Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Cindy on February 19, 2010, 05:13:39 AM
-
Excerpts:
Defendants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle (“Pickle and Joy”) assert that the
MidCountry Bank records — consisting of private financial records of Plaintiff Danny
Lee Shelton, founder of Plaintiff Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) —
will support their baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. In effect, they want to
continue gathering private information about the Plaintiffs more than a year after the suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs have contended throughout that the MidCountry records were never relevant. Now that the case is over but for Defendants’ appeal, even the Defendants cannot articulate a plausible or even coherent reason for this information.
The suit was dismissed without reference to the MidCountry records. The documents had been produced pursuant to a third-party subpoena issued out of the U.S.
District Court for Minnesota, which had ordered that they be delivered under seal to
Magistrate Judge Hillman. Before the bank records were reviewed for relevancy, Judge Saylor granted plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs moved that the MidCountry records be returned to them. Judge Saylor granted that motion as well. Defendants never sought reconsideration of that part of Judge Saylor’s order and did not seek to suspend its operation pending their appeal of the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hillman obeyed the order and returned the MidCountry records to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the documents were never part of the district court record.
On January 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hillman denied Pickle and Joy’s: (1)
motion to forward copies of the MidCountry Bank records to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals; and (2) motion to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the MidCountry Bank
records and to stay the pending appeals. Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.” Instead, they make thinly-veiled threats to this Court —reminding it that they have now filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Saylor and court administrative staff demanding an inquiry into why Danny Shelton’s own financial records were returned to him unopened.
This lawsuit was intended to put an end to Defendants’ baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ bombast was then directed at the counsel for Plaintiffs, and now has focused on the Court itself. Their objections to Judge Hillman’s decisions should be overruled because the rulings are not clearly erroneous.
"Pickle and Joy’s campaign of harassment has now focused on this Court. It began
with the allegations of wrongdoing against the plaintiffs that necessitated the initiation of this lawsuit. Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery.
Frustrated by delays they encountered as this Court considered what sort of protective order and limits on the scope of discovery would be appropriate, Defendants circumvented this Court and obtained subpoenas from sister courts in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere in the hope of finding something to prove the truth of their assertions, which Plaintiffs contended were baseless.
Magistrate Judge Hillman ultimately put a stop to that activity and ordered that all subpoenas on third parties be preapproved. (Docket # 106 at 5). The subpoena for the MidCountry Bank records at issue in this motion was issued from the U.S. District Court for Minnesota. (Docket #208, Ex. A at Ex. F). The records are the personal financial records of Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton. (Id.). Shelton resisted
the subpoena on the basis that the information sought was personal and was not relevant to the case. (Docket #208, Ex. B). The Minnesota judge ordered the records produced to Judge Hillman under seal. (Docket #208, Ex. C). The case was voluntarily dismissed before anybody ever had occasion to look at the records. (Docket #139). Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties.
Pickle and Joy have waged an internet campaign of harassing commentary about
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and went so far as to bring a baseless motion alleging a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which was properly denied. And now their venom is aimed at this Court. Pickle and Joy have made unfounded allegations of misconduct against Judge Saylor, forcing him to recuse himself. (Affidavit of Robert Pickle). These allegations of misconduct also are directed at court staff. (Id.). Not surprisingly, Judge Hillman also recused himself after ruling on the motions. (Electronic Order dated January 29, 2010). Although Pickle and Joy do not directly allege misconduct against Judge Hillman, they cannot resist stating that, “the extreme brevity of the January 29 orders . . . leads one to suspect that, rather than ruling on the motions, the magistrate judge should have also recused himself . . .” (Def. Brf. at 2-3). Thus, the thinly-veiled threats continue. The unfounded allegation that Judge Hillman’s decisions are suspect is no basis for finding his decisions clearly erroneous. In fact, this Court cannot overturn Judge Hillman’s decisions even if the district court would have exercised discretion differently. Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26. Pickle and Joy’s paranoia and suspicion is not a legal basis for finding Judge Hillman’s decisions clearly erroneous.
Pickle and Joy continue to insist that the MidCountry Bank records are their personal “property” and their return to plaintiffs was unlawful. Yet their disagreement with Judge Hillman’s orders does not make these decisions clearly erroneous. After all, this Court has confirmed that matters of discretion are rarely, if ever, contrary to law.Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26 (stating that even if another magistrate judge would have chosen to exercise discretion in another way, this would not be “contrary to law”).
To be clear, the MidCountry Bank records are merely reproductions of Plaintiff Danny Shelton’s personal financial documents. Merely because Pickle and Joy paid MidCountry Bank’s expenses incurred to reproduce these records does not make these confidential documents their own personal property. Pickle and Joy did not “buy” Shelton’s bank records. They did not acquire an ownership interest in these documents independent of their evidentiary value. Their interest in these records does not outlive the litigation to which they relate.
In fact, the court never determined whether these documents were even relevant to thelitigation. Pickle and Joy were never authorized to view these documents. Thus, even if the district court was still in possession of these documents and if they were transmitted to the First Circuit on appeal, the First Circuit would have no use for them because the substantive information was never considered at the district court level.
Judge Hillman’s orders confirming his decision to return these confidential
documents to plaintiffs is in compliance with Judge Saylor’s order. 3ABN’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) contained a request to
order the “return to Plaintiffs” of all confidential information under the Confidentiality
and Protective Order issued on April 17, 2008, including “records of MidCountry Bank
which were delivered under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge
Hillman. . .” (Docket #120 at 1). When the Court granted this motion, it ordered that “all confidential documents be returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned . . . .” (Electronic Order dated 10/31/08; see also Docket #208, Ex. E at 13-15) (emphasis added). Finally, when the Court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration, it stated that, “to the extent that the materials [considered in the motion to file under seal] are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman on this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago.” (Docket #193 at 3) (emphasis added). Thus, there is nothing “clearly erroneous” about Judge Hillman’s orders, directly following Judge Saylor’s orders. Notably, Pickle and Joy did not seek reconsideration or request a stay of execution of this part of Judge Saylor’s order. Their sudden realization that the records had been returned to Plaintiff more than a year after the fact is disingenuous, given that they never voiced disagreement with the order when it
issued.
Finally, there will be no irreparable harm based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s storage
of Danny Shelton’s personal financial records. Plaintiff’s Counsel has stated under oath that the documents are in a sealed box and will be maintained until the conclusion of this litigation. (Docket #208 at ¶ 8). Pickle and Joy’s absurd suggestion that these documents contain the district court’s or its administrative staff’s “notes” on these exhibits is unfounded, and would not materially change the analysis and make these documents relevant anyway.
CONCLUSION
Because Pickle and Joy provide no legal argument that would render Magistrate
Judge Hillman’s January 29, 2010 orders clearly erroneous, their objections to these
decisions must be rejected. "
To read the legal arguments and the above excepts in context, see the attached document.
-
Who uses vocabulary like that in a legal document?
Excerpts:
Defendants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle (“Pickle and Joy”) assert that the
MidCountry Bank records — consisting of private financial records of Plaintiff Danny
Lee Shelton, founder of Plaintiff Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) —
will support their baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. In effect, they want to
continue gathering private information about the Plaintiffs more than a year after the suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs have contended throughout that the MidCountry records were never relevant. Now that the case is over but for Defendants’ appeal, even the Defendants cannot articulate a plausible or even coherent reason for this information.
The suit was dismissed without reference to the MidCountry records. The documents had been produced pursuant to a third-party subpoena issued out of the U.S.
District Court for Minnesota, which had ordered that they be delivered under seal to
Magistrate Judge Hillman. Before the bank records were reviewed for relevancy, Judge Saylor granted plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs moved that the MidCountry records be returned to them. Judge Saylor granted that motion as well. Defendants never sought reconsideration of that part of Judge Saylor’s order and did not seek to suspend its operation pending their appeal of the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hillman obeyed the order and returned the MidCountry records to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the documents were never part of the district court record.
On January 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hillman denied Pickle and Joy’s: (1)
motion to forward copies of the MidCountry Bank records to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals; and (2) motion to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the MidCountry Bank
records and to stay the pending appeals. Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.” Instead, they make thinly-veiled threats to this Court —reminding it that they have now filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Saylor and court administrative staff demanding an inquiry into why Danny Shelton’s own financial records were returned to him unopened.
This lawsuit was intended to put an end to Defendants’ baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ bombast was then directed at the counsel for Plaintiffs, and now has focused on the Court itself. Their objections to Judge Hillman’s decisions should be overruled because the rulings are not clearly erroneous.
"Pickle and Joy’s campaign of harassment has now focused on this Court. It began
with the allegations of wrongdoing against the plaintiffs that necessitated the initiation of this lawsuit. Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery.
Frustrated by delays they encountered as this Court considered what sort of protective order and limits on the scope of discovery would be appropriate, Defendants circumvented this Court and obtained subpoenas from sister courts in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere in the hope of finding something to prove the truth of their assertions, which Plaintiffs contended were baseless.
Magistrate Judge Hillman ultimately put a stop to that activity and ordered that all subpoenas on third parties be preapproved. (Docket # 106 at 5). The subpoena for the MidCountry Bank records at issue in this motion was issued from the U.S. District Court for Minnesota. (Docket #208, Ex. A at Ex. F). The records are the personal financial records of Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton. (Id.). Shelton resisted
the subpoena on the basis that the information sought was personal and was not relevant to the case. (Docket #208, Ex. B). The Minnesota judge ordered the records produced to Judge Hillman under seal. (Docket #208, Ex. C). The case was voluntarily dismissed before anybody ever had occasion to look at the records. (Docket #139). Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties.
Pickle and Joy have waged an internet campaign of harassing commentary about
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and went so far as to bring a baseless motion alleging a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which was properly denied. And now their venom is aimed at this Court. Pickle and Joy have made unfounded allegations of misconduct against Judge Saylor, forcing him to recuse himself. (Affidavit of Robert Pickle). These allegations of misconduct also are directed at court staff. (Id.). Not surprisingly, Judge Hillman also recused himself after ruling on the motions. (Electronic Order dated January 29, 2010). Although Pickle and Joy do not directly allege misconduct against Judge Hillman, they cannot resist stating that, “the extreme brevity of the January 29 orders . . . leads one to suspect that, rather than ruling on the motions, the magistrate judge should have also recused himself . . .” (Def. Brf. at 2-3). Thus, the thinly-veiled threats continue. The unfounded allegation that Judge Hillman’s decisions are suspect is no basis for finding his decisions clearly erroneous. In fact, this Court cannot overturn Judge Hillman’s decisions even if the district court would have exercised discretion differently. Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26. Pickle and Joy’s paranoia and suspicion is not a legal basis for finding Judge Hillman’s decisions clearly erroneous.
Pickle and Joy continue to insist that the MidCountry Bank records are their personal “property” and their return to plaintiffs was unlawful. Yet their disagreement with Judge Hillman’s orders does not make these decisions clearly erroneous. After all, this Court has confirmed that matters of discretion are rarely, if ever, contrary to law.Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26 (stating that even if another magistrate judge would have chosen to exercise discretion in another way, this would not be “contrary to law”).
To be clear, the MidCountry Bank records are merely reproductions of Plaintiff Danny Shelton’s personal financial documents. Merely because Pickle and Joy paid MidCountry Bank’s expenses incurred to reproduce these records does not make these confidential documents their own personal property. Pickle and Joy did not “buy” Shelton’s bank records. They did not acquire an ownership interest in these documents independent of their evidentiary value. Their interest in these records does not outlive the litigation to which they relate.
In fact, the court never determined whether these documents were even relevant to thelitigation. Pickle and Joy were never authorized to view these documents. Thus, even if the district court was still in possession of these documents and if they were transmitted to the First Circuit on appeal, the First Circuit would have no use for them because the substantive information was never considered at the district court level.
Judge Hillman’s orders confirming his decision to return these confidential
documents to plaintiffs is in compliance with Judge Saylor’s order. 3ABN’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) contained a request to
order the “return to Plaintiffs” of all confidential information under the Confidentiality
and Protective Order issued on April 17, 2008, including “records of MidCountry Bank
which were delivered under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge
Hillman. . .” (Docket #120 at 1). When the Court granted this motion, it ordered that “all confidential documents be returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned . . . .” (Electronic Order dated 10/31/08; see also Docket #208, Ex. E at 13-15) (emphasis added). Finally, when the Court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration, it stated that, “to the extent that the materials [considered in the motion to file under seal] are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman on this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago.” (Docket #193 at 3) (emphasis added). Thus, there is nothing “clearly erroneous” about Judge Hillman’s orders, directly following Judge Saylor’s orders. Notably, Pickle and Joy did not seek reconsideration or request a stay of execution of this part of Judge Saylor’s order. Their sudden realization that the records had been returned to Plaintiff more than a year after the fact is disingenuous, given that they never voiced disagreement with the order when it
issued.
Finally, there will be no irreparable harm based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s storage
of Danny Shelton’s personal financial records. Plaintiff’s Counsel has stated under oath that the documents are in a sealed box and will be maintained until the conclusion of this litigation. (Docket #208 at ¶ 8). Pickle and Joy’s absurd suggestion that these documents contain the district court’s or its administrative staff’s “notes” on these exhibits is unfounded, and would not materially change the analysis and make these documents relevant anyway.
CONCLUSION
Because Pickle and Joy provide no legal argument that would render Magistrate
Judge Hillman’s January 29, 2010 orders clearly erroneous, their objections to these
decisions must be rejected. "
To read the legal arguments and the above excepts in context, see the attached document.
-
I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.
"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"
Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.
-
I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.
"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"
Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.
I am quite sure that is your opinion and how you see it, Bob, but the fact remains that you don't have a stellar track record here. Your opinions don't trump the knowledge of those with far more education and experience than yourself or Gailon Joy ( who is again remarkably silent). So far those who really are "conversant with the rules and statutes in question" (in regards to every motion and argument you have made for over a year now) have disagreed with you, and the courts who are well acquainted with the "rules and statutes in question" have denied every single one of your motions and arguments.
They will rule here also. So can we avoid arguing about this for now and just wait and see what those who read your objections and consider them in the light of the rules and statutes in question ( those who have to weigh the facts and arguments from both sides impartially and without bias in the framework of the law) decide before we discuss this further?
Thanks,
Cindy
-
It appears that the Plaintiffs are putting forth great efforts to keep the bank records secret.
-
I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.
"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"
Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.
I am quite sure that is your opinion and how you see it, Bob, but the fact remains that you don't have a stellar track record here. Your opinions don't trump the knowledge of those with far more education and experience than yourself or Gailon Joy ( who is again remarkably silent). So far those who really are "conversant with the rules and statutes in question" (in regards to every motion and argument you have made for over a year now) have disagreed with you, and the courts who are well acquainted with the "rules and statutes in question" have denied every single one of your motions and arguments.
They will rule here also. So can we avoid arguing about this for now and just wait and see what those who read your objections and consider them in the light of the rules and statutes in question ( those who have to weigh the facts and arguments from both sides impartially and without bias in the framework of the law) decide before we discuss this further?
There's really no reason to wait, Cindy.
This is the United States of America, not Roman Catholic Medieval Europe. In the latter, if you didn't have certain letters after your name you had to keep quiet. But the Protestant Reformation changed all that. Perhaps you might remember where Great Controversy page 246 says, quoting William Tyndale's conversation with a learned doctor, "It was not long after that a learned Catholic doctor, engaging in controversy with him, exclaimed: 'We were better to be without God's laws than the pope's.' Tyndale replied: 'I defy the pope and all his laws; and if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do.' "
Simpson cites a particular statute and a particular rule. Get those out and read them, and then see if it's really true that we made no legal argument that addresses the test of that statute and rule. I think I specifically did. If you disagree, then show me specifically where my words as filed do not address the test.
More than once now I've seen Simpson simply pontificate that such and such is true. I think he is hoping that the judge will take his mere assertion as fact, which is what he has to do since he doesn't have a leg to stand on, if he wants to be unethical from a Christian and Adventist standpoint.
Christian and Adventist principles demand that Simpson be 100% truthful in everything that he files. If he didn't want to be held to that high standard by God Himself in the day of judgment, he should never have taken the case.
"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:36, 37).
Simpson is playing around with some pretty serious stuff, with eternal consequences.
-
More than once now I've seen Simpson simply pontificate that such and such is true.
Lawyers...
-
More than once now I've seen Simpson simply pontificate that such and such is true.
Lawyers...
And once in a while we discover that some lawyers cross the utter line of decency and are refused the privilege of calling themselves lawyers any more.
-
I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.
"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"
Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.
Both are plainly clear. Any reversal of decision made by the District Judge, reviewing the Mag. Judge's decision, must be made under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A)
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary -
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)
Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
-
Both are plainly clear.
Yes, they are plainly clear that orders regarding pretrial, non-dispositive matters can only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
And thus, as your quotations make clear, Simpson was incorrect, from what i can tell at this point.
-
As I hope everyone does. Who wants their bank records publicized? Do you, Artiste, put your own personal bank records on display? Why would you all turn a thing like exercising security of personal records into a problem? it is what everyone does.
In fact, let's turn this around. Bob and Gailon went to great lengths to acquire this man's records, in case they could find something there......I know on the old Perry Mason shows that was called a "fishing expidition" and was not allowed. The thing is to have your evidence when you go into court, not to ask the court and the plaintiff to help you find it.
Johann, I did find the language lacking the usual legalese. However, I can see why. Apparently when the rulings were rendered in the usual fashion, there were issues with comprehension. This way there is no mistaken what the court is ruling. it is all outlined from start to finish. They dont' get the bank records. They belong to Danny, just as Bob's belong to him, Gailon's belong's to him and yours belong to you. I don't get to invade your privacy just because I was able to find and pay somebody to let me look at them. Especially if I don't even know what is in there. If I don't know for sure that they hold the information I need.......no, no, no........That is enough guys. This is getting to silly for words.
It appears that the Plaintiffs are putting forth great efforts to keep the bank records secret.
-
All sounds great Di except for one simple thing! The pew money was not meant for Danny's personel pockets!!!
Just can't understand the sympathizers and justifiers not understanding. Poor deceived people were just ignorant weren't we! We thought we were helping to spread the word through the channel of volunteers so often referred to but to a few that got wind or visulized :horse: s were eating up the hayyyyy. Therefore the wind brought on those unpleasant smells and deposits back to waste.
As a contrubutor way back when.. I did not like buying the hay or was it fuel for the jets?? or was it for the vanity of hair transplants who knows except for one thing. 3abn is not what it was supposed to be and therefore the jets seemed to take the nosedive. All facts that cannot be denied.
Yes, public money needs to be accounted for in what ever bank account it went in. God knows where every penny came from and what it was intended for and then what it was used for. Danny needs to comply or prove to people in all honesty. Problem is...he won't. Honesty would never have developed these horrendous differences. Sooner or later as the piles stack up even the wind smells.
-
All sounds great Di except for one simple thing! The pew money was not meant for Danny's personel pockets!!!
Just can't understand the sympathizers and justifiers not understanding. Poor deceived people were just ignorant weren't we! We thought we were helping to spread the word through the channel of volunteers so often referred to but to a few that got wind or visulized :horse: s were eating up the hayyyyy. Therefore the wind brought on those unpleasant smells and deposits back to waste.
As a contrubutor way back when.. I did not like buying the hay or was it fuel for the jets?? or was it for the vanity of hair transplants who knows except for one thing. 3abn is not what it was supposed to be and therefore the jets seemed to take the nosedive. All facts that cannot be denied.
Yes, public money needs to be accounted for in what ever bank account it went in. God knows where every penny came from and what it was intended for and then what it was used for. Danny needs to comply or prove to people in all honesty. Problem is...he won't. Honesty would never have developed these horrendous differences. Sooner or later as the piles stack up even the wind smells.
Tinka,
One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side." or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly".
You can keep writing your outraged nonsense but all it is, is you regurgitating that kool-aid.
Danny Shelton has been held accountable to those he needs to be accountable to. That should be enough for you.
He gets paid a paycheck like every other employee at 3abn. They have a board which oversees and gets reports. They have a financial department to handle the money and book keeping. They do audits, they hire outside auditors to come in and check all on a regular basis, they have to file financial reports in accordance with the law, file with the IRS, and if that is not accountable enough for you, then consider that all of the accusations against them were reported to the IRS and the IRS launched a investigation The IRS visited something like 11 people who made tremendous accusations against DS on the internet. Do you know what they found out? That not ONE of these accusers had any first hand knowledge about DS or 3ABN's finances or any proof of wrong doing! The IRS spent nearly a year and went through over 100,000 pages of documents and did not find one infraction by DS or 3ABN! All of the allegations were false. For some reason LS's little internet group seemed to think that if enough people made accusations against DS and 3ABN that somehow it would stand that they were guilty. The IRS found the truth. Innocent of all charges! Not one penny was paid or negotiated.
And Pickle and Joy have from day one not had proof of their accusations and and are still desparately trying to find some to justify all the things they have repeated and claimed, as was just quoted yesterday from the court:
"Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery... Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties. "
You should find out what's in that koolaid before you drink it, Tink. Your posts come across as blind hatred to those of us who know better than to believe the pack here.
3D
-
I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.
"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"
Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.
Both are plainly clear. Any reversal of decision made by the District Judge, reviewing the Mag. Judge's decision, must be made under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A)
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary -
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)
Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.
Yes, they are plainly clear that orders regarding pretrial, non-dispositive matters can only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
And thus, as your quotations make clear, Simpson was incorrect, from what i can tell at this point.
NOT. Your "pretrial" argument was also addressed very clearly, Mr Pickle.
Pickle and Joy, however, “request” a “de novo” standard of review based upon their interpretation of the word “pretrial.” They make the tortured argument that not only were Judge Hillman’s rulings “posttrial,” but that Judge Hillman must have been given power to make these rulings as a special master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. (Def. Brf. at 1-2). However, First Circuit caselaw makes clear that “pre-trial” matters are defined as those “unconnected to issues litigated at trial and not defined with respect to the time of trial.” United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir. 1981). In other words, courts considering the term “pre-trial” in Section 636(b) have not interpreted the term literally with respect to the time of trial. Robinson v. Eng., 148 F.R.D. 635, 641 (D.Neb.1993). Rather, courts have long interpreted this term to refer generally to matters unconnected to issues litigated at trial, such as postjudgment sanctions, attorney fees, and awards of discovery expenses. Id. (citations omitted). The fact that a ruling takes place “following dismissal of the action is of little significance, and does not transform the motions from preliminary procedural matters into posttrial matters.” Id. Thus, magistrate judges have the power to decide postjudgment matters that occurred pre-trial. Id. at n. 13.
Here, Pickle and Joy’s requests concerning discovery documents were “pre-trial,” even though their requests were made postjudgment. The discovery issue concerning the MidCountry Bank records are unconnected to any issue that might ultimately have been litigated at a future trial. Thus, Magistrate Judge Hillman’s power to decide these matters was based in Section 636(b)(1)(1) and Rule 72(a). The district court’s review, therefore, must be made under the “clearly erroneous” standard.
-
All sounds great Di except for one simple thing! The pew money was not meant for Danny's personnel pockets!!!
Just can't understand the sympathizers and justifiers not understanding. Poor deceived people were just ignorant weren't we! We thought we were helping to spread the word through the channel of volunteers so often referred to but to a few that got wind or visualized :horse: s were eating up the hayyyyy. Therefore the wind brought on those unpleasant smells and deposits back to waste.
As a contributor way back when.. I did not like buying the hay or was it fuel for the jets?? or was it for the vanity of hair transplants who knows except for one thing. 3abn is not what it was supposed to be and therefore the jets seemed to take the nosedive. All facts that cannot be denied.
Yes, public money needs to be accounted for in what ever bank account it went in. God knows where every penny came from and what it was intended for and then what it was used for. Danny needs to comply or prove to people in all honesty. Problem is...he won't. Honesty would never have developed these horrendous differences. Sooner or later as the piles stack up even the wind smells.
Tinka,
One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side." or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly".
Bible says "trust no man" and therefore I don't! especially from grave experience dished out by the SDA so called brethren and by the worst of fraudulent political corruption to devise a way to take what one has thru the corrupt lawyers and courts. I drink no ones "kool aid" as anyone should tell by Your so called "outraged Nonsense" name calling. Since Kool-aid has given the belief of "all is well" in government systems rulings is far from truth and ! You are in the Jonestown massacre number. It is very obvious that one of the worst states is Ill. in vast corruption.
You can keep writing your outraged nonsense but all it is, is you regurgitating that kool-aid.
Danny Shelton has been held accountable to those he needs to be accountable to. That should be enough for you.
No that is not enough for me because I trust no one but true facts because of the known corruption that is viewable. The ones he needs to be accountable to is the ones that gave the funds, not the ones who got it. Did the Kool-aid give you the belief that all is kosher is big business giving back to the IRS. Big business hides it how ever they can and, even in off shore accounts.
He gets paid a paycheck like every other employee at 3abn. (I am sure he does, plus what ever extra he can get from the use of sales thru a non profit organization supposedly) They have a board which oversees and gets reports. (But, don't they get paid too, and from where? I was so assured that it was the great volunteer system that 3abn was able to spread and the funds went to that cause in total) They have a financial department to handle the money and book keeping.(laugh, I have seen how some financial departments of conferences handle the money) They do audits, (lets see, they do audits, then they hire outside auditors to come in) they hire outside auditors to come in and check all on a regular basis, they have to file financial reports in accordance with the law, file with the IRS, and if that is not accountable enough for you, (but the auditors cannot process when proceeds all cannot be seen or found) then consider that all of the accusations against them were reported to the IRS and the IRS launched a investigation The IRS visited something like 11 people who made tremendous accusations against DS on the internet. Do you know what they found out? That not ONE of these accusers had any first hand knowledge about DS or 3ABN's finances or any proof of wrong doing! Now that is not surprising coming from staff of IRS or employees. The IRS spent nearly a year and went through over 100,000 pages of documents and did not find one infraction by DS or 3ABN! It is kinda like going through McDonald's and getting a sandwich without the meat, it throws them for a loop. They just don't know what to do. I know the workings of IRS and their junk. The businesses, put all on paper for them not --them doing all the paper work for the business. That is all they can go by. DS is smart in these issues. All of the allegations were false. (IRS does nothing other then what is on paper as they are not the courts to determine investigation of this magnitude and if they really did I would be amazed that they could do it in a year.) For some reason LS's little internet group seemed to think that if enough people made accusations against DS and 3ABN that somehow it would stand that they were guilty.The IRS found the truth. Innocent of all charges! Not one penny was paid or negotiated. Where did DS get the funds for lawyers? In my view this had nothing to do with LS accusations but the vivid view of extravaganza living and adultery on someones part. The evidence appears as it is the flamboyant one, the bragger, the Nebuchadnezzar of stories.
And Pickle and Joy have from day one not had proof of their accusations and and are still desperately trying to find some to justify all the things they have repeated and claimed, as was just quoted yesterday from the court:
"Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery... Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties. " This proves what I say, as TS already admitted what the courts denied of any wrong doing and who are they but a bunch of "vipers" just like Jesus called them!! The preachers and the lawyers had the most responsibility of being correct ! Hmmmmm. What makes you think that leaning does not go where the hand that feeds them? and you think I drink the Kool-aid. :ROFL:
You should find out what's in that koolaid before you drink it, Tink. Your posts come across as blind hatred to those of us who know better than to believe the pack here.
I think it is down to where the mind is seared and the accusations of hatred coming from the blamers within your courts is where the problem lies. There is no hate here just disgust for your hidden agendas. Proof is in the controller of the funds and its use. Did you ever hear the saying "who controls the land (funds) control the people! (lawyers) Plain to see, no blinders here and a man that I find quite unusual to treat a young son step child in the manner that was and for some reason "take" to 2 little girls (step children) as discribded in different manner? ? Just what was the difference? I find this quite unusual and unstable and disgusting.No different in most of the family of Shelton's.
3D
-
As I hope everyone does. Who wants their bank records publicized?
I suppose this is true, and it used to be that way until our banks collapsed. Now we see disclosure of the bank records of "wealthy" people in the media. We see it every day. It is by popular demand because people want to know who caused the bankruptcy.
Since it has happened here I'd suppose this could happen elsewhere. Now international pressure is leveled at former banking/tax havens to disclose the banking accounts of individuals. Just a few minutes ago I read that the female president of a university had withdrawn a huge amount only 15 minutes before a certain bank had to close. She had to quit her job as president.
-
Some of our banks have been forced to reveal what they had refused to do because they claimed it was bank secrets. There comes a day of reckoning, sooner or later.
-
Problem, is Bob and Gailon want Danny and the courts to hand over his personal banks statements in order to TRY and find something wrong. They don't even know that there is anything wrong. Courts don't support "fishing expiditions". They should have had that evidence once they made the accusation, NOT expect the courts and plaintiff to help them make their case. That doesn't work. It is what this judge said, this time, in plain English. He is not wrong they are.
I suppose this is true, and it used to be that way until our banks collapsed. Now we see disclosure of the bank records of "wealthy" people in the media. We see it every day. It is by popular demand because people want to know who caused the bankruptcy.
Since it has happened here I'd suppose this could happen elsewhere. Now international pressure is leveled at former banking/tax havens to disclose the banking accounts of individuals. Just a few minutes ago I read that the female president of a university had withdrawn a huge amount only 15 minutes before a certain bank had to close. She had to quit her job as president.
-
They don't even know that there is anything wrong.
How do you know that for a fact, PD. Have you thoroughly researched it?
-
Simple Di, the IRS facts do not match the sales facts and how the sales came about through non-profit organization.
-
Artiste, I surmised that because, according to the court papers, they had no specific information to submit to the court other than they supected there were kick backs, etc. They would have to do better than that. Submit, times, dates, etc. to the court to constititute reviewing those bank records. "Judge, if you let us look in the records, I am sure we can find evidence of fraud" just doesn't work. THEN once the law suit was dismissed, there was no point for them to try and find evidence of fraud, kick backs, or anything else. Case is dismissed, the court is no longer interested in Bob and Gailon trying to defend themselves by proving Danny and 3ABN engaged in illegal activities with donor funds.
Tinka, the IRS did a complete audit of Danny's and 3ABN records and missed something that simple? If they were going to check anything, it would be exactly that trail, that they sales matched up all the way through, precisely because they are a no profit. they would be calling that fraud, etc. They don't take to kindlly to folks using non profit to hide profits........consititutes jail time in some cases.
-
prindessdi, you might be surprised with what could be revealed with time...
-
IRS can only audit what they see. Point is that what they see is not what is factual in funds received. I think some jail time would be great!
-
Di, you are mistaken about a number of points, perhaps because you are taking Simpson too seriously.
They belong to Danny, just as Bob's belong to him, Gailon's belong's to him and yours belong to you.
That's not true and never has been. The U.S. Supreme Court many years ago made it clear that bank records are the property of the bank, not the account holder.
Who wants their bank records publicized? Do you, Artiste, put your own personal bank records on display?
Anyone who sues someone over something that has to do with bank records has already decided to put their bank records on display.
Bob and Gailon went to great lengths to acquire this man's records, in case they could find something there......I know on the old Perry Mason shows that was called a "fishing expidition" and was not allowed. The thing is to have your evidence when you go into court, not to ask the court and the plaintiff to help you find it.
Not so at all. In journalism you need two sources before you run a story. But two sources doesn't cut it in court.
What they did was accuse us of defamation per se, which rolled the burden of proof on us. So rather than they having to prove that what we said was false as in a normal defamation case, we had to prove that what we said was true. So of course we needed more evidence in court than what we already had, and that's why there's such a thing as discovery.
I don't get to invade your privacy just because I was able to find and pay somebody to let me look at them. Especially if I don't even know what is in there.
But you forget, we do know what's in there, to some extent. We have the Remnant documents, right? So we know how much Danny got paid in kickbacks and royalties from Remnant. And we know how much Danny reported on his financial affidavit he had in two bank accounts. So there is quite a bit that we do know about the bank records.
-
Submit, times, dates, etc. to the court to constititute reviewing those bank records. "Judge, if you let us look in the records, I am sure we can find evidence of fraud" just doesn't work.
You forget two things: 1) The lawsuit in some of the financial allegations includes no times or dates. It's open ended. 2) The magistrates in MN and in MA did not require us to do what you suggest.
THEN once the law suit was dismissed, there was no point for them to try and find evidence of fraud, kick backs, or anything else.
You forget three things: 1) There is no legal barrier to their suing us again over the very same things. 2) They still have to deal with abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims which require discovery of the bank statements. 3) They didn't reimburse us for the bank statements. 4) Without the bank statements, we would have a harder time prevailing against an anti-SLAPP motion. 5) Your point is irrelevant: There was nothing in the confidentiality order requiring us to surrender our discovery at the end of the case.
-
And Pickle and Joy have from day one not had proof of their accusations and and are still desparately trying to find some to justify all the things they have repeated and claimed, as was just quoted yesterday from the court:
"Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. ..."
Think long and hard about the above words. Think long and hard.
What do you think, Danny_Defender, about Danny hiring such an attorney? Should Danny's local church hold him accountable for continuing to retain Simpson if Simpson is lying in court?
Note: Simpson said that our allegations regarding Danny covering up the child molestation allegations was uncorroborated and unfounded.
How many statements by alleged victims or their family members do we have to publish before Simpson will agree that the allegations against Tommy are well founded and corroborated?
As far as Danny covering them up, when Walt Thompson says that Danny said that the allegations are 30 years old, when Danny knew that there were more recent allegations, how is that unfounded?
And when Danny left a recording at the Ezra Church of God, acknowledging that something had indeed happened, but trying to shut Dryden up, how is what Walt Thompson said uncorroborated?
-
NOT. Your "pretrial" argument was also addressed very clearly, Mr Pickle.
Pickle and Joy, however, “request” a “de novo” standard of review based upon their interpretation of the word “pretrial.” They make the tortured argument that not only were Judge Hillman’s rulings “posttrial,” but that Judge Hillman must have been given power to make these rulings as a special master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. (Def. Brf. at 1-2).
First off, we made it clear in our objections that Hillman was not appointed as a special master. Perhaps Simpson should have read more carefully. or perhaps he did.
Thus, Magistrate Judge Hillman’s power to decide these matters was based in Section 636(b)(1)(1) and Rule 72(a). The district court’s review, therefore, must be made under the “clearly erroneous” standard.
Even if Hillman's authority derived from § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a), Simpson is wrong. The "standard" are clearly erroneous for factual findings and contrary to law for rulings of law. There are no factual findings in the orders to apply the clearly erroneous standard to.
-
Artiste, I surmised that because, according to the court papers, they had no specific information to submit to the court other than they supected there were kick backs, etc.
We've proven that there were kickbacks quite some time ago. Any payments by Remnant to Danny for the sale of his PPPA booklets were kickbacks, and while were forbidden to say that the Remnant documents show that there really were such payments, Simpson already filed papers in court acknowledging that there were such payments.
So on Simpson's own word, there were kickbacks.
-
"In fact, the court never determined whether these documents were even relevant to the litigation. Pickle and Joy were never authorized to view these documents. Thus, even if the district court was still in possession of these documents and if they were transmitted to the First Circuit on appeal, the First Circuit would have no use for them because the substantive information was never considered at the district court level." Cindy
You are excellent at distorting the record and re-writing history. A court in Simpson's own state of Minnesotta clearly saw the basis for the subpoena and the relevance of the documents. The defense fund spent $3500 to recover these prima facia proof of financial mis-appropriation and clearly false statements in the Divorce case. Shortly after the production of the bank statements to Hillman, Hillman himself paved the way for the turn-over of the bank statements to the Defendants. However, somehow the bank statements mysteriously went missing despite our multiple requests. We had no way to determine why these documents were mis-appropriated and had every right in the world to demand an investigation to determine why they mysteriously went missing in a US District Court clerk's office. And the mystery took on a new color when the clerk turned over the "missing" documents to Plaintiff's Mass Counsel, Atty Pucci, in direct violation of Judge Hillman's own confidentiality order. Suddenly, the clerk's office had no answers and the the Plaintiff claimed they were Plaintiff's property, in direct controversy with the supreme court and the confidentiality order. Further, the plaintiff's expropriated these documents without re-imbursing the defense fund...and if you recall Saylor had conveniently disallowed costs to the defendants. That is "expropriation" by any definition and certainly justified a complaint and investigation.
We had known about the connection between Pucci and Saylor from the beginning...why do you think they selected a lawyer to sponsor their pro hac vici appearances from the furthest corner of the Commonwealth, a ninety minute drive on a good day, when Worcester is full of well established trial lawyers and former prosecutors? Frankly it did not prove to be a serious issue until Saylor clearly chose to protect the Plaintiff's lawfirms from prosecution in his dismissal hearing. And then Saylor refused to hear a clear Rule 11 Violation by Simpson, then refused to reimburse the Defendants for their costs...all actions clearly protecting counsel, the brother-hood of the BAR.
No member of the judiciary is required to recuse himself from a case, even when an investigation is under way. They both suddenly recused, one with a public comment and the other without comment, after he ruled on a Dispositive Motion!!! (and without comment or memorandum).
So, you are left to your own conclusion, but this much I do know...those records were produced to us by order of the court, and paid for by the defense fund... the Plaintiff has them without re-imbursement. If you see a good legal basis for this, I challenge you to demonstrate from the compendium of caselaw, statutes and rules of these United States the foundation for your thought process. And don't forget to include an index with the supporting caselaw, rules and statutes upon which you rely. I still stand by the term expropriation!!!
For the record, I think we have made it pretty clear, this case is not finished, we have appealed and there will be a part two!!!
All the documents will indeed have relevance to any trial on the merits and we will be back for more. Just because a Magistrate orders all parties to pass all subpoena's before him or her for review, prior to issuing the same, would hardly be a deterrent to any of the subpoena issued. In fact, each request had already been reviewed by a magistrate and we won an order on every one based upon RELEVANCE!!!! You are left without a factual argument!!!
And if DAnny Lee Shelton wanted to preserve what little right to privacy he deserves...he should not have sued me!!! C'est la vie!!!
Better yet, I wouldn't have even noticed, IF HE HAD NOT DIVORCED HIS WIFE!!!!
What goes ariound, comes around...we have not come around quite yet!!!
As Yogi is famous for: It ain't over til it's over!!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
All this type of corruption is so familiar as in our case but the fact is in ours even case law was overturned. Just glad there is some left standing to stand up to this one!
-
GAJ,
If what you are saying is true, then it should manifest itself in the appeal process, etc. that you are going through.
-
There is a substantial difference in our case...I had nothing to loose and everything to gain. We knew our
sources were reliable, we had corroborated everything we published. There is PLENTY we did not publish
because we had only one source or the record or documentation did not verify the statements made, in
some cases more opinion than factual data.
You must also remember, we had also spent quite a bit of time preparing for the conciliation process and
so were armed with a load of documents. In fact, we unleashed thousands of documents upon the plaintiff
when discovery opened and would explain why they never had to issue a single subpoena.
We also had a judge, that while being a close friend of Counsellor Pucci, we also knew he had been a reporter
and had investigated corruption, including a none profit, while employed as a prosecutor. We also knew he
would be prone to dismiss on a whim and is why we did not play the standard playbook and request a Motion
to Dismiss upon being served, contrary to counsel's recommendation. In fact, I, unlike most, knew they would
have no alternative but to sue me to try to shut us up. They knew we had the goods and they knew our sources
were exceptional. And I knew a lawsuite was an excellent public forum upon which to prove our case, both to the
jury and the court of public opinion.
So, we had several advantages and true to form, when we were closing in on the hard evidence in the form of bank
statements, auditors records and a host of upcoming depositions, the WIMPS DISMISSED their own case. We should
have closed the gate much earlier, but we knew where the evidence was going and it would justfy a claim for abuse
of process and the less innocuous Misuse of Process. They were smart enough to try to shut it down before we had
the noose tied and ready to kick the horse...but, rest assured, we will get there.
They have already eliminated several obstructions to Danny's rise again and Jim will retire, Danny will be back and we
will too!!! Does a leopard change his spots or a tiger it's stripes????
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter