PonyFans.com

Here are some questions for you lawyer types. This guy who removed the case to federal court under RICO received a 1/50th interest in a condo from Vodicka on September 21, 2006. Since he has actual knowledge of this lawsuit and the claims by and against SMU, doesn't he take the property subject to them? Is this not some kind of strange lis pendens issue? Maybe a better question to ask is, what has SMU done sonce September 21 that violates RICO? Does he even have standing to sue?

http://www.realestate.countyclerk.dalla ... 0600353098

I don't think the law allows you to add a party to a suit for the sole purpose of adding claims, which is basically what they have done.

This is such a crock. Is there any other information regarding the basis of the RICO claims?

Removal is automatic under the Federal Rules when removal based upon a federal question cause of action is alleged ie a cause of action arising under Federal Law such as RICO. The next move will be for SMU to file a Motion to Remand which I think must be filed within 30 days. But generally it is the Defendant raising the federal question jurisdiction. This is a very unusual situation to have a new party Plaintiff to raise the issue. Sounds like it will likely be remanded because based on the history of this case the new party Plaintiff simply was added to manufacture federal question jurisdiction and this new party is not the real party in interest. Also, under State law new parties can only be added after 30 days of the filing of the suit based upon leave of Court. Seems as if that step was skipped. Was this a Plea in Intervention or a new party added as a Plaintiff. The Federal Court is likely to see through this as an attempt to manufactire federal question jurisdiction. Also there will be issues of virtual representation since the Court may find that Vodricka virtual represented the 1/50 interest holder in prior litigation. I also don't understand why this new party is able to pickyback on Vodricka's suit. If he has a 1/50 interest he could file his own federal question jurisdiction lawsuit seeking his own damages to his own 1/50 interest. I'd bet Vodricka's lawsuit at the very least is remanded.

Stallion, JT and anybody that wants to participate:

How about we go to SMU and buy their attorneys' fee judgment in the BK case? Then we file a state court fraudulent transfer action against Vodicka for transferring fractional interests in the property and everybody else the recipient of such transfers? Why not just F with these guys right back?

SMU Football Blog wrote:Stallion, JT and anybody that wants to participate:

How about we go to SMU and buy their attorneys' fee judgment in the BK case? Then we file a state court fraudulent transfer action against Vodicka for transferring fractional interests in the property and everybody else the recipient of such transfers? Why not just F with these guys right back?

It would be fun. We could abstract and file the judgment and foreclose on his interest in the properties too. They can't all be his homestead.

I can bounce. I'm broke, I'm no lawyer, but I'll bounce if need be.

Why would this other creep have a RICO action and not Vodicka? Has Vodicka already gotten his RICO claim dismissed? This clown is a gratuitous donee or paid for the property knowing there was a cloud on the title. He was not an owner when the alleged fraud occurred (presumably SMU's declaring the Gardens unfit and setting their value). Second, under RICO, SMU would have had to have violated a criminal statute (wire fraud, mail fraud, etc.) and conspired with third parties to carry out the fraud. I would love to hear his argument on that one. My guess is that the suit doesn't survive a Motion to Dismiss. What we really need is for some Federal Judge to sentence Vodicka for 30 days for contempt of Court and suspend the sentence if he doesn't file any more dilatory claims or engage in any further dilatory tactics. Then when he shows up at the State Court, they do the same thing. Then he's looking at either going forward or spending his Thanksgiving or Christmas in the slammer. And by the way, lawyers are right down there with pedophiles in the jail pecking order. Most criminals think they were there because their lawyer screwed up. Vodicka would not enjoy his stay. I know a local sheriff who jokes about holding lawyer auctions in jail after the DWI stings.

Allow me to demonstrate my ignorance on RICO. Doesn't it have some kind of interstate commerce component? This all occurred in Texas.

SMU Football Blog wrote:Stallion, JT and anybody that wants to participate:

How about we go to SMU and buy their attorneys' fee judgment in the BK case? Then we file a state court fraudulent transfer action against Vodicka for transferring fractional interests in the property and everybody else the recipient of such transfers? Why not just F with these guys right back?

I am sure we could get this funded from the current Ponyfans faithful. This would ensure that this thread lasts longer then the Burger thread.

It merely requires that you use an "instrumentality of interstate commerce" like telephone or U.S. Mail. However, not a bad point, that is why states adopted their own RICO statutes.

Godby recused himself; don't know why.

Now appointed to Judge Jane J. Boyle-Bush appointee and graduate of SMU law school. I am sure the Motion for Recusal on this one is forthcoming.

I wish I understood legal talk.

Well, Jay Patterson lost the election (along with all of the other republicans), so if the case ever gets remanded again, Vodicka will have a new judge, just like he wanted. Marty Lowy, SMU Law '79 (#1 in class) and current adjunct professor at Dedman Law.

I logged on just to post this. It will be remanded, I am sure. I am trying to figure out if this is just bad for SMU or a complete disaster.