Welcome to the blog post of Christopher Barnett 2018.

If you don’t want to be offended, please click the little X at the top right of your screen.  By continuing forward, you are going to get super pissed off.

 

I’m running for Governor of Oklahoma.  Please visit my political website and make your contributions.  I plan to launch attack ads on TU, Judge Kern, Judge Sellers, Judge Cantrell and all of my opponents.  They are the reason I am running for office.  The corruption has to be dealt with.  www.chrisforgov.com.

 

April 21, 2018:  The corruption continues.  Judge Terrance Kern has not called any hearings and lets corrupt John Lackey and The Law Firm of Hall Estill file all the frivolous motions they please.  We need a hearing on the motion to recuse.  There is no doubt in my mind that Judge Terrance Kern cannot hearing this valid lawsuit against these corrupt parties without being biased.  Judge Kern is corrupt in my opinion.  My sources tell me that not only did John Lackey have an affair while working for the Tulsa County District Attorney’s office, I am told it was with Jeanette Kern… which might explain why Judge Terrance Kern lets John Lackey walk all over his court, making frivolous, politically charged filings without doing anything about it.  I’ve also heard rumors that John Lackey has participated in a three way sex ring with Judge Kern and his wife.   I am also convinced that Judge Jefferson Sellers and Judge Dana Kuehn are also corrupt.  Judge Sellers has not ruled on anything in the lawsuit filed against Tulsa Community College or the lawsuit against The University of Tulsa.  It just sits there.  No depositions have taken place.  These Judges are corrupt.  They allow this puny, corrupt law firm, Hall Estill to walk all over them.  The one thing I’d like to remind everyone of, is according to Hall Estill and The University of Tulsa, it is okay to call in a bomb threat, or threaten to shoot up a school and claim free speech.  This is the filing that both The University of Tulsa and The Law Firm of Hall Estill made.  No surprise.  These are the same parties also asking the Federal Court to restrict free speech.  The corruption will never end.  There will never be justice for Trey.  I’ve never seen a lawsuit drag on for so long by two obese old men, Johnathan Rogers and John Patrick Cremin.  I don’t think they have practiced any actual law, they have shown up a few times smelling like big macs and looking drunk and that’s about it.  John Lackey of Paul and Lackey is still corrupt, nothing will change that.  All of the people mentioned above are criminals.  It is amazing that they get away with what they do.  How big of a whore is John Lackey?  I’m also told John Lackey is bi-sexual, but who cares.  Anyone that sleeps with that corrupt old man has to be desperate or being paid well.  Meanwhile, The Corrupt University of Tulsa is allowed to lie, steal and cheat as usual.  Amazing.  Judge Sellers hasn’t been honest and I don’t expect him to be.  I am confidant that he is helping cover up the corruption from The University of Tulsa and likely even having ex parte communications with Patrick Cremin, Johnathan Rogers or others from The University of Tulsa.  A lawful subpoena was issued on Judge Daman Cantrell but Judge Sellers won’t enforce it.  The University of Tulsa discussed with Judge Sellers the lawsuit and it is should be provided.  The Oklahoma Attorney Generals Office has stepped in to provide Professor Sellers, a private citizen free legal representation at the expense of tax payers.  If Professor Sellers did nothing wrong or had nothing to hide, he would produce the documents requested.

 

April 16, 2018:  As promised, I said I would enter the race for Governor of Oklahoma because I’m sick and tired of the corruption that plagues our State.  On Wednesday April 11, 2018 I visited the Capitol in Oklahoma City and waited in line, with all other prospects, along with current elected officials to register to enter the race.  Please visit www.chrisforgov.com and help support Chris’ Campaign.  Our goal is to raise $3 Million Dollars by the end of the month for a large ad buy.  Included in that ad buy will be several ads highlighting how the Corrupt University of Tulsa tried to ban free speech, and I stood up and fought for free speech and won.  I need your help and I need your vote.  Over the years, if you have watched or read anything, you have seen that i’m an honest person and I have follow through.  I will always do what I say and I will never back away from a fight.  We need a fighter with fury for Oklahoma’s next Governor and that will be me… with your help.  Some have had the audacity to ask me what it would take to get me to withdrawal from the election.  I’m not for sale to the highest bidder.  My special interest are the people of Oklahoma.

March 14, 2018 filing in regards to Tulsa Community College, attempting to circumvent the Oklahoma Open Records Act and chill free speech further.  Answer to Motion to Strike OCPA against TCC

March 11, 2018:  Here is a copy of the transcript from the Federal Court hearing where Tulsa Attorney John Lackey made another frivolous filing, and tried to disguise it as a “Prior Restraint”, was called out by the court for it and denied his frivolous motion.   

Now John Lackey files an Objection, in an attempt to stall, cause more harm to me and also additional resources.        2018-02-26 (Barnett v Hall) (Transcript of Motion Hearing)

“6 THE COURT: Well, let’s put the cases aside for just a
7 second because we’ll get to those.
8 MR. LACKEY: Sure.
9 THE COURT: But how is it not a prior restraint to ask
10 for an order that would tell somebody what they can and cannot
11 say tomorrow? I mean, it’s prior —
12 MR. LACKEY: Uh-huh.
13 THE COURT: — and it’s restraining them. So how is
14 that not a prior restraint?
15 MR. LACKEY: I confess that under that definition of
16 “prior restraint,” it is, Judge, a prior restraint. I do
17 not —
18 THE COURT: Is there another —
19 MR. LACKEY: — believe it is —
20 THE COURT: Is there another definition that I should
21 be looking at?
22 MR. LACKEY: I believe that the prior-restraint case
23 law cited by plaintiff is of a different nature than what we
24 have before you today.
25 THE COURT: How is it different?
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Oklahoma
9
Barnett v Hall, et. al. (02-26-2018 Motion Hearing)
1 MR. LACKEY: Mr. Barnett is not — and if you see in
2 the respon- — I’m sorry — in the motion and in the reply, the
3 university and Hall Estill and Mr. Rogers and Mr. Cremin are
4 not asking for a prior restraint of the plaintiff’s ability to
5 speak about the case itself. That is not a request that has
6 been made. It is merely to uphold and abide by the standards
7 that this court expects of both its parties and its litigant
8 attorneys and, therefore, it is not asking for Mr. Barnett not
9 to talk about whether he thinks he has a good case, a bad case,
10 specific evidence in the case about his claims of civil rights
11 violations.
12 Asking the court to enforce decorum is not asking the court
13 to preclude him from speaking in the future about his case, and
14 that would be the distinction I would make.”

Then we have where the Court ruled against them:

 

“5 MS. SULLIVAN: I just have one brief comment. I won’t
6 add any additional argument about the points already raised.
7 But counsel for plaintiff mentioned that it was just a website
8 and just Facebook. That’s not how the Internet actually works.
9 We have algorithms regarding Google search engines, we have
10 Facebook. It’s a public setting which will grab in from other
11 areas of the Internet. It’s not limited to the areas that are
12 maintained by plaintiff. He has — Facebook itself will
13 explain the algorithms on the Q and A sections where names will
14 be pulled from that Facebook and show up in other areas. So
15 it’s not limited just to those two items, it actually has a
16 much wider reach, which we would say does also harm and
17 prejudice.
18 THE COURT: Based upon a very thorough review of your
19 papers, the court’s conclusion — in consideration of your
20 arguments, the court concludes that the request that’s being
21 made by TU is, in fact, a form of a request for a prior
22 restraint, that you’re trying to get an order from the court
23 that would preclude future expression by the plaintiff, and the
24 court hasn’t been able to find any legal authority that would
25 support such a prior restraint in this case.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Oklahoma
26
Barnett v Hall, et. al. (02-26-2018 Motion Hearing)
1 The court’s rules on conduct in the courtroom are
2 reasonable and appropriate time and place restrictions on
3 speech, and they are certainly enforceable and will be
4 enforced. They’ll be enforced not only in the court but in the
5 filings with the court, they’ll be enforced at depositions,
6 they’ll be enforced at settlement conferences if there’s one in
7 the case. All of those proceedings are properly controlled by
8 the court. But the court was unable to find any Supreme Court
9 authority that would permit the type of prior restraint that
10 the motion of TU is asking for in this case. Therefore, TU’s
11 motion for protective order, our docket number 14, is going to
12 be denied.
13 In saying that, Mr. Lackey, I am not in any way diminishing
14 your — or dismissing your very real concerns about the manner
15 in which this communication is being conducted. It’s
16 unpleasant, it’s outrageous, it may be actionable, but if
17 that’s the road you want to go down, that’s the road you need
18 to go down in order to remedy that situation. So the motion
19 will be denied.
20 With that ruling, it seems to the court that your motions
21 23 and 25 are essentially moot. Do you disagree with that,
22 Mr. McHugh?
23 MR. McHUGH: No, Your Honor; I would agree with that.
24 THE COURT: All right. We’ll show 23 and 25 as being
25 moot.
U.S. District Court
Northern District of Oklahoma
27
Barnett v Hall, et. al. (02-26-2018 Motion Hearing)
1 Anything else from the movant, Mr. Lackey?
2 MR. LACKEY: May I have just one second, Your Honor?
3 THE COURT: Certainly.
4 MR. LACKEY: Nothing further on behalf of the
5 university.
6 THE COURT: Mr. McHugh, anything further from your
7 side?
8 MR. McHUGH: No, Your Honor.
9 THE COURT: All right. We’ll be adjourned.
10 THE DEPUTY COURT CLERK: All rise.
11 (PROCEEDINGS CLOSED)”

And it’s no surprise that Tulsa Attorney John David Lackey files more frivolous documents with the Tulsa Federal Court to harass Chris Barnett further.  This guys needs to accept the laws of the USA and quit bitching about free speech.    Whiney Bitch John Lackey bullshit filing

I read this frivolous filing and I laughed so hard.  John Lackey is embarrassing himself and The University of Tulsa.  I look forward to the next court hearing to question the so called harassment and alleged threats.

Clueless/Forgetful Cremin.  Guess he just played dumb on this too.

 

February 26, 2018:  Today my husband and I had to close our businesses and take off precious time and to go to Corrupt Tulsa Attorney John Lackey’s Frivolous hearing…no one from The University of Tulsa was there.   The court ruled in my favor and against The University of Tulsa and the corrupt law firm of Hall, Estill, Johnathan Rogers, Patrick Cremin and John Lackey.  The court reinforced free speech today.  Thank you to everyone for your help and support, and I can’t thank our soldiers enough for their service!!!  Thank you SO SO SO much for putting your life on the line and protecting our country and free speech.

 

 

 

This is why The University of Tulsa cannot be dismissed, they are liable and they conspired with The Law Firm of Hall Estill, Patrick Cremin and Johnathan Rogers

 

 

Poor Lisa is having paranoid thoughts again.