HELP! Fort Worth Needs Legal Help. NOW!

Okay, I've not been subtle at all about my belief that this zone of Texas, that I live in, is poisoned by astonishingly bizarre and obvious corruption. It's like there is some sort of protective bubble surrounding this area that keeps the Forces of Good at bay and lets miscreants like Mike Moncrief be in positions of power where he can let his conflicts of interest run amok with, apparently, no fear of Federal Indictment or much needed jail time and fines.

I don't get it. It's as if God has forsaken the Buckle of the Bible Belt.

And then we have Chesapeake Energy, run by a man, Aubrey McClendon, widely believed to be nothing but a low-life lying swindler, running roughshod over the entire area covering the Barnett Shale. With no responsible, adult, government in place to enforce little matters. Like the law. And protecting its citizens from Fascist Bulldozers.

So, we have a situation where the Chesapeake Energy bad boys tried to force a non-odorized natural gas pipeline under the homes along Carter Avenue in a modest neighborhood of Fort Worth.

Carter Avenue continued to protest, but all, but one, eventually caved to the Chesapeake Energy threats of using eminent domain to steal their property. Chesapeake Energy knows it can make such threats because Chesapeake Energy has the City of Fort Worth in its pocket. Chesapeake Energy pays money to Mike Moncrief in the form of dividends on the shares Moncrief illegally owns of Chesapeake Energy. In other parts of America and the world this is what is known as a bribe. A sophisticatedly constructed bribe, but a bribe nonetheless. And participating in such a scheme is what is known as racketeering. Moncrief would make a good Mafia boss.

Carter Avenue and much of Fort Worth and the surrounding area celebrated recently when it was learned that Chesapeake Energy was dropping its plan to stick non-odorized gas under Carter Avenue.

Yet, even so, Chesapeake Energy continued with its eminent domain assault on Steve Doeung's home and property. Why? And why would this case not immediately be thrown out? Since Chesapeake Energy no longer can make the case that it needs access to Steve Doeung's land.

Who's thumb is the judge under? Does he have stock in Chesapeake Energy, just like the Mayor Moncrief has? Is this even a real judge? Sadly, you have to ask that question in Texas.

Is there not one lawyer out there who feels a Clarence Darrow like calling to fight against corruption to win one for the little guy? My little sister is a lawyer and is quite fiesty. But, she is not licensed to practice in Texas. She practices in Washington.

Below, courtesy of Fort Worth's Watchdog, Don Young, is Steve Doeung's account of what he was subjected to this morning in a Fort Worth, Texas courtroom courtesy of the legal thugs of Chesapeake Energy...

Dear Friends and Neighbors--

Here's a brief summary of my court hearing this morning, which lasted about 45 minutes and witnessed by supporters Don Young and Esther McElfish.

1. The Court took up CHK/TMGS' petition to "reinstate" the Writ of Possession, which the Court had apprently withdrawn from them after I had filed my Objections and motion to Dismiss on the morning of 10/15/08. This Writ would give them immediate possession of my property and they sure are wanting it pretty badly. This with-holding of the Writ of Possession by the Court for over a year now (their lawyers also moaned about this fact) is no small matter, any way one looks at it.

2. Their two lawyers argued that the Court should release the Writ to them today. They appeared so certain of the outcome that they had an attorney from the City of FW appear to collect a $400+ claim for some kind of boarding up of a shed in my back yard that they said occurred in 08/05. The lawyer left without the money which was to be taken from the so called "award" paid by CHK/TMGS for the "taking" of my property using eminent domain power.

3. The was a pretty spiritted debate between me, the judge, and their lawyers about the validity of their actions as well as over the truthfulness of their representations. Their view of the truth and the Court's interpretation of truthfulness were the most disturbing part of the whole thing:

(A) CHK claimed that they petitioned the Court to have an attorney ad litem appointed to represent me in the eminent domain/condemnation proceedings (an already lob-sided procedural requirement to forcefully take my property) because (i) they could not locate me after exhaustive searches and (ii) because they had followed the due process requirement in such a situation of "citation by publication" (weekly in the local paper for several consecutive weeks). The results: (i) the facts overwhelming contradict this claim and (ii) they were caught on three different instances of not telling the truth regarding this because there is NO EVIDENCE that such action was EVER taken. However, the Court downplayed and even almost defended these outrageously false representations--by highly educated and experienced lawyers, not some poor guy.

(B) CHK keeps claiming that my Objection and Motion to Dismiss is a procedural response to the decision/"award" of the Three Special Commissioners. It took some time and persistence but the Court was forced to admit that I was not privvy to the decision/"award" (CHK was caught red-handed--AGAIN, claiming that they had provided me with the information) and thus could not have objected to something that I was intentionally shut out of=the appointment of an attorney ad litem, who was paid by CHK. The Court again minimized my pointing out that CHK's lawyer had claimed that THEY HAD TOLD THE ATTORNEY AD LITEM THAT HIS SERVICE WAS NO LONGER NEEDED AFTER I WAS SERVED WITH THE NOTICE OF THE SPECIAL COMM. HEARING ON 09/17/08 AND PORTRAYED THE AD LITEM'S CONDUCT AS (MY WORD) "A ROGUE LAWYER DOING HIS OWN THING WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR INVOLVEMENT".

(C) The Court also did not seem to have any problem with the fact that the appopintment of the ad litem was based on false representation, which essentially robbed me of due process and "my day in court"/"the right to be heard". He saw no problem with this willfull denial of my constitutional rights. He denied that any of my legal rights had ever been denied or compromised---no matter the facts and the laws.

(D) The Court and CHK tried to portray me as delaying the whole case by asking for continuances when in fact it was CHK and the Court that had proposed the most recent delay despite my declaration on 01/16/09 (on the records) "Although I cannot afford or find an attorney, I am ready to proceed, Your Honor." They did not like me bringing up facts and asking for proof of certain claims.

(E) The Court admitted that the clerk should not have denied me access to the so called Sp. Comm.'s decision/"award" documents that CHK/TMGS had filed with the court on the afternoon of 10/15/08, but once again deflected my point that it was the (my word, here only) fraudulent appointment and participation of the ad litem that would explain why the clerk refused me access SINCE BASED ON THE FILE I WAS A MISSING PERSON AND DID NOT EXIST THUS WOULD/SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN ACCESS TO COURT DOCUMENTS.

(F) After reading and re-reading the Texas Property Code (Ch.21), the Court reluctantly had a copy of the Sp.Comm.'s decision/"award" made and handed to me while, ironically, admonishing me to follow procedure by serving my Motion to CHK/TMGS properly (HE HIMSELF HAD TO GIVE ME THE DOCUMENTS THAT CHK/TMGS WERE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE AND HAD CLAIMED THEY HAD PROVIDED--BUT STILL REFUSED TO DISCLOSE).

4. Court refused my plea to have legal counsel appointed to help me sort through all the legal issues related to the case, but he admitted that there is no law that would prohibit him from doing so, just lack of funds--to which I suggested that CHK put a sum in a trust fund so that I can hire an attorney and "make a sport out of this".

5. The Court gives me until 01/08/10 (initially 01/01/09 until I protested and pointed out holiday schedule) to properly file my "objection to the Sp.Comm.'s decision and anything else you're not satisfied about". THIS IS A RUSE BECAUSE IF/WHEN I FILE THIS THEN TECHNICALLY CHK/TMGS CAN TAKE IMMEDIATE POSSESSION OF MY PROPERTY. THIS CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN. IT SHOULD NOT HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY IRREGULAR, IF NOT ILLEGAL, INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE CASE. I NEED A TEAM OF LAWYERS COMMITTED TO HELPING ME SERVE JUSTICE AND HOPEFULLY SET SOME PRECEDENTS IN THE EPICENTER OF EMINENT DOMAIN ABUSE (I.E. COWBOY STADIUM, TRV, GAS DRILLING, MALLS, ETC.)

Y. Steve Doeung