be reset for management conference before the magistrate judge to whom the case is assigned. The parties must include the following matters in the joint conference report: 1. A brief factual and legal synopsis of the case. 2. The jurisdictional basis for this suit. 3. Confirm that initial mandatory disclosure required by Rule 26(a)(1) and this order has been completed. 4. Proposed scheduling order deadlines. Appendix 1 has the standard deadlines. Explain any deviations from standard schedule. Now is the time to inform the court of any special complexities or need for more time before the trial setting. The standard schedule is planned so that there is time to rule on dispositive motions before parties begin final trial preparation. 5. If the parties agree that mediation is appropriate, and the parties can agree upon a mediator, the name, address, and phone number of that mediator, and a proposed deadline should be stated. An early date is encouraged to reduce expenses. The court may appoint a mediator upon request. 6. The identity of persons expected to be deposed. 7. Any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced. 8. Any issues relating to preserving discoverable information, including electronically stored information. Case 9:12-cv-00210-RC Document 4 Filed 02/14/13 Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 13 9. Whether any other orders should be entered by the court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) or Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b), (c). 10. Estimated trial time.  (Mar 21, 2013 | post #191)

Huntington, TX

Huntington City Meetings - Posted

Now the real truth comes out. You don't like me "meddling " in Huntington affairs but you are not a resident either. You don't like be told to sit down and shut up but you like telling me to. Diddly, why not get on the same page as me?  (Mar 13, 2013 | post #366)

Huntington, TX

Huntington City Meetings - Posted

A meeting is to be held Tuesday – February 26, 2013 5:00 P.M. by the City Council in Huntington. Who will be attending from the public? Will a mystery person appear? Is the council expecting anyone out of the ordinary?  (Feb 25, 2013 | post #351)

Huntington, TX

FYI: Huntington Council Members

Call Sign Name Expiration Date Operator Class Zip Code K5BAS Sanford, Barbara A 03/16/2014 General 75949 K5FAY Helton, Oleta F 08/25/2016 General 75949 K5JLW Wilson, Jerry L 03/16/2014 Amateur Extra 75949 KC5NAC Coffman, Terry D 03/07/2015 General 75949 KD5HLB DENBY JR, HENRY L 06/10/2019 General 75949 KD5QYA Hatch, Jason P 01/02/2012 Technician 75949 KD5VIN Davidson, Stephen D 02/25/2013 Technician 75949 KE5ADC Kirkland, James Dale 01/27/2014 General 75949 KE5DRG Eubank Jr, Richard A 01/28/2015 Technician 75949 KE5IMO Massey, Julie G 05/16/2016 Technician 75949 KE5IMP Massey, Cynthia A 05/16/2016 Technician 75949 KE5JEK Spivey Jr, Curtis A 06/19/2016 Technician 75949 KE5ZNK Johnson, James E 03/02/2019 Technician 75949 KF5ITL Haney, James M 10/21/2020 Technician 75949 KF5OPA Chamblee, Richard B 02/23/2022 Technician 75949 N0LYS LEWIS, MIKE 06/03/2020 Technician 75949 N5OJC DAVIDSON, DAN W 02/11/2019 Technician 75949 N5WOA Hudson, C W 10/01/2011 Amateur Extra 75949  (Feb 23, 2013 | post #452)

Huntington, TX

Huntington VFD

Thanks Diddly for posting that article. I missed it in the newspaper. My question is; How the heck is the City going to Fund its own Fire department? I believe the general fund of the city is in a deficit at this time. They are not able to pay for the roads being fixed. They are probably robbing one fund to the pay the others. They cannot afford their own fire department. I bet the city is counting on having an Emergency Services District. Bad idea. It will add another layer of bureaucracy. Also, it will raise property taxes. What makes anyone think that another board will be any better or responsive to citizens concerns or questions that the HVFD? What makes anyone think the ESD board will operate in compliance with the law? ESD IS BAD CHOICE. CITY RUN FIRE DEPARTMENT IS BAD CHOICE. IT WILL TAKE MONEY FROM THE CITY THAT CAN BE USED FOR STREETS.  (Feb 21, 2013 | post #236)

Huntington, TX

Huntington-Great Job!

Congratulations INACAR. You now have 1001 posts. You are ahead of Manuela and myself. Great going.  (Feb 21, 2013 | post #79)

Huntington, TX

Should City Manager Milstead Resign?

Since I have posted the orginal petition and the answer to the petition in the Federal Lawsuit against the City of Huntington, I would imagine this might have caused a considerable stirr. I would imagine the problems with the HVFD are a distraction from this lawsuit.  (Feb 21, 2013 | post #845)

Huntington, TX

Huntington VFD

I hope this is not last post. We enjoy and agree with you in many instances. Just cause some don't reply doesn't mean they are not reading your posts.  (Feb 17, 2013 | post #212)

Huntington, TX

Open Records Requests for City of Huntington

I thought no one would talk you into it. But I am glad as well that are running. I hope you win.  (Feb 14, 2013 | post #166)