Bobby Blotzer = piece of shit

[kreamygoodness]

Archived because Photobucket sucks!

[Endless Yodel]

And to think that Blotzer blasted Croucier for his stage moves.

[Heenan Snuka]

I dont remember this insult from Blobster:

After someone uploaded a short clip of RATT'S JUAN CROUCIER performing in February in San Antonio, Texas, Blotzer took to Facebook to share the video and disparage the bassist's stage presence, writing in a since-deleted post: "I would rather have surgery on my C**K with no anesthesia than to have to ever see this anywhere in my life again. Man, that's really disturbingly horrifying to see. A purgerer [sic] and a spazzorama freak! Seriously, can someone really say, 'Man, that was really great'? Looks like he's riding a broom horsey!"

Blotzer previously publicly insulted Croucier's appearance in January, comparing the bassist to "Danny DeVito with a headband on" while repeatedly referring to him as "Crucifer."

[Heenan Snuka]

Need to keep this on file:

Presently before the court is Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of this Court's order denying Plaintiff's motion
for summary judgment and granting Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and heard oral argument, the court denies the motion and adopts the
following Order.

I. Background
As discussed at length in this Court's prior Order the founding members of the band RATT formed a California
partnership (“the RATT Partnership” or “Partnership”) in 1985.
Pursuant to the written agreement formalizing the Partnership (the “Partnership Agreement”), “each member . . . owned an equal 20%
share in the partnership, including in [several] RATT trademarks.”
Under the Partnership Agreement, no partner could transfer his interest without the unanimous written consent of all partners.
Partners could voluntarily withdraw from the RATT Partnership by giving the other partners three months written notice of the
withdrawing partner’s intent to withdraw, or could be involuntarily expelled from the RATT Partnership with the unanimous consent of
the other partners.
In the instant action, Plaintiff asserts that the Partnership assigned the RATT marks to Plaintiff in 1997. Plaintiff contends
that, at the time of the assignment, Defendant Juan Croucier had already been involuntarily expelled from the Partnership, and that
the remaining partners, Stephen Pearcy, Robert Blotzer, and Warren DeMartini, unanimously consented to the assignment of the marks to
Plaintiff WBS, Inc. Plaintiff now brings trademark-related causes of action against Croucier, who allegedly uses the RATT marks in
conjunction with his new band's activities. Croucier filed a counterclaim seeking declaratory relief.
Croucier and WBS filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the infringement claims against Croucier.

1 The court determined that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that Plaintiff had made a threshold showing of ownership of the RATT marks because there was no genuine dispute as to whether the 1997 assignment from the Partnership to WBS was valid. First, the court observed that ambiguous documents drafted by both Pearcy and DeMartini created a triable issue as to whether either of them remained in the Partnership in 1997, precluding a grant of summary judgment in WBS' favor. Furthermore, the court determined that, on the then-current
record, there was no genuine dispute that Croucier remained a member of the Partnership at the time of the supposed assignment.
Although WBS relied upon a letter purportedly expelling Croucier from the Partnership in early 1997, prior to the assignment, that
letter was signed by, and referred to the unanimous vote and consent of, only Blotzer and Pearcy.
The Partnership Agreement, however, required the unanimous consent of all partners, other than the partner being expelled.
By Plaintiff's own admission, DeMartini remained a member of the Partnership at all times. Blotzer and Pearcy could not, therefore, have expelled Croucier without DeMartini's consent, of which there was no evidence.
In addition, Pearcy submitted a declaration stating that he never discussed Croucier’s expulsion from the RATT Partnership with
Blotzer, never understood Croucier to have been expelled, and had no recollection of seeing the 1997 expulsion letter prior to this
litigation. Pearcy’s declaration stated that the letter “is not the product of any agreement I reached with Robert Blotzer or anyone else.” Plaintiff did not file any written objection to the Pearcy declaration. Although Plaintiff's counsel did, at oral argument, suggest that Pearcy lacked credibility, Plaintiff submitted no evidence that conflicted with or contradicted Pearcy's statement.
Indeed, as the court also noted, Blotzer himself took a position different than that advanced by WBS, stating in a deposition that
Croucier voluntarily withdrew from the Partnership, not that the other members of the Partnership unanimously expelled Croucier.

Now, on this motion for reconsideration, WBS argues that Croucier submitted evidence in bad faith and committed a fraud on
this Court by intentionally ignoring proceedings in an earlier, 2002 state court action between Pearcy and WBS. WBS contends that
this Court should have considered documents submitted in those proceedings, which, Plaintiff asserts, establish that Croucier is
collaterally estopped from challenging the validity of the assignment of the RATT marks to WBS.

II. Legal Standard
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), a party may seek
reconsideration of a final judgment or court order for any reason
that justifies relief, including:
(1) mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
(2) newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable
diligence, could not have been discovered in time to
move for a new trial under Rule 59(b);
(3) fraud (whether previously called intrinsic or
extrinsic), misrepresentation, or misconduct by an
opposing party;
(4) the judgment is void;
(5) the judgment has been released or discharged; it is
based on an earlier judgment that has been reversed or
vacated; or applying it prospectively is no longer
equitable; or
(6) any other reason that justifies relief.

In addition, the court once again notes that Plaintiff's counsel continues to disregard the rules of this court. At the
summary judgment stage, counsel violated several of this Court's local rules. In the interest of resolving matters on the merits,
the court denied Defendant Croucier’s request to strike Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion, but instructed Plaintiff’s counsel to
comply with all procedural requirements in the future, on pain of sanctions. Despite that admonition, Plaintiff's counsel continues
to fail to adhere to the letter and spirit of the court's rules.
For example, although Plaintiff asks that this court consider, among other state court documents Plaintiff never placed in the
record at summary judgment, Pearcy's Separate Statement of Genuine Issues of Fact, no such statement was attached to Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration or counsel’s supporting declaration. Instead, counsel attached the document in conjunction with its
reply, depriving Defendant of any opportunity to address the Lastly, Plaintiff has failed to meet his obligation to present
evidence in a manner that would allow this court to evaluate it.
Even if Plaintiff had presented a valid reason why the state court documents could not have been presented sooner,
Plaintiff's briefs repeatedly discuss and even quote those documents while citing only to "Declaration of Sherman" generally.
It is not the court's task to scour the nine exhibits attached to counsel's declaration, comprising well over one hundred pages, in
an effort to verify the accuracy of counsel's representations or otherwise unearth evidence that the elements of estoppel are met.

C. Partial Summary Judgment on Croucier’s Counterclaim
This Court denied Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and granted Defendant Croucier’s motion for partial summary judgment on
his Counterclaim. Plaintiff argues that the court, in granting summary judgment on Croucier’s Counterclaim, failed to consider
Plaintiff’s arguments that (1) the Partnership has been dissolved and (2) that the statute of limitations bars Croucier from seeking
declaratory relief. Plaintiff’s opposition to Croucier’s motion for partial summary judgment did include a one-paragraph argument that “by
operation of law, the Partnership is dead” as part of its larger argument that “Croucier has not overcome the prima facie ownership
by WBS.” Aside from the fact that the provision of law cited was repealed in 1999, the relevance of
document. Plaintiff also untimely filed a declaration in support of its reply and filed, without explanation, a "Notice
of Errata" that is in actuality a second, untimely reply. Plaintiff’s contention remains unclear to the court. Plaintiff now
argues that “[t]he existence of the Partnership is a disputed, material fact that relates directly to whether the assignment of
the trademarks was valid.” The logic of that bare assertion is no clearer at this stage, however, and provides
no basis for reconsideration. Plaintiff provides no explanation how the supposed dissolution of the Partnership has any bearing on
whether the Partnership’s assignment of the marks to WBS in 1997 was valid.
Plaintiff’s reconsideration motion also argues that this Court made no mention of Plaintiff’s “clear and legitimate argument that
the statute of limitations had run for Croucier’s counterclaims relating to declaratory relief as to ownership."
12.) Plaintiff provides no citations to this "clear and legitimate" argument, and its opposition to Croucier’s motion for
summary judgment made no mention of the statute of limitations. Plaintiff’s opposition did include a single sentence stating that
“the evidence is clear that Croucier knew in 2001 that Plaintiff had been assigned the Marks . . . .” The evidence cited to support that assertion, however, supports no such conclusion. That evidence includes a declaration from Plaintiff’s
counsel, stating only that excerpts of Croucier’s deposition are attached, a declaration from Blotzer, submitted
in support of an unrelated motion, opining on Croucier’s state of mind another declaration from Plaintiff’s
counsel, submitted in support of yet another motion and various documents, cited only as “Exhibit B,” that make no
reference to WBS’ assertion of ownership over the RATT marks Plaintiff's counsel's later explanation that the notice of
errata was necessary because he accidentally timely filed a rough draft of the reply strains credulity, particularly in light of
counsel's continued pattern of disregard for court rules and this Court's earlier admonition.
Thus, even if Plaintiff’s passing reference to Croucier’s knowledge constituted a “clear and legitimate argument
that the statute of limitations had run” on Croucier’s Counterclaim, Plaintiff submitted no evidence to support that
position.

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Reconsideration is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEAN D. PREGERSON
United States District Judge

[Heenan Snuka]

The Sherminiator filed an appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday [July 7, 2017]...

Cost Blobs $505..

[Luminiferous]

How are the Alex Jones tards of Bobby and his son Mike doing ? Do they think the world is flat too ?

Blob's kid went on a rant earlier this week... he linked Alex Jones' Info Wars claim that there is a plot to "take out" Drumpf...

Oh and according to him it was McCain who helped create ISIS, not Obama...

Mike Blotzer
July 24 at 7:36pm ·

What all the sheeple on the Left need to realize is this President is a once in a lifetime opportunity to do radical changes to DC. He's not a Republican or Democrat; he's there to get rid of these bastards who have stolen $40 TRILLION dollars from all of us, plunged us into -$20 TRILLION in debt, slaves to a private company that prints our paper with only debt behind it, not value. The Federal Reserve was formed by financiers on Jekyll Island, and snuck through Congress during Christmas break so it could land on the puppet Woodrow Wilson's desk. Like Federal Income Tax, it didn't even get the necessary amount of votes to be ratified. But that's neither here or there; READ the United States Constitution.
American exceptionalism is real, and that's because of the Constitution, which explicitly, and not up for interpretation or redefinition, tells you what government can NOT do.
And you will see how FAR we've been driven into slavery (YES SLAVERY to the system, beholden to financiers, tech monopolies and DC bureaucracies and lifetime career politicians who do not represent you) and as soon as you get it the better, When they take your right to own property away, as Obama did with the land grabs, and AG Sessions is, as it seems, going forward with Civil Asset Forfeiture, then you are a SLAVE, and slaves get free health care,
If you wanna back people we KNOW got us into debt, started wars, coups, and armed ISIS, the names like McCain, McConnell, Pelosi, Waters, Schumer....And their propagandist whores CNN, MSNBC, et al, then you are against us. Or you wanna act like this isn;t important and politics are boring...you need to wake up. Trump has kicked the boot off your neck, so why are you fighting to put it back on? For your "team" identity politics?? COME ON.

The list of accomplishments, of tangible undeniable PRO YOU moves by President Donald J. Trump [OFFICIAL] is unbelievable. He has done more to benefit you and your kid's futures than any President in 60 years, I'd say since the founders. Media will not mention the $4 trillion in wealth added to the country, or how manufacturing is the best it's been for 33 years, construction is up, mining, gas prices are down, TPP and the Carbon Tax Paris Accord gone, 800 regulations cut, the mandate for every new law/regulation, 2 must be cut first, 70% drop in illegal crossings BEFORE a single brick was laid on the wall, cracked down on health care scams and fraud, child sex trafficking and pedos, over 1 million jobs added, lowest number of welfare/food stamp recipients in a decade....and he hasn't been able to get the clowns in Congress to get tax reform, infrastructure and get the ACA out before it does any more damage (which if you look into what he and Rand Paul came up with, it is how we save health care)

The point is, here's someone who is being attacked by all sides of the people we all know has lied, cheated and stole from us for decades. He wants to put term limits, rules making lawmakers beholden to the same laws we are, etc etc. So stop thinking about you political team, and more about whether or not you back what this country is about. But the lines are being drawn, and it's gonna go hot unless the bullshit stops and we start backing our President and help him clean out the corruption; THE REAL ACTUAL corruption and not the ridiculous Russia bullshit, and maybe we can hold off the inevitable.

He and one of his buddies wished McCain would die of a blood clot on his way to the senate yesterday---just after posting this:

[Beddie_Wedder]

[bigpaparob74]

Any news from the Blotz camp?

[dmbrocker]

Bump. Is Blobs on suicide watch these days every time he hears about another sideJuander in concert?

[kingbrian74]

This sucks.

I miss Bobby's meltdowns and ridiculous rants.

[kingbrian74]

No argument from me.

[Luminiferous]

Well on the 20th they scheduled a NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION for Summary Judgment as to complaint filed by Defendants Stephen Pearcy. Motion set for hearing on 9/18/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

Since the case Blobs filed against Pearcy is the same kind he filed against and lost to Juan, it appears Pearcy is asking Pregerson to toss Blobs case...

So September 18th should be the next day to watch out for, unless the appeals court decides Pregerson's decision shouldn't be reversed, which could happen any day now that both Blobs and Juan have paid their appeal fees and filed the paperwork..

[Hungwell]

Well on the 20th they scheduled a NOTICE OF EMOTION IN MOTION for Summary Judgment as to complaint filed by Defendants Stephen Pearcy. Motion set for hearing on 9/18/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson.

Shiiiit, our boy 'Get 'Em Preggo' Pregerson wont even have to review his notes before he breaks the backboard with his behind the back twisting Silverback Double Fisted Slam of his 'DENIED' & 'SO IT IS ORDERED' stamps.

[gtrjay]

bump

[RnRjUnKiE]

Wassup with da Blotz? He's been so quiet lately....

[gtrjay]

It's October. Can't let this thread die. Ever!!!!

Hi Carlos

[Thebottomline]

dp.

[Thebottomline]

[kingbrian74]

Bobby’s lack of public stupidity makes me hate him that much more.

[zzzzzzz]

Blotz was at the Scorpions show.

[eddie lee roth]

Blotz was at the Scorpions show.

That’s his new work uniform. Since there’s no way in hell he can pay Mr. Freight Train Comin he’s working off his tab by doing some private dick work.

[KosmoKramer]

[Luminiferous]

Blotz was at the Scorpions show.

That’s his new work uniform. Since there’s no way in hell he can pay Mr. Freight Train Comin he’s working off his tab by doing some private dick work.

That's probably one of Sherm's suits..

Blobs not going to be a good private detective if he's recognized as the asshole drummer who got kicked out of Ratt...

Never can seem to be photographed without a drink in his hand these days..

[Danzig in the Dark]

Blotz was at the Scorpions show.

That’s his new work uniform. Since there’s no way in hell he can pay Mr. Freight Train Comin he’s working off his tab by doing some private dick work.

Well, being a public dick certainly didn't pay off.

[eddie lee roth]

Blotz was at the Scorpions show.

That’s his new work uniform. Since there’s no way in hell he can pay Mr. Freight Train Comin he’s working off his tab by doing some private dick work.

That's probably one of Sherm's suits..

Blobs not going to be a good private detective if he's recognized as the asshole drummer who got kicked out of Ratt...

Never can seem to be photographed without a drink in his hand these days..

That’s probably the only reason he went. He planned all along to go immediately backstage and start slamming drinks on somebody else’s dime.

[MOON]

Inspector Blotz knockin out all the groupies

[Luminiferous]

Latest update I can find regarding WBS vs Pearcy

Motion set for hearing on 11/6/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson

As far as WBS vs Croucier it appears Juan chalked up another win against the SS Blotzer/Sherman..

August 21, 2017- Costs taxed in amount of $1,465.72 in favor of Defendant and Counterclaimant Juan Croucier and against Plaintiff WBS., Inc. regarding 232 : Second APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiff WBS, Inc

[twfs]

Latest update I can find regarding WBS vs Pearcy

Motion set for hearing on 11/6/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson

As far as WBS vs Croucier it appears Juan chalked up another win against the SS Blotzer/Sherman..

August 21, 2017- Costs taxed in amount of $1,465.72 in favor of Defendant and Counterclaimant Juan Croucier and against Plaintiff WBS., Inc. regarding 232 : Second APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiff WBS, Inc

HAHAH! More money out of Blotz's pocket! FUCK HIM!

[Artemis2085]

Look at his chin longer than 10 seconds and tell me what it reminds you of. That thing in the very middle does not help

[dmbrocker]

Latest update I can find regarding WBS vs Pearcy

Motion set for hearing on 11/6/2017 at 10:00 AM before Judge Dean D. Pregerson

As far as WBS vs Croucier it appears Juan chalked up another win against the SS Blotzer/Sherman..

August 21, 2017- Costs taxed in amount of $1,465.72 in favor of Defendant and Counterclaimant Juan Croucier and against Plaintiff WBS., Inc. regarding 232 : Second APPLICATION to the Clerk to Tax Costs against Plaintiff WBS, Inc

HAHAH! More money out of Blotz's pocket! FUCK HIM!

How much is Blobs going to be in debt to Sherm when this is over? Gotta be in the thousands now!