Didn't see it coming

[Roger_C_Roberts]

Was going back over some unsolicited contracts I have received as well as letters for the corporation ("A") who wants to drill the land telling me that by not signing the contract I was denying those who did sign their right to make money off of their Co-ownership of the property/mineral rights. It is the corporation seeking judgement against me.

Got wondering how the corporation got the idea "they" could take me to court, no one on the list of co-owners who have signed the contract have notified me. Noticed how it came about: At sometime "A" bought the land and mineral rights from one of the co-owners whose unassigned land is VERY SMALL. By doing so they now have the "right" to take me to court.

I seriously doubt if the other co-owners know they are now plaintiffs in a case against me?

This is the first time in my life I have come across this situation. How common is this practice

in regards to the drilling for gas in West Virginia?

The judge who was scheduled to hold the hearing called my at home at what must have been at the end of the hearing. Said he wanted to discuss some of the elements of the situation. I have been playing "phone tag" with him since.

RCR 11/12/2016

[r_w_kennedy]

It is common, unfortunately. The driller will sometimes buy a single acre from someone stipulating that they will deed the acre back free of charge to the seller, just so the driller will have standing in court to sue.

The "someone" who owned the land/minerals may not even know who they were selling to or what they planned to do once the driller/whoever bought it.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

Yes, it is an "interesting" tactic when it comes to the law vs reality. I talked to the judge handling the case yesterday by phone and he made a comment much like you have stated. I did send emails to several of the persons on the list that I do know (local cousins) and asked them point blank if they were aware they are now plaintives in a pending case against me. So far no replies.

But in a way now that I am now facing all of the co-owners I can turn the tides against the corporation. I note that the corporation managed to get it into the legal paperwork that the parties who did not reply to the paperwork leading up to the pending case no longer have a "voice" in the situation. So that drops the number of plaintives drops. I contend that these people can not be against me if they were not told in advance the corporation is taking me to court. Did they agree with this action or did they learn "after the fact"?

I also realize that I have an approach I've never heard of anyone taking: The corporation starting paying people to sign the contract BEFORE the corporation knew I was one of the co-owners. (A party hired as a contractor mentioned this in one of the exchanges between my self and that party.) Yet the corporation sent me an unsolicited contract and is now demanding I sign the contract in agreement or they will force the sale of my holdings. Never mind the fact the corporation was making payment to parties that did not contact me in regards my vote on wither or not the land should be sold. Since I was not told by the corporation or the co-owners of their desire to lease out the property I am not subject to the the decision of the other co-owners. The net few weeks are going to be interesting!

[Robert_P_Malone]

You need to let everyone know who the evil corporation is.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

And give that party the chance to tell a judge I slandered their name in public??? That's ammunition the "A" corporation wants. The second name of the corporation starts with a letter "somewhere" between "Q" and "S" in the alphabet. I know that they keep tabs on this website. RCR 11/15/2016

[r_w_kennedy]

["I also realize that I have an approach I've never heard of anyone taking: The corporation starting paying people to sign the contract BEFORE the corporation knew I was one of the co-owners. (A party hired as a contractor mentioned this in one of the exchanges between my self and that party.) Yet the corporation sent me an unsolicited contract and is now demanding I sign the contract in agreement or they will force the sale of my holdings. Never mind the fact the corporation was making payment to parties that did not contact me in regards my vote on wither or not the land should be sold. Since I was not told by the corporation or the co-owners of their desire to lease out the property I am not subject to the the decision of the other co-owners. The net few weeks are going to be interesting!"]

The company didn't need to determine that you were an owner before leasing all the other owners they could find. The reason you are not hearing people arguing this point is because it doesn't exist.

[" Since I was not told by the corporation or the co-owners of their desire to lease out the property I am not subject to the the decision of the other co-owners."]

If the "company" sent you a lease agreement to approve, the law calls that a "good faith" lease attempt. EVERYONE who has executed a lease is "presumed" to have agreed to have their minerals produced, no further consent is needed from them. It only takes 1 owner to sue you and you say the company bought a tiny interest so they are an owner and have "standing".

I see nothing in your posts that isn't fact based and determinable other than some legal conclusions that are wrong but they wouldn't be slander.

I agree that they have a rotten way of doing business. I think they should have made more effort to negotiate with you rather than making the "good faith" offer and then going straight for the throat but I don't think you have a leg to stand on.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

I never executed a lease with the company. Therefore the lease was in fact unsolicited and not given to me in "good faith". If I don't sign the contract they can not force me to do their bidding.

[r_w_kennedy]

You have every right to not sign the lease, they are suing because you didn't as is their right as part owners.

They attempted to lease you, it is the "good faith" requirement before they sue you. Your not signing the lease doesn't change the fact that the offer was made.

You are about to get a very rude awakening. They can not force you to do their bidding but the court system will do their bidding. The law is against you here and they have been practicing what they are doing to you for decades, this is your first invitation to the game.

Your desire to not lease your rights doesn't trump the right of other owners to produce their minerals. Everyone who executed a lease has in effect demanded that their minerals be produced, whether they understood that they were doing so or not and they can't take it back now even if they wanted to. It's like the operator holds the proxy vote of everyone who leased. So yes, they are all against you and have no more say in the matter.

I take no joy in telling you this. I would actually like to see you win at least to the extent that the company has to come back and deal with you fairly. The thing is the direction you are going leads to a dead end and if you expend all your effort going down a path that dead ends, you aren't going to find a path that might lead to a win.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

I STRONGLY DISAGREE that a court would rule that an unsolicited lease mailed to me by a company which I had no knowledge at the time is "Good Faith". I see that in your message that you thought that I had signed the lease, I DID NOT. If what what you are saying were true then anyone could send me a lease or agreement and I would have an obligation to that party. The key words are UN SOLICITED contract from a party of which I had NO KNOWLEDGE. (Reminds me of all the junk emails I am receiving from PCH under several company names).

The last I heard West Virginia (and Texas) are part of the United States, Federal law trumps West Virginia law. RCR

[Brent_Williams]

Just out of curiosity, were any lease attempts/offers sent by certified mail?

[r_w_kennedy]

To start with I never said you signed a lease.

Tell the judge that you disagree that the lease offer sent to you rises to the level that the law calls "good faith". Your disagreement won't have any effect on what they do.

Anyone can send you a lease and you have no obligation to that party. You don't have to agree to lease. The operator will buy standing somehow, some way, and will file suit to have your minerals sold out from under you.

Any owner in the pool has standing and any owner can file suit and attempt to prove that you are blocking development of their minerals. Their right to produce trumps your right to not produce. This has already occurred according to you, and yet you are still trying to say it can't happen. People have been having their minerals sold out from under them for decades.

I just looked at your other thread and I see that you are not going to oppose in court. I think the lawyers didn't want to represent you because they didn't want to take your money in a cause in which they know they couldn't possibly win.

The fastest way to eliminate liability which seemed to the primary issue in your other thread, would be to divest yourself of any interest in the property, if you have any interest in the surface, I would bend my efforts to that end, for your own peace of mind. Good luck.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

What you are saying is that no one has rights in the United States, or West Virginia. That is the bottom line. The lawyers in Central Ohio will not even discuss the case because, quite simply, they have no legal experience in the area of the subject or WV. The only "gas" we deal with in Central Ohio is the methane gas the city captures off the city dump. Our lawyers want no part of WV law because of what they have seen in the movies and on TV, NOT reality.

Oh, and there is one thing I have not mentioned on this site, for some reason I received an unsolicited offer from another company a week before I received the information Antero was taking me to court. So far EVERYTHING you have said to me means this second party also can take me to court. I also had three summons to local court today in regards to another property mess I inherited, and a message from a car rental outfit demanding I supply more personal info to determine why I was billed for two separate cars when I rented one last month. I have already summited everything they need to know and yet they are playing games, just life Antero, and I will not play along. Ask me if I am having a good day...

Based upon my grandparent's families I can tell you that the people of WV are their own problem. Biggest difference between my parent's families is that my mother's get together and yak for hours but the only meaning thing they say can be conveyed by others in seconds. My father's family were Pennsylvania Quakers, they PAY ATTENTION and they do not take part in the games others are trying to press them into. I do not play the games, if I am brought into a situation long after the "rules" and "role playing" is set I will not be held accountable. I have a history of being of another mindset which leads to the downfall of the game players. I lost a case in Federal Court but for some reason it was reviewed decades later. Based on the outcome of the judgement and what happened to me the Feds now state I was right. During my "service to the country" I did only one thing to earn the pay, turned over the financial records of a sergeant who was a "BULLY" to auditing, the auditor agreed with my reason and the records went to CID. The person in question received unexpected transfer to "someplace" in Kansas where he was court martialed. Why did it take me to trigger this?? State of Ohio, I have been to the Court of Appeals, own the case and my name still appears on the law. Why me? Thousands could have taken the case to court and the result changed state law. County Court, basically the same thing, I was told I would lose but I made one statement the first day before sitting down and listening to the city make claims I was guilty for SIX MONTHS. The prosecutor "made the mistake" of letting me see photos planed to be used against me. I put the photos down on a desk one by one and pointed out how I can use their photos to drive so many "holes" in the case that all they could do is lose. Prosecutor went crying to the judge stating I was "unfair" and that I had lost the case and would not admit it. The judge dropped the charges and reminded the prosecutor I had said I was not the party that should have been sighted. That prosecutor was soon "encouraged" to seek employment elsewhere.

I am not bragging, I am simply questioning why I am endlessly inheriting the problems of others, told I have to play the game, and when I don't everything falls apart for the people who sent me to court. I honestly am at the point that after asking to be left alone I put everything else aside and sit down and observe what happens next. Usually, the fact that I am not a game player and have a different mind set puts an end to the game playing and the parties that are guilty are the ones that lose the most. Doesn't help with my progress, but why should I start thinking of my self in the same way as those who took the tumble.

Yes, I know I should not have placed this on an open website. I am fed up with the way the people of WV have become so stupid that they see a clause in a contract and even though it is written in plain English that a corporation is making them agree that they have to foot the $$$ of the corporation.

By the way, when I spoke to the judge by phone the other day, after some phone tag, he mentions that he is going to recommend that a rep from Antero come to ME and try to come to an agreement. All in all, if I don't know I own something what do I really lose if it is taken away??? RCR 11/18/2016

[Roger_C_Roberts]

Was thinking about that. I do remember signing for an unexpected package from the VA about the time the other paper came. But I do not see any sign of the form used by the post office for registered mail on the envelope. It seems as if it should have come registered mail. Without question all the other documents in regards to Antero DID NOT come registered mail. Nor did the envelope from the other company seeking to lease the property.

Yes, I see the arguement, but I never stated I did not receive the documents. I clearly stated that during the phone calls (4) from Antero that I refused to sign all the contract because of what was stated in the clauses.

It's not me who is playing the "I forgot" gambit. RCR 11/18/2016

[r_w_kennedy]

No, what I am saying is that the rights of others negates your rights. The way the law is written the law isn't against your rights, it's "for" the other owners rights.

The law, far from perfect as it is, is written in such a way that no one person can block exploration and production if another owner or owners wish their minerals produced. Your minerals will be sold at auction and you can take the proceeds of that sale. How else are the rights of the people who wish to produce their minerals to be protected? What of their rights?

I have explained to you that if the operator has achieved standing through buying at least a minimal interest, they can sue you. I have also explained that everyone who has leased is also a plaintiff against you because their executing the lease is expressing a desire to have their minerals produced. You don't seem to grasp the points I am making which are exactly the points you would have faced in court.

I have been trying to give you a leg up, so to speak and stop you from wasting time, energy and money going down an avenue that would only lead to failure when there might possibly be an avenue that would lead to success, if you could find it.

"What you are saying is that no one has rights in the United States, or West Virginia."

I could turn the your statement above around and say : What you are saying is that nobody but "you" has rights in the US or W. Virginia.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

And what you are overlooking is that I stated the contract was NOT ACCEPTABLE AS WRITTEN. Therefore I am not keeping others from doing what they want, the company is not bothering to even talk about coming to an agreement of what would make the contract acceptable. It is the company who is holding up the procedures, not I.

There is a clause in the contract that states in the case of personal injury or death related to the operation of the well Antero IS NOT TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE. Did anyone who signed the contract of free well realize what that means? Logic of the law, and I have been seeing this here in Ohio for decades, If the injured or dead parties at the time WERE NOT working for Antero and that party's equipment at a location leased by Antero, would they have been injured or killed? Logic says "NO".

Logic states: Therefore what happened to them happened because they were in fact working for the company with company equipment on land rented by the company, therefore the company should be held accountable.

However, the land owner signed the contract (and a contract is an AGREEMENT of terms and conditions between the principal parties, something you keep leaving out of your arguments) indicating that the company can not be held responsible.

But the injuries or dead happened, so who is the party that allowed them to be where they were when injured or killed? THE PARTY THAT SIGNED THE LEASE!

So I ask, what kind of a fool would agree to a contract that could in turn cost them everything they own??? When I ask people here to read the contract clause and tell me what it means, with out me coaching them, well, so far I have asked ten people and every one states, without pausing, that the land owner would be the one going to court!

Was it on this website that someone stated that all it takes is for one person injured on the work site to file a Worker's Comp claim and the property owner goes to court under a contract with the words mentioned here? Someone in WV understands.

Which now I state what I forgot to state in my long speech of yesterday:

My mother had four sisters and only one seemed to be "level headed". I once mentioned to her that I would be starting collage classes at night in a few weeks. She responded, and I do not know how to correctly spell the words she used, "You mus-ant do that! Don't reach above you upings."

She had lived in Ohio for forty five years and she was still "programmed " for FAILURE. And she was the smartest one in the family. From what I am reading about WV's backward laws I am starting to believe a good many of WV's residents are also programmed for failure. That would be a good explanation for what I am being told by some people on this website. Again, maybe I should not state this on the website but because of the mood i am in I did. RCR

[r_w_kennedy]

{And what you are overlooking is that I stated the contract was NOT ACCEPTABLE AS WRITTEN. Therefore I am not keeping others from doing what they want, the company is not bothering to even talk about coming to an agreement of what would make the contract acceptable. It is the company who is holding up the procedures, not I.}

Not acceptable to you is I believe what you mean. Unfortunately that is not the legal standard.

Other people did accept the lease though and that severely damages your assertion that the lease is not acceptable. Just as your saying that you can't be sued and your property can't be taken, when it's already happening. I was at least hoping I could help you understand what was happening. That achievement doesn't seem likely now.

{However, the land owner signed the contract (and a contract is an AGREEMENT of terms and conditions between the principal parties, something you keep leaving out of your arguments) indicating that the company can not be held responsible.}

I never spoke to the issue above. Perhaps you are talking to several people and getting confused?

In any case I am going to admit failure. I can not show you what you face with the law. The appearance that you are hung up on what is "right" as opposed to what the law says may say good things about your character but would put you at a grave disadvantage in court. I wish you good fortune in the future.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

As I keep stating, the receipt of an unexpected/ unsolicited package DOES NOT give the sender the right to claim the act of receiving of said package makes the receiver subject to the demands of the sender. The receiver has the right to inspect the contents of the package and then decide what do in regards to the contents.

In this case the contents of the package was an unsolicited contract. The clauses were found to be unacceptable. The sender's refusing to allow the receiver the right to refuse the contract is against the law, in any state.

In this case the sender is doing just that. They have tailored the contract in their favor. They have tailored the contract to protect the sender from having to face financial responsibility by forcing that financial responsibility onto the receiver, wither or not the receiver signed in agreement in agreement to take the responsibility. In this case it is the COMPANY that is preventing those who have signed from receiving the payment/royalties indicated in the contract. It is the company that is denying the lessor's legal rights. As "someone" has recently said, "It's rigged folks, it is rigged" RCR

[Andrew_Babcock]

I will admit up front that I might grasp this whole thread but that won't stop me for throwing in my 2 cents.......If the only thing holding you up is some clauses in the contract.....line them out and initial each lined out sentence, sign and notarize the amended contract if you want and submit it to the company...I understand the frustration a contract of adhesion creates...but this isn't a cable company, or cell phone, or credit card contract where you can simply refuse their products...as Mr. Kennedy has pointed out numerous times, this involves other people's interests as well as your own...this is basically why we have imminent domain laws...the greater good type stuff....anyway, you are protecting your rights, or at least preserving them for future litigation by "amending" the contract you sign with the line outs and initials...whether they accept them or not....that be my 2 cents.

[Roger_C_Roberts]

Thanks for pointing me towards a "possible" solution. However, in this case I have seen tempering of fact by the company in the form of saying they were aware of my having a recent conversation with the judge (true) and that he had indicated my willingness to sign. That is an outright lie. The judge indicated that he saw my side of the argument and stated that the he should request that the company COME TO ME and make an effort to solve the dispute.

In the papers to the court the company makes several false statement. Why should I trust a company that continues to lie as to what efforts have been made to a judge?

Open remark: Some may wonder why I am putting details on this sign that many think I should not. Answer to the unasked question: Am I using the post remarks and remarks made of the post as a means to activate a part of my brain that contains the legal wording I can't seem to summons (yes), or am I setting a trap by posting fake material in order to trap someone? (Yes)

Yesterday the legal term I have been looking for finally came to mind. I had described what the term means but for some reason I could not recall "Third Party Liability".

That is what the company is trying to FORCE me to accept. And the correct term is much harder for others to grasp them my "talking through" representations of the type of acts that lead to that law.

I have been asked by the company why 264 parties have "freely" signed the same contract and I won't. I replied, " Because they are idiots". I was asked on this site why I see myself different then those who have signed. Answer: I have experience through my various activities that brought an understanding as to what Third Party Liability means, it appears that the others do not.

And then there is the current lie that I am the co-owner that is preventing the others from making money from their holdings. The company bought a small portion of the property in order to have "the right" (their words) to be able to state they "represent the interest of the other co-owners. Of course they will not provide information as to has "freely" agreed to their action.

The party that is preventing the others from seeing income from their property is the Lessee-side of the party taking the court action. It is the company's refusing to amend the contract that prevents the others from making money.

Honestly, and don't claim it is West Virginia law, would you knowingly sign a contract that makes you responsible for Third Party Liability and not giving you a voice in the areas that could lead to a party being injured or killed????

(Prove to me that people in West Virginia are not programmed to be submissive.)

[Roger_C_Roberts]

No RW, when a company can force a property owner into "agreeing" to a contract that could lead the signer to financial disaster it is not "me" who has the rights, it is the rights of the entire group of co-owners to protect themselves.

None of the family related co-owners have spoken up in regards to my not signing. The only "co-owner" that is speaking is the contracting company who is making noise about the others not seeing income. The only party who claims to be acting in the "good faith" of the others is the contracting company.

Meanwhile, another member of the family lives in another WV county and is facing the same contractor. That party sent word that the royalties received from the same sized property has yet to amount to much. "Production costs" came out of profits first (I agree on that) and there was very little money left to pass on to the property owners.

"Oh what a crooked game we play..."