Gag Order Imposed on Children

[greenghost]

This story is sickening and makes me gag.

 

[FarmerDave]

IMO it makes the family look just as bad as the company. Nobody forced them to sign and settle out of court. But I have a feeling there is more to it than that. It's just way too odd.

But you know what? If they screwed up my well and property value, I would be a major pain in the *** to them. But if they turned around and offered me 75,000 an acre for my farm with the stipulation that we keep our mouths shut, I would ask, "where do I sign?"

 

[greenghost]

For the adults to consent is one thing. Yeah, they make their own decisions. But to impose the gag on the kids is another. Who's responsible for a child's actions? The parents. But as a parent myself I know for a fact kids are going to say what they want, when they want and parents are not always going to be around. So if they start complaining about Range Resources -- how they are the ones who made their head hurt -- in school and word gets out, Range Resources will go after the kids? Get real, Range Resources. You won't be able to gag a kid and it was sleezy of that company to drag them into it... slimier than frack fluid.

 

[FarmerDave]

greenghost wrote:
For the adults to consent is one thing. Yeah, they make their own decisions. But to impose the gag on the kids is another. Who's responsible for a child's actions? The parents.

Exactly.

But as a parent myself I know for a fact kids are going to say what they want, when they want and parents are not always going to be around.

Absolutely. But knowing that, would you sign such an agreement? I wouldn't.

So if they start complaining about Range Resources -- how they are the ones who made their head hurt -- in school and word gets out, Range Resources will go after the kids?

No, but they could go after the parents. You know, the ones that signed the agreement. Please see your first question.

Get real,

I am quite real.

[/quote]Range Resources. You won't be able to gag a kid and it was sleezy of that company to drag them into it... slimier than frack fluid.[/quote]

Of course it was sleazy for the lawyer to insist on the gag order covering the entire family. But it wasn't a secret at the time of signing and and the parents still signed. Who's fault is that?

I still think we are only hearing one side and there might be more to it.

 

[RyanR]

From the article: During the proceedings, the attorney representing Range Resources, James Swetz, reaffirmed the company sought the gag order on the children. "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it," he told the court.

Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream and MarkWest Energy were also defendants in the case.

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette. He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.

IMO, it's grandstanding BS by their lawyer which is why I believe he used the words "I guess" in his comments. Even the company supposedly publicly said (as told to the reporters) "they don't beleive the agreement extends to the children." As far as the kids are concerned, they can wipe their butts with that gag order because that's about all it's useful for when it comes to them. Again, this is only my opinion.

At the very least I certainly can't see this applying to them AFTER they turn 18. Heck, they didn't sign it and as adults shouldn't be held accountable for it.

 

[FarmerDave]

RyanR wrote:
From the article: During the proceedings, the attorney representing Range Resources, James Swetz, reaffirmed the company sought the gag order on the children. "I guess our position is it does apply to the whole family. We would certainly enforce it," he told the court.

Williams Gas/Laurel Mountain Midstream and MarkWest Energy were also defendants in the case.

However, once that gag order came to light, two years after the August 2011 proceedings, the company told reporters it did not agree with Swetz's comments. "We don't believe the settlement applies to children," a Range Resources spokesman told the Gazette. He went on to tell the paper that there was no evidence that the Hallowich family was affected by exposure to gas development.

IMO, it's grandstanding BS by their lawyer which is why I believe he used the words "I guess" in his comments. Even the company supposedly publicly said (as told to the reporters) "they don't beleive the agreement extends to the children." As far as the kids are concerned, they can wipe their butts with that gag order because that's about all it's useful for when it comes to them. Again, this is only my opinion.

At the very least I certainly can't see this applying to them AFTER they turn 18. Heck, they didn't sign it and as adults shouldn't be held accountable for it.

LOL!, I knew I was missing something. However, I still have to wonder why they would insist on a gag order like that.

I agree with Greenghost that the lawyers during the original settlement acted sleazy. I also agree with you that Swetz was grandstanding and bullying and he likely gets paid handsomely to do that and provide interpretation that gives greatest advantage to his client.

I also agree that since the company is on record saying it doesn't apply to the kids, then it doesn't. Also, it wouldn't apply anyway once they turned 18.

Disclaimer: I do not think, nor did I say or imply that all lawyers are sleazy.

 

[bikerfish]

so why the gag order in the first place?? wouldn't be because they screwed up?? oh no, I thought this was all very safe and proven, we have nothing to worry about, it's all good right???? RIGHT??
also says that even after the settlement, there is no proof they were affected by the gas drilling, ok, then why the settlement??
oh yeah, money talks, here, take this large bag of money and shut up.
thing is, they can't make everyone shut up.

 

[Gudgeonville]

And it is OK to lie about what is going on around you to the media to try to get out of your bad decision on purchasing property? Even using your kids as pawns in this sorry episode?
Range Resources has already said that this gag order is not about the kids.

 

[Gudgeonville]

Range also said that this was not a good situation for anyone and wanted to purchase their property so that they could move away from there.
The people that sold the 10 acres to the Hallowichs tried to buy the property back before the drilling started and the Hallowichs would not agree.
And, I dealt with this when I worked for DEP and there were never any water test results or air monitoring results that showed issues with the water or air.

 

[David]

Gudgeonville wrote:
Range also said that this was not a good situation for anyone .

Why was it not a good situation?

 

[Gudgeonville]

If I'm not mistaken, they purchased their 10 acres just as the planning was starting on drilling that particular area. The wells were drilled before they built the house and the impoundment and compressor station were also in the permitting stages. (a long process)
When all involved realized there was this 10 acres in the middle of the hundreds of acres that was sold off, the folks that sold the 10 acres to them offered to buy the 10 acres back, but the Hallowiches refused. DEP was called and told that the gas wells ruined their water supply but the water well was not even drilled yet! Thus starting the long list of complaints against the companies involved.

Range has stated that if the house had been there when they started to develop that acreage, they would never had placed the wells and impoundment so near their house, BUT, THE HOUSE WAS NOT THERE.

That is why Range stated it was not a good situation for anyone.

Also, the Hallowichs swore under oath that there was no ill effects to their children. They also requested the gag order. And that gag order never had anything to do with the children.

 

[Gudgeonville]

There is always much more detail in what happens in real life than what the news media reports.

I have been involved in this business long enough to see that some people realize that the squeaky wheel gets the grease and others without mineral rights see a good opportunity for their ship to come in! ;-)

 

[osprey]

How can someone get a lease without owning the Mineral Rights?

 

[osprey]

FRACKING will be the subject tonight on Coast 2 Coast radio talk show. With George Noorey.

 

[FarmerDave]

osprey wrote:
How can someone get a lease without owning the Mineral Rights?

They can't, and didn't, based on what I read here.

The bought the land without the mineral rights. Something I would never do. The new owners were not getting a cent as a result, hence the lawsuit.

This whole thing looked fishy from the start, and now that we are hearing some info from the other side...

 

[osprey]

In this area of PA you CAN'T buy the Mineral Rights with most residential property.

 

[FarmerDave]

Likely only because someone else besides the land seller actually owns the mineral rights. I'll bet that farm next to your cabin owns the mineral rights under that land.

 

[FarmerDave]

Here is the problem Osprey. These people bought 10 acres of undeveloped land tight in the middle of a planned drill sight (among other things). Whether they knew was was coming or not is debatable. If they didn't know, then their options were to sue the people who sold them the land to get their money back, or sue the oil company, ... or both. If they knew about it, then their only option was to sue the oil company.

The previous owners offered to buy the land back. Did you miss that part?

Sounds to me like they figured they could get way more by suing the bigger fish.

 

[JasonS]

osprey wrote:
FRACKING will be the subject tonight on Coast 2 Coast radio talk show. With George Noorey.

I knew it. It's the aliens responsible for the fracking! lol

 

[Gudgeonville]

I don't pretend to know all of the answers but there is a lot more to this story than the media wants everyone to know. I just heard that the original sellers wanted to back out of the deal because of these issues and the Hallowichs sued the original seller to keep the 10 acres! If that is true, not sure how they get anything for their property. Instead, they get $75,000/acre. Not bad.