Sunday, April 24, 2011


Do tell us Sorry Charlie why in law does venue for the lawsuit have to be in Dallas? This is total bullshit - pretend for a second that reality and the truth matters. Gallagher wants Dallas because he is forum shopping, and you are such a moron by and through your post you provided Pan Am the evidence - that the use of Quintanilla's address is purely to commit fraud on the court. Good show Sorry Charlie.

I know of no legal ban on Fly Frontera to fly under that name because Pan Am reserved the name as a corporate entity.    This is not a new issue.  We are dealing with a trademark issue, and it is clear to me Gallagher and his moronic lawyers fail to understand the interaction of statutory and common law trademark law. 

Other than to show Gallagher was not serious in terms of Fly Frontera I can think on no reason why Pan Am reserved the names.  Trust me if I am going to start a corporation whith a trademark, I am going to register the trademark and incorporate before I  tell anyone about my plans.  Gallagher's incompetence is not a basis to make bogus threats against Pan Am.  If Gallagher sues, which he will not because he does not have the money, ($250,000 minimum in attorneys fees for a trademark case.) he could find himself having to pay Pan Am's attorney's fees.  My advice to Pan Am is, let it go conditioned on Gallagher incorporating in Texas under the Fly Frontera name. 

Imagine I open a restaurant and call it Nica Cuisine (Nica is a term which refers to the people of Nicaragua).  Then a large corporation decides they like the name and they incorporate in Texas Nica Cuisine Inc.  Does this mean I can no longer call my restaurant Nica Cuisine?  No - the incorporation of Nica Cusine has zero impact on my rights. 

Fly Frontera will fly as a DBA of Public Charters.  The name to the best of my knowledge has not been filed as a trademark by anyone - all we have is a start up company claiming the name for  the Brownsville market.  Unless the law has changed they can still fly under that name.

Gallagher, Quintanilla and Atkinson consistently show their incredible ignorance.  But Charlie telling some mythical story that the law requires the lawsuit be filed in Dallas is simply that - bogus - and if Charlie thinks Dallas is better than Cameron county - he might check to see how the Dallas judges  feel about Quintanilla - when he played this forum shopping game and sued me, without having to lift a finger the judge dismissed me from the lawsuit.  Anything involving Quintanilla in a  Dallas court will be received as suspect of fraud.  And with Sorry Charlie's dumb ass post - the evidence of forum shopping is now established.

And not that Texas law matters to these incompetent morons.  Public Charters the last I checked still did not have authority to do business in Texas.  This is a condition to bringing a lawsuit.  So againt Sorry Charlie - where do you lies end.

"A foreign filing entity or the entity's legal representative may not maintain an action, suit, or proceeding in a court of this state, brought either directly by the entity or in the form of a derivative action in the entity's name, on a cause of action that arises out of the transaction of business in this state unless the foreign filing entity is registered in accordance with this chapter."
Now Sorry Charlie will say I am biased against him - yes this is clearly seen in my response to the claims related to a camera facing Jessica's estranged husband's apartment.  My response has basically been - what is the issue? - I have out right defended the property owner's right to place the camera where he chooses.

While I am certain based on what I have been told in terms of Sossi's review of the matter and the fact I successfully defended Dallas City Commission John Loza on the same issue, that Jessica has nothing to worry about.  On the issue of the camera, based on the known evidence, I simply do not see a story. 

It is Sorry Charlie's absolute right to seek evidence that Jessica lied on her application for a place on the ballot.  (At this point we do not even know if Sorry Charlie had anything to do with it) Are we saying that if a candidate believes their opponent lied on the application for a place on the ballot  they should not investigate?  The FBI would be doing a lot more than placing a camera across the street.  This is politics - if you cannot handle it then don't run.  But in the end unless the camera shows she is sleeping there every night, she is in the clear.  But of course all of my words on this is evidence of my lack of objectivity and bias against Sorry Charlie Atkinson.   Now I will admit, assuming Sorry Charlie had something to do with the camera and nothing comes of it, while I agree he had a right to investigate and prove his claims, the people are less forgiving and will use this act against him. 

But here is the bottom line and I stand by this.




1 comment:

Anonymous said...

You stand by what??? You are constantly changing your mind of who will be Mayor. Get a Grip!!!!