Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on January 04, 2011, 10:25:45 AM
-
Attorney Greg Simpson, representing 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton, moved for sanctions against the Defendants. See Appellees’ Response to Defendants-Appellants’ Motion to File Under Seal and Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants-Appellants (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellees-response-and-motion-12-27-10.pdf).
Here's a few quotes:
The rules of this Court do not authorize a supplemental brief relating specifically to exhibits filed under seal. See 1st Cir. R. 28.1 (requiring “a specific and timely motion” in order to have a brief sealed). Thus, there is no authority for the Appellants’ supplemental brief and it must be stricken.
Further, Appellants’ word count certificate for their primary brief indicates its length is 13,982 words -- 18 words shy of the limit. See 1st Cir. R. 32(7)(B) (limiting principal brief to 14,000 words). The supplemental brief, except for the first 18 words, puts Appellants over their limit. This provides an additional basis to reject the supplemental brief.
The First Circuit rule book (http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/files/rules/rulebook.pdf#page=30) gives 1st Cir. Local Rule 11(c)(3) as follows:
(3) Limiting Sealed Filings. Rather than automatically requesting the sealing of an entire brief, motion, or other filing, litigants should consider whether argument relating to sealed materials may be contained in separate supplemental brief, motion, or filing, which may then be sealed in accordance with the procedures in subsection (2).
The Defendants' brief (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-brief-12-13-10.pdf#page=73) stated on page 64:
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) (7)(B) because this brief and the supplemental sealed brief contain a total of 13,982 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
Could someone please explain to me what we did wrong?
-
Could you please give a synopsis in plain English?
-
Whew!! It's not just me... Usually I can understand it pretty well but this one got me. LOL!!!
-
Could you please give a synopsis in plain English?
His response and motion cover a number of points. The two I've quoted above are that the rules don't allow filing a sealed brief that cites sealed exhibits, and that our sealed supplemental brief put us over the 14,000 word limit.
However, Local Rule 11(c)(3) says to file a smaller supplemental brief if you need to cite sealed material, and our certificate of compliance made clear that the 13,982 word count was for both briefs. Thus the supplemental brief did not put us over the word limit.
Feel free to look his response and motion over to see if you don't understand something, and comment if you see something of interest.
-
I am not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like he is desparate.
-
Did 3ABN tell the lawyer to try to sanction you somehow?
-
Don't know.
-
By the way, Simpson is referring to our sealed supplemental brief when he wants to see the court reject our "supplemental brief."
-
Are you allowed or did you file an immediate reply to his motion or must you wait for a ruling?
-
Before sanctions can be imposed, an opportunity must be given to be heard.
Our reply is here: http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-reply-for-motion-to-file-under-seal-12-31-10.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-reply-for-motion-to-file-under-seal-12-31-10.pdf).
Our response and our own motion for sanctions are here: http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-response-to-motion-for-sanctions-and-motion-for-sanctions-12-31-10.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-response-to-motion-for-sanctions-and-motion-for-sanctions-12-31-10.pdf).
-
Did 3ABN tell the lawyer to try to sanction you somehow?
Simpson had warned in advance that he would oppose the Motion and that he would file a request for Sanctions.
It is a common legal tactic to intimidate and prevent the motion from being filed. And he has repeatedly threatened the maneuver, sometimes trying and sometimes passing. We were pretty firm in our response and I beleive he felt he had to TRY yet again...but then, he is clearly not an extensively experienced Appellate Attorney by curriculum vitae but can hardly pass up the billable hours opportunity in this economy.
Assuming 3ABN continues to retain him in the future, although if any insurer steps forward to indemnify, it is unlikely to be 3ABN's decision, Mr Simpson will be billing thousands of hours to defend the claims coming at 3ABN, now and in the future.
You will see many more Motions for Sanctions, so get use to it and it is at best a non-event.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Another quote from Appellees’ Response to Defendants-Appellants’ Motion to File Under Seal and Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants-Appellants (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellees-response-and-motion-12-27-10.pdf):
The sealed exhibits that Appellees want to file include (1) exhibits that were expressly rejected for filing by the district court and are therefore not part of the district court record; and (2) an affidavit by Robert Pickle that was expressly rejected by this Court’s order dated December 4, 2009 in the prior appeal of this case.
These documents are not properly part of the appellate court record because they were not first made part of the district court record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). Appellants may be acting pro se, but they have previously been educated by this Court that such documents “are not properly considered as part of the record in this appeal.” (See Order dated Dec. 4, 2009).
And:
In its order entered December 4, 2009, this Court told the Appellants that the record on appeal would be limited to documents that had been submitted to the district court before the appeal was filed. Appellants understood this basic tenet of appellate practice, as evidenced by the fact that they brought a motion to enlarge the record in their first appeal.
Now, however, they have attempted to circumvent Judge Saylor and this Court by filing documents that unless rejected, will enlarge the record on appeal. There is no possibility that Appellants failed to understand that what they were doing was improper. They were told not to file these documents first by Judge Saylor, then by this Court, and finally, repeatedly, by the undersigned. (See email exchanges attached to Affidavit of Robert Pickle [dated 12/3/2010] at Ex. A).
Now read what the First Circuit ruled (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/) on Dec. 4, 2009, and see if it matches what Simpson said:
ORDER entered by Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge: Appellants move to enlarge the record in this appeal (Appeal No. 08-2457) to include certain documents. As those documents were submitted to the district court after the filing of the notice of appeal, they are not properly considered as part of the record in this appeal and, accordingly, the motion to enlarge the record on appeal is denied.
We note that, in any event, appellants filed a subsequent notice of appeal from the district court's refusal to accept the proffered documents. This new appeal has been docketed in this court as Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Joy, No. 09-2615, and the documents in question are part of the record on appeal in this subsequent appeal. To the extent that appellants intend to argue that the district court erred in refusing to accept the documents in question, that issue may be raised in Appeal No. 09-2615.
What do you think?
We asked the court in the first appeal to include the Remnant and Westphal documents in with the record on appeal. That request was denied, but the court then added that those documents were already part of the record of appeal in the second appeal.
Correct?
-
Hmmm, Corruption in the system--not hard to understand how and why. Good luck.
That is why we put all our documents on web site for how ever long it takes to show how a system can work with the fingers of corruptions reaching into every aspect of taking where ever the money grows or land assets. In this case SDA donors. It's been a couple of years now and our web site has been all over the world. Some downloading all documents that sometimes take up to 21 hours at times. Amazing. At voting time you should have saw all the hits.
It seems that 3abn attorneys have these tatics. Wear them out and out spend them till they can resume their evil "extravaganza lifestyle" and get away with what they have done. Sure hope Bob and Gailon can withstand this. This is how it happened to us. Also the Political National organizational backing of corruption that hopefully will get shutdown with any change or help coming from "teaparty" as we have heard direct comments of this sort of thing coming from them. But then many will suffer oppression in end times such as we have had. Just hate that this is within the SDA people. But where else can the devil strike that is better.
-
Tinka, I see no corruption in the system in the above quotes.
The court's order said that the Remnant and Westphal documents were part of the record on appeal for our second appeal, and Simpson asserted that the court's order said they were not part of the record on appeal for the second appeal.
Who is right? Simpson or the court?
-
Tinka, I see no corruption in the system in the above quotes.
The court's order said that the Remnant and Westphal documents were part of the record on appeal for our second appeal, and Simpson asserted that the court's order said they were not part of the record on appeal for the second appeal.
Who is right? Simpson or the court?
Who else Bob? Of course the almighty Simpson is right.
-
When will this finally end?
-
Bob, guess I was referring to all the ways and motions that have been used throughout to delay or fight off all the documents against them that prove your points. In other words they are in it to win (hook or crook) and yes I have seen how they have made so many motions to prove their points when actual actions have no doubt been viewable on their part and that I am sure has been costly to you. I am looking at it as a whole although I know a little progress is encouraging. I do want truth to come out also. This has been so familiar on tactics that it hits really close to what we feel is corruption of tactics by certain judges deciding what to allow and what not to and yes we are just lay people but have learned the hard way and I do pray that you both have the stamina to endure.
-
When will this finally end?
It is ridiculous, isn't it?
-
It is ridiculous, isn't it?
It's the best "fox cunning" that attorneys and judges maneuver that money can buy to keep their money jingling from whence it comes. But somebody has to come forth to expose (for choice) which most people of the pew money, as in the "American Dream " have possibly realized too late once the devils ride is over.
I have now realized some of the bonds with evangelists on why 3abn keeps going without change of personnel. Ken Cox admitted and told his story and Doug's in early days. Unbelievable that it all comes down to this and only a few to stand.
Another thing watch the difference in programming as soon as "Hope" segiments are put on. So I perfer to watch some of the other instead of some of the Hots (disregarding foundational beliefs viewable, ) and the Pots (some made for the good and some made for the bad). Must be all confusing to newcomers.
-
When will this finally end?
At the second coming and then at the third resurrection it will come up one more time!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Simpson's response to our motion for sanctions is available at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellees-response-to-motion-for-sanctions-01-10-11.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellees-response-to-motion-for-sanctions-01-10-11.pdf).
I just don't understand why he isn't more careful about his facts:
Appellants originally described all of the exhibits they wished to file under seal as documents that were “offered to the lower court,” but not actually filed, in connection with electronic docket entries 153 and 173. (See Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal, p. 1). It is a matter of record that the district court denied Appellants’ motions to file those documents, so they never became part of the district court record. (See Electronic Order by Judge Saylor dated 4/15/2009 and Doc. 193).
Now, however, Appellants have changed their tune. They claim that 33 pages (of the thousand-plus pages that they move to file under seal) happened to be part of an exhibit that was filed under seal with the district court in connection with a motion. (Brief p. 1). Specifically, they say that Sealed Exhibits 1-33, were filed in the district court on July 21, 2008 as part of a different filing under seal in the district court, Docket No. 93. ...
Upon investigation, Appellants are correct in their assertion that the 33 pages designated as Sealed Exhibits 1-33 were in fact part of a larger exhibit that was filed under seal in the district court as Doc. 93.
However, the very first paragraph of our motion to file under seal (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-motion-to-fle-under-seal-12-16-10.pdf) has but three sentences, and the third sentence says:
The first four exhibits were filed below as part of sealed RA 93, and have already been forwarded as part of the record on appeal.
And on pp. 5 & 6 it says:
Regarding the documents in question:
? Selected pages from Shelton’s tax returns from RA 93: ....
? Bill Otterson’s Oct. 21, 2005, report from RA 93: ....
I think this kind of thing is utterly pathetic.
-
Here's another blooper by Simpson:
Having been told several times that they may not file these documents, Appellants try to re-interpret this Court’s order of December 4, 2009 denying them leave to supplement the appellate record as instead inviting them to file these documents. (Brief p. 2). The tortured analysis is based on language in the Court’s December 4 order indicating that this Court mistakenly believed that the documents had been “submitted” to the district court after the original Notice of Appeal, and were therefore not part of the record for the first appeal but would be part of the record for the second appeal. In fact, the documents were offered but not filed with the district court because local rules require that leave be sought and granted prior to filing anything under seal. (U.S. District Court, Dist. of Mass., Local Rule 7.2(d)). Thus, in the district court the Appellants did not file the actual documents themselves, and the dicta indicating that the records would be part of the record for the second appeal was in error.
Instead of correcting this Court’s misunderstanding that these documents had already been filed in the district court, Appellants now exploit it. They pretend that the Court’s order denying them permission to file these documents in the first appeal is an invitation to file them now because “this Court has already determined that the documents in question …‘are part of the record on appeal.’” (Brief p. 3). This absurd analysis fails to account for the fact that this Court denied leave to enlarge the record to include these records.
Based on the above, Simpson has asserted that the Court of Appeals thought the Remnant and Westphal documents were part of the record on appeal for the second appeal, though he contends that the Court erred in so thinking. He said the Court mistakenly thought the documents were filed below when they were not, but there simply is no way that the Court could have made that kind of mistake, in my opinion. The Court knew we had filed a motion to file those documents under seal below, and the Court knew that that motion, actually two motions, had been denied.
What the December 4, 2009, order clearly said was that since we offered the documents below and appealed the denial of that offer, the documents were part of the record on appeal for the second appeal.
Now for Simpson again:
Recall that in the topsy-turvy world of the Appellants, this Court’s December 4 order denying them leave to file documents under seal in the first appeal means that they should file the documents in the second appeal. Whether Appellants lacked diligence is beside the point: they filed documents that they were ordered not to file.
See the contradiction? If the December 4, 2009, order of the Court of Appeals mistakenly said the documents were part of the record on appeal in the second appeal, then that same order did not order us not to file the documents in the second appeal. But if that order did order us not to file the documents in the second appeal, it could not have simultaneously mistakenly told us that the documents were already part of the record for the second appeal.
-
Could be intentional or convienent for "total confusion". Confusion means..a way for more time and money. Ours was "Intentional" lies that Judges always leaned to from the organizational political powers. I am always short of right words but that is what I basically was implying before.