Perfect Process Blog
Archive for the ‘Blog Perfect’ Category
Daughter Jenna @ Bullet Trap, Plano, Texas
Saturday, February 9th, 2013One Conservative Attorney’s Perspective on SCOTUS Opinion
Sunday, July 1st, 2012Me and the Kinkster
Saturday, December 17th, 2011Brothers of the leaf engaged in Obama bashing fellowship and Kinky Friedman Cigars at Cigar Warehouse in Plano.
My Trademark Infringement Suit: Total Victory
Thursday, April 14th, 2011The Arts District
Wednesday, April 6th, 2011From the offices of Thompson and Knight, Dallas
Posted with WordPress for BlackBerry.
My Federal Trademark Infringement Suit
Sunday, March 20th, 2011My first of possibly several suits regarding trademark infringement has commenced. SummonsComplaint
Cocked n' Locked
Saturday, March 12th, 2011On Monday next I will be pulling the trigger on a federal suit to enforce my registered service mark. It is amazing to me that there are those in my line of work who either have no knowledge of or respect for trademark law. The first party is about to be educated the hard way- through the pocketbook. -mrj
As for the Liars
Thursday, February 3rd, 2011For those who have served a defendant who later claims not to have been served: Unless the citation is defective, anything filed by defendant other than a Motion to Quash is an appearance making service moot.
A Final Thought on the WOG
Monday, August 9th, 2010It is an unfortunate fact that a vast number of attorneys throughout the state consider 663 to be the rule governing the service of the WOG. Our clear authority to serve it under 103 will continue to be challenged or ignored by many as long as 663 remains in its present form. To avoid conflict, many plaintiff’s attorneys will continue to have it served [albeit untimely] by constable. In their mind [if it is not settled law] one should play it safe- it doesn’t make economic sense to do otherwise. At present, many of us are losing a great deal of business and don’t even know it- it’s happening in the background. For the uninformed doubters, let’s get it settled, published, and widely disseminated. Once again, who’s with me?
More on the Writ of Garnishment
Sunday, August 1st, 2010On February 12, 2008, the Supreme Court issued an Order Appointing Ancillary Task Force– ostensibly to clarify conflicting rules. The order makes specific reference to Rule 103, and includes a request that a report and recommendations be provided to the court no later than October 31, 2008. The report and recommendations have not been forthcoming. Frankly, I am confused as to why a “task force” was even necessary.
It is instructive to note that the Code Construction Act applies to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. In re. Walkup, 122 S.W.3d 215, 217. Tex. Gov’t Code § 311.026 (b) states:
“If the conflict between the general provision and the special provision or local provision is irreconcilable, the special or local provision prevails as an exception to the general provision, unless the general provision is the later enactment and the manifest intent is that the general provision prevail.”
The amended Rule 103 is the later enactment, and the manifest intention of it is to allow private process servers to serve a wide variety of process including writs. The code is precisely applicable to the matter before the task force, and it is my hope that it be considered in any recommendation.
I strongly urge all interested parties to contact the chair and other members of the task force, and encourage them to recommend to the court language clarifying 103 to mean what it says, or [better] that 663 includes persons authorized under 103. I consider the matter urgent, and until it is laid to rest we will continue to be challenged by garnishees or debtors, and passed over by the uninformed resulting in needless economic loss.