Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Artiste on February 07, 2008, 09:55:51 PM
-
Various scenarios have been floating around:
3ABN absolutely, no way, wants to settle! (courtesy of Appletree on BSDA)
There have been overtures from "both sides" toward coming together for some type of resolution.
Brenda should testify since she was the first person to bring something up against Linda, according to Johann on BSDA.
So what is actually happening?
-
It was a question to Appletree about Brenda. . .
-
It was a question to Appletree about Brenda. . .
??? Guess I'd better go over there and have a look-see?
-
Well, Johann has posted it here now under the new topic "Brenda's testimony".
-
Various scenarios have been floating around:
3ABN absolutely, no way, wants to settle! (courtesy of Appletree on BSDA)
There have been overtures from "both sides" toward coming together for some type of resolution.
Brenda should testify since she was the first person to bring something up against Linda, according to Johann on BSDA.
So what is actually happening?
-
Well, Johann has posted it here now under the new topic "Brenda's testimony".
Thank you Artiste and Johann.
-
Psalm 118:29
O give thanks unto the LORD; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.
-
Various scenarios have been floating around:
3ABN absolutely, no way, wants to settle! (courtesy of Appletree on BSDA)
There have been overtures from "both sides" toward coming together for some type of resolution.
Brenda should testify since she was the first person to bring something up against Linda, according to Johann on BSDA.
So what is actually happening?
Sorry, thought my text was saved but was not...let me address these questions in sequence:
1) The better statement is that 3ABN is no longer willing to consider settlement at this time and this has been confirmed by the Chairman and President;
2)We did look at the feasibility of direct discussions but realized that if a window of opportunity existed, it was closed by DLS and the board at the annual meeting as they
seem to have a set of objectives that are unmet, and will not be met without sensible discussion that are simply unlikely to be allowed or considered by certain factions;
3)We would agree that Brenda should testify, after all she is on our witness list;
4)We are engulfed in discovery process and will remain the same for several months
and yes we do consider it an opportunity to discover ever more documents to support allegations, concerns and questions never answered or published. They refer to it as a
"phishing expedition", we call it uncovering the TRUTH!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Does 3ABN really think that they are going to win this lawsuit?
-
Isaiah 59:4
None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.
-
Does 3ABN really think that they are going to win this lawsuit?
They do not necessarily have to win,If they can wear down the oppossition . If they can cause the other party in the suit to quit, they have won without ever entering a courtroom.
Repeat a lie often enough and to many it becomes truth, especialy to the one telling the lies
Bonnie
-
Does 3ABN really think that they are going to win this lawsuit?
They do not necessarily have to win,If they can wear down the oppossition . If they can cause the other party in the suit to quit, they have won without ever entering a courtroom.
Repeat a lie often enough and to many it becomes truth, especialy to the one telling the lies
Bonnie
It has been tried before. It was part of Adolf Hitler's philosophy, and with it he conquered a great part of the world until he was stopped by American and Allied troops during World War II. Will we let this philosophy continue to have a great impact on the Seventh-day Adventist Church?
-
It is surprising how many would let this go. I am sure those involved are not finding it an easy road. At times it is easy to feel if most don't care,"Why should I"
Just smoothing this over and pretending great changes are taking place with new parties involved really isn't taking care of it.
Unless all those willingly involved in this mess are removed, the change is cosmetic only
Bonnie
-
HERE!!! HERE!!! I fear you are correct!!!
Cosmetic may be a bit too generous...how about a very diluted white-wash???
One we can see right through???
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
So 3ABN will not consider a settlement of the lawsuit at this time?
Is there some indication that the Board was divided on this point?
Is Walt Thompson still the 3ABN Board chairman?
I think you said in another thread, Gailon, that some of the Board members were unhappy with the results of the latest Board meeting. Are there some, do you think, that do not share the fixation (for lack of a better term) on Danny Shelton that John Lomacang and Walt Thompson seen to have?
-
So 3ABN will not consider a settlement of the lawsuit at this time?
Is there some indication that the Board was divided on this point?
Is Walt Thompson still the 3ABN Board chairman?
I think you said in another thread, Gailon, that some of the Board members were unhappy with the results of the latest Board meeting. Are there some, do you think, that do not share the fixation (for lack of a better term) on Danny Shelton that John Lomacang and Walt Thompson seen to have?
1) I do not have any indication that 3ABN is in any position to settle and settlement would run contrary to their interests at this time.
2) We do not know if the board was or is divided on the lawsuite and it still has the affirmation clause as far as I know.
3)Thompson is still the 3ABN Chairman of the Board.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
For better or for worse?
-
1) I do not have any indication that 3ABN is in any position to settle and settlement would run contrary to their interests at this time.
2) We do not know if the board was or is divided on the lawsuite and it still has the affirmation clause as far as I know.
3)Thompson is still the 3ABN Chairman of the Board.
Gailon Arthur Joy
I should also note that it is contrary to our best interests to settle as well. We are in the discovery phase and fully expect that we will get the documents we need to prove our case as well as to finish our investigation and reports. Until we get all the documentation and have finished deposing the various witnesses, we really need to continue.
When discover is finished, we can then push for dispositive motions and rid ourselves of the nuisance aspects and get down to the vital facts. In this way, the trial can get down to the elements of truth vs libel. Since truth is an absolute defense, we must assume that we will have a resounding victory!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
=======
Edited to correct format for quote. - Daryl :)
-
I am under the same conviction that truth will prevail.
-
I am under the same conviction that truth will prevail.
Amen. :praying:
-
Hey, Bob, isn't it funny how reasonable and pliable they can be when pushing the protective order before the judge? I had to crack up when she was explaining just how reasonable they had been during the Protective Order Stipulation discussions???
She was T'ed off over your production of her "confidential" email discussions with you. Wonder how horrified she would have been if you gave the judge the entire log?
If we win, I guarantee they will not De Nouveau to Judge Saylor!!! He would most probably be not the least bit bemused by the stall and hold tactics. But what else do you have when you do not have the facts on your side???
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
If we win...................
Gailon Arthur Joy
If?
How about "When......." :)
-
This information may be of interest in this connection. I found a list of what freedoms various countries grant the press. This is from October, 2007. Four contries are right on top of the list as granting the press greatest freedom. I will list a few other nations here:
1 Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Netherlands
16 Canada
19 Denmark
27 United Kingdom
35 Australia
51 Japan
53 USA
119 USA - extra territorial
168 North Korea - bottom of the list.
Found in the Free Encyclopedia on the net.
-
I suppose a lawsuit like this one is easier the lower the country is on this list?
-
I suppose a lawsuit like this one is easier the lower the country is on this list?
We'll need to wait and see which way the wind blows I think. It still comes back to who has the larger bank balance or access to such, in my personal experience, and where one is in the 'pecking order' on the social and/or political scale!
-
(http://www.adventtalk.com/AdventTalk.gif) (http://www.save-3abn.com/)
-
Johann, thanks for publicizing the Save-3ABN site via Advent Talk!
-
Gailon, Bob, any update as to where the lawsuit or investigations are presently?
-
In another thread I referred to the case in Illinois where a black man has been in prison for 26 years for a murder he did not commit. Two lawyers knew he was innocent. They had cleared the guilty one, even though they knew he was guilty. Their confidentiality kept them from clearing the innocent until after the death of the guilty person.
When my wife, Ida, told me she had seen this on 60 Minutes, she wondered if this is what Danny expects through this lawsuit - to be declared innocent and someone else bear the guilt?
-
In another thread I referred to the case in Illinois where a black man has been in prison for 26 years for a murder he did not commit. Two lawyers knew he was innocent. They had cleared the guilty one, even though they knew he was guilty. Their confidentiality kept them from clearing the innocent until after the death of the guilty person.
When my wife, Ida, told me she had seen this on 60 Minutes, she wondered if this is what Danny expects through this lawsuit - to be declared innocent and someone else bear the guilt?
We have documented evidence of guilt, posted online for everyone to see at Save-3ABN.com (http://Save-3ABN.com).
-
A good friend of mine who is a policeman tells me many criminals are never punished because their defense attorneys are experts at spinning and turning and asking all kinds of irrelevant questions whereby they manage to create a very small doubt by which the guilty is exonerated.
There was a case where four policemen not in uniform tried to arrest thugs beating up innocent people. Even though the policemen verified they had each shown their police identification the defense attorney twisted their testimony, questioning and re-questioning them until he managed to create a doubt whether the thugs had all understood they were policemen when they attacked them. The doubt resulted in a full acquittal.
-
A good friend of mine who is a policeman tells me many criminals are never punished because their defense attorneys are experts at spinning and turning and asking all kinds of irrelevant questions whereby they manage to create a very small doubt by which the guilty is exonerated.
It is the defence attorney's job to get his client 'off the hook'. Just don't let the truth get in the way of a 'true story'.
-
A good friend of mine who is a policeman tells me many criminals are never punished because their defense attorneys are experts at spinning and turning and asking all kinds of irrelevant questions whereby they manage to create a very small doubt by which the guilty is exonerated.
Could you see a scenario where an attorney created enough reasonable doubt concerning Danny Shelton's actions to cause a jury to exonerate him?
My belief is that regardless of the outcome of lawsuits (which we wish to go well for our side!), it is necessary to publicize wrongdoing by a Seventh-day Adventist church-related organization.
Wrongdoings that are being ignored by the SDA church leadership and any new-and-improved 3ABN administration!
-
And among all the various wrongdoings, one of the worst was the slandering of the reputaton of a woman who was Vice-President and Co-Founder of the 3ABN organization!
-
A good friend of mine who is a policeman tells me many criminals are never punished because their defense attorneys are experts at spinning and turning and asking all kinds of irrelevant questions whereby they manage to create a very small doubt by which the guilty is exonerated.
There was a case where four policemen not in uniform tried to arrest thugs beating up innocent people. Even though the policemen verified they had each shown their police identification the defense attorney twisted their testimony, questioning and questioning them until he managed to create a doubt whether the thugs had all understood they were policemen when they attacked them. The doubt resulted in a full acquittal.
In a criminal prosecution the jury is held to a standard of finding "guilt" by weighing the evidence and determining that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In a civil case, the jury must find liability and damages by weighing the evidence based upon the standard of the "propensity of the evidence". Their game will be to continue to try and prevent the introduction of the evidence and we must use the rules if evidence to get the evidence into the record and before the jury. The evidence heavily weighs against them and they most certainly know that or they would not keep coming back to the same process of trying to protect evidence from discovery or, if discovered, to protect it from dissemination and ultimately to find a way to keep it from coming into the hands of the jury pool. That, in summary, is the game!!!
They also have a major problem that has come into the strategic mix...a criminal investigation by the IRS which is highly prejudicial and usually inadmissible. BUT, they alleged defamation per se and made a big deal about the premise that the allegations we have made accused 3ABN and the Founder of criminal activity...and now they have accidentally laid the foundation for the introduction of the investigation and the implications including expert testimony!!! Tough life if you are a lawyer for 3ABN and Danny lee Shelton, et al.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
A good friend of mine who is a policeman tells me many criminals are never punished because their defense attorneys are experts at spinning and turning and asking all kinds of irrelevant questions whereby they manage to create a very small doubt by which the guilty is exonerated.
There was a case where four policemen not in uniform tried to arrest thugs beating up innocent people. Even though the policemen verified they had each shown their police identification the defense attorney twisted their testimony, questioning and re-questioning them until he managed to create a doubt whether the thugs had all understood they were policemen when they attacked them. The doubt resulted in a full acquittal.
In a criminal prosecution the jury is held to a standard of finding "guilt" by weighing the evidence and determining that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In a civil case, the jury must find liability and damages by weighing the evidence based upon the standard of the "propensity of the evidence". Their game will be to continue to try and prevent the introduction of the evidence and we must use the rules if evidence to get the evidence into the record and before the jury. The evidence heavilly weighs against them and they most certainly know that or they would not keep coming back to the same process of trying to protect evidence from discovery or, if discovered, to protect it from dissemination and ultimately to find a way to keep it from coming into the hands of the jury pool. That, in summary, is the game!!!
They also have a major problem that has come into the strategic mix...a criminal investigation by the IRS whiich si highly prejudicial and usually inadmissable. BUT, they alleged defamation per se and made a big deal about the premise that the allegations we have made accused 3ABN and the Founder of criminal activity...and now they have accidentally laid the foundation for the introduction of the investigation and the implications including expert testimony!!! Tough life if you are a lawyer for 3ABN and Danny lee Shelton, et al.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Well...what can I say!
-
A good friend of mine who is a policeman tells me many criminals are never punished because their defense attorneys are experts at spinning and turning and asking all kinds of irrelevant questions whereby they manage to create a very small doubt by which the guilty is exonerated.
There was a case where four policemen not in uniform tried to arrest thugs beating up innocent people. Even though the policemen verified they had each shown their police identification the defense attorney twisted their testimony, questioning and questioning them until he managed to create a doubt whether the thugs had all understood they were policemen when they attacked them. The doubt resulted in a full acquittal.
In a criminal prosecution the jury is held to a standard of finding "guilt" by weighing the evidence and determining that the defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt".
In a civil case, the jury must find liability and damages by weighing the evidence based upon the standard of the "propensity of the evidence". Their game will be to continue to try and prevent the introduction of the evidence and we must use the rules if evidence to get the evidence into the record and before the jury. The evidence heavily weighs against them and they most certainly know that or they would not keep coming back to the same process of trying to protect evidence from discovery or, if discovered, to protect it from dissemination and ultimately to find a way to keep it from coming into the hands of the jury pool. That, in summary, is the game!!!
They also have a major problem that has come into the strategic mix...a criminal investigation by the IRS which is highly prejudicial and usually inadmissible. BUT, they alleged defamation per se and made a big deal about the premise that the allegations we have made accused 3ABN and the Founder of criminal activity...and now they have accidentally laid the foundation for the introduction of the investigation and the implications including expert testimony!!! Tough life if you are a lawyer for 3ABN and Danny lee Shelton, et al.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Seems to me like they want the truth, the whole truth and NOTHING LIKE THE TRUTH! :dunno:
-
"I received a letter from Attorney Hayes yesterday. She has withdrawn the subpoena to Calvin and has given us 10-business-day notice prior to again issuing a subpoena on April 7."
Bob gave us this update on another thread...
I'm wondering what significance it has...
Also Bob's "no comment" type of answer as to what was happening with the Bluehost subpoena didn't really give us a lot of information.
He did say, I think, that more would come later...will we get some hard facts at some point?!
-
"I received a letter from Attorney Hayes yesterday. She has withdrawn the subpoena to Calvin and has given us 10-business-day notice prior to again issuing a subpoena on April 7."
Bob gave us this update on another thread...
I'm wondering what significance it has...
Also Bob's "no comment" type of answer as to what was happening with the Bluehost subpoena didn't really give us a lot of information.
He did say, I think, that more would come later...will we get some hard facts at some point?!
This is a case where patience will be in order as it will be a process to unravel what has already occurred here. Just another battle where the battleplan is a
bit privileged, at this point.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
I hope Attorney Hayes is appropriately appreciative of this little lesson in "How to Issue a Valid Subpoena 101". How embarrassing to have to learn how to operate as an attorney from two pro se defendants...regardless of how smart they are!!
I am still not too impressed with BlueHost's rollover strategy in complying with a defective subpoena though.
This is a case where patience will be in order as it will be a process to unravel what has already occurred here. Just another battle where the battleplan is a
bit privileged, at this point.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"They also have a major problem that has come into the strategic mix...a criminal investigation by the IRS which is highly prejudicial and usually inadmissible. BUT, they alleged defamation per se and made a big deal about the premise that the allegations we have made accused 3ABN and the Founder of criminal activity...and now they have accidentally laid the foundation for the introduction of the investigation and the implications including expert testimony!"
Gailon, in the above you were explaining that the IRS criminal investigation of 3ABN can now be brought into court as evidence because of the defamation accusations of 3ABN's lawyers?
Am I understanding that correctly?
-
I hope Attorney Hayes is appropriately appreciative of this little lesson in "How to Issue a Valid Subpoena 101". How embarrassing to have to learn how to operate as an attorney from two pro se defendants...regardless of how smart they are!!
I am still not too impressed with BlueHost's rollover strategy in complying with a defective subpoena though.
This is a case where patience will be in order as it will be a process to unravel what has already occurred here. Just another battle where the battleplan is a
bit privileged, at this point.
Gailon Arthur Joy
I totally agree, Snoopy!
I'm wondering if the good attorney will become more and more embarrassed as time goes on!
-
I hope Attorney Hayes is appropriately appreciative of this little lesson in "How to Issue a Valid Subpoena 101". How embarrassing to have to learn how to operate as an attorney from two pro se defendants...regardless of how smart they are!!
I am still not too impressed with BlueHost's rollover strategy in complying with a defective subpoena though.
This is a case where patience will be in order as it will be a process to unravel what has already occurred here. Just another battle where the battleplan is a
bit privileged, at this point.
Gailon Arthur Joy
I totally agree, Snoopy!
I'm wondering if the good attorney will become more and more embarrassed as time goes on!
Intersting days ahead again? :scratch:
-
Hey, Bob, isn't it funny how reasonable and pliable they can be when pushing the protective order before the judge? I had to crack up when she was explaining just how reasonable they had been during the Protective Order Stipulation discussions???
She was T'ed off over your production of her "confidential" email discussions with you. Wonder how horrified she would have been if you gave the judge the entire log?
If we win, I guarantee they will not De Nouveau to Judge Saylor!!! He would most probably be not the least bit bemused by the stall and hold tactics. But what else do you have when you do not have the facts on your side???
Gailon Arthur Joy
I assume that "stall and hold tactics" can lengthen the entire proceedings...
-
A decision has been made in the attempt of Bob Pickle to subopena ceratin bank records in MN:
1) The bank has been ordered to provide the requested document, but ONLY to the Magistrate located in MA who is in charge of that aspect of the lawsuit there.
2) Bob Pickle has been ordered to pay the bank all reasonable costs the it incurs in providing the documents referenced above. The bank is not obligated to send the documents to MA until Bob pays them their fee.
3) All documents are under seal and are not to be shared with anyone else which includes Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy.
4) Others (including Bob and Gailon) may petition the court in MA for access to those documents and the MA court may grant such access as it believes is justified.
5) The motion of Danny Shelton to quash the subponea is denied.
6) The motion to deny Mr. Shelton's motion to quash is denied as it is moot.
My analysis: It is a win for both sides. But, the importance is not known at this time. I.e. It may be of no consequence or or may be of major consequence. It is premature for either side to trumpet this as a major win.
NOTE: As I am not an attorney and I am not trained in law, my comment above is not to be construed as giving a legal opinon or any kind of legal advice. It is simply a personal opinon of mine.
-
Thank you for sharing that, Gregory, and for your unbiased analysis. I understand the win-win point you are making, but my suspicion is that if those documents show what Bob thinks they will show, the implications will be huge. BTJM...
-
I wonder how much money the bank is requesting for this information?
-
I think it would be a per page fee. But I have no idea how many pages we are talking about. So once the magistrate sees the documents, then what? Does he get to decide the relevance, and what happens next?
I wonder how much money the bank is requesting for this information?
-
"They also have a major problem that has come into the strategic mix...a criminal investigation by the IRS which is highly prejudicial and usually inadmissible. BUT, they alleged defamation per se and made a big deal about the premise that the allegations we have made accused 3ABN and the Founder of criminal activity...and now they have accidentally laid the foundation for the introduction of the investigation and the implications including expert testimony!"
Gailon, in the above you were explaining that the IRS criminal investigation of 3ABN can now be brought into court as evidence because of the defamation accusations of 3ABN's lawyers?
Am I understanding that correctly?
The issue goes to rules of evidence and since they have charged us with Defamtion Per Se, it becomes relevant and admissable as it relates to the
financial allegations.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
A decision has been made in the attempt of Bob Pickle to subopena ceratin bank records in MN:
1) The bank has been ordered to provide the requested document, but ONLY to the Magistrate located in MA who is in charge of that aspect of the lawsuit there.
2) Bob Pickle has been ordered to pay the bank all reasonable costs the it incurs in providing the documents referenced above. The bank is not obligated to send the documents to MA until Bob pays them their fee.
3) All documents are under seal and are not to be shared with anyone else which includes Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy.
4) Others (including Bob and Gailon) may petition the court in MA for access to those documents and the MA court may grant such access as it believes is justified.
5) The motion of Danny Shelton to quash the subponea is denied.
6) The motion to deny Mr. Shelton's motion to quash is denied as it is moot.
My analysis: It is a win for both sides. But, the importance is not known at this time. I.e. It may be of no consequence or or may be of major consequence. It is premature for either side to trumpet this as a major win.
NOTE: As I am not an attorney and I am not trained in law, my comment above is not to be construed as giving a legal opinon or any kind of legal advice. It is simply a personal opinon of mine.
That is a relatively sound assessment but I would note that the seal violates local rule and is not relevant until and if the records are paid for. This was a reasonable enforcement of the subpoena, and simply deferred the availability of the records until the Massachusetts court puts into the record a "confidentiality agreement". Given this court's prior history, the records will logically become available to the defendants but may be protected from posting identical copies to public view, but cannot prevent summaries or we have a First Amendment Issue; and a Plaintiffs' lawsuite cannot be brought to violate basic rights guaranteed by the constitution.
Otherwise, mandamus becomes a possibility.
To avoid uneccasary embarrasment to the Plaintiffs, It is worth waiting for the confidentiality agreement to determine just how the documents will be treated under the discovery rules. May be worth it to simply re-issue a new subpoena
to avoid serious potential for embarrassment to the plaintiffs after we see the confidentialiity agreement.
On the other hand, strategically putting the documents under seal would open a real can of worms if another reporter stepped in and requested mandamus. Judge Saylor and the First circuit would seem inclined to support the unsealing and that would be very counter-productive to the plaintiffs. Not a very good position in which to finds oneself, is it?
So, Mr Gregory, how would you play this chess game??? Open the plaintiffs to the possibility of serious embarrasment by putting the documents under seal or waiting for the confidentiality agreement and allowing some semblance of privacy?
In other words, leave them naked in the public square or let fair play prevail?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon:
I am not going to speculate beyond my level of competence, even if some might think that I have already done so. But, I will illustrate with a true story.
I few years back I filed a "Freedom of Information Act" case against a Federal agency. My request was denied, if full and for reasons that I considered just plain dumb. That got my attention and I appealed to a higher level. In my appeal I tore apart the reasoning of that agency that had denied my request.
The bottom line: I was given full disclosure of all documents related to the issue that I had raised. In fact, I was given more documents that I had actually requested. I beleive that I was given more than I had requested to punish the agency for refusing a fair request and involving the authorities in a case that could have been settled by simply giving me what I had requested.
O.K. getting to the order of the MN Court in ordering the production of documents and that the be provided, under seal, to the magistrate on MA:
1) The order of the MN Court suggests to me that this was NOT a compromise order that both parties had agreed to accept. Rather it appears to me to be an order of the court that was made without respect to the desire of parties, but on the basis of law.
2) I suspect that both sides won some issues in this order that the other side had not been willing to grant. On this basis, I suspect that both sides lost something that they had not been willing to give up. I do not have a desire to speculate on the specifics of who won and who lost what. It is simply common sense to believe that the court would issue an order that walked a line between what the parties wanted, giving something to each and taking something from each.
3) The ultimate benefit of this order to the respectifve paraties will depend upon what the MA magistrate and the MA court will do with the documents that are provided it. In the end there could be a total loss to either side. Or, there could be a compromise which walked a line between the parties giving something to each, but not the total of what either wanetd.
4) I suspect that the immediate issue in MA will be access to the docuemnts by Gailon and Bob. It should be understood that full access to all documents could be a hollow win for them. They could be given access only under strict conditions of use. IOW they could be ordered not to disclose the content of the docuemnts in any form or manner to anyone. Of course that might be subject to First Amendment challenge. But, such an order could be issued.
5) Regardless of the issue of access, there is another issue that is significant. That issue related to the question as to how the documents are used. The fact that documents exist does not automaticly mean that they will be allowed to be entered as evidence in litigation. If they are so entered, it does not mean that they will in any way be determinative as far as the results of the litigation.
IN SUMMATION: In my opinon the value of the order of the MN Court is unknown at this time. It is simply another step in what may be a very long process.
On another aspect: Negative comments have been made in regard to one of the 3-ABN lawyers and her need to take beginning law 101. I do not agree with that assessment. She knows exactly what she is dong, in my opinion. While the MN law firm may have some lawyers on their staff who are stronger than others, they are all competent. Each works in their area of speciality. When it is needed the law firm can place their strongest lawyers into the mix. In a complex case like this it is to be expected that each side will win some and each side will lose some. The ultimate issue is not what each side wins and loses at this point but the ultimate issue is the final decision. That decision is currently undecided, unknown and cannot be predicted at this point in time.
-
On another aspect: Negative comments have been made in regard to one of the 3-ABN lawyers and her need to take beginning law 101. I do not agree with that assessment. She knows exactly what she is dong, in my opinion.
Do you think she knew that she was issuing invalid subpoenas because they had no case numbers on them, and didn't say "District of Massachusetts" on them? Did she also know that she wasn't giving us the notice required by the local rules?
And did Gerry Duffy know that common law copyright hasn't existed on the federal level since the 1830's, and on the state level since 1978, when he appealed to common law copyright in his cease and desist letter of January 30, 2007?
-
Bob:
My statement stands as I wrote it.
In general terms I am seeing happen what I expect to happen. Again, I expect that both sides will win some and will also lose some.
-
:thumbsup:
-
"1) The order of the MN Court suggests to me that this was NOT a compromise order that both parties had agreed to accept. Rather it appears to me to be an order of the court that was made without respect to the desire of parties, but on the basis of law." - Gregory
The proces began as a motion to quash. THe production has been ordered. The Minnesotta Judge simply wanted to faciltate the proper remit back to Massachusetts for the decison on the "confidentiality" rules. To close the case in Minnesotta, it is clear he dumped the motion to quash and ordered the production. Because of the violative motion to quash, we had asked they be charged to produce the documents. Unfortunately, as is typical, he opted not to punish miscreants. Further, to protect the documents produced, assuming we proceed with the production, he ordered them "sealed" until the Judge in Worcester decided on the confidentiality issues.
My point is that the order to seal has a serious defect and potentially works against the plaintiff's best interest. Simply put, documents under seal in the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals
are subject to writs of mandamus from newspapers that is rarely kept sealed. I am not convinced that it is in anyones best interest to make the bank account documents open
for general public display and so far the 3ABN debacle has been kept within the confines
of the SDA church, for the most part, and should be kept there, if possible.
Hope this gives clarification.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Good. And my statement stands as I wrote it.
My statement stands as I wrote it.
-
I think it would be a per page fee. But I have no idea how many pages we are talking about. So once the magistrate sees the documents, then what? Does he get to decide the relevance, and what happens next?
I wonder how much money the bank is requesting for this information?
We already have a bill and timetable for production based upon the original subpoena. Just not yet time to produce without the confidentiality order in place. The order may need to be moved de nouveau to Judge Saylor or even appealed to the First Cicuit Court of appeals. Therefore, best to not expend the resources until we know the disposition and value to the case.
Patience is in order and lets see what the judge orders.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Ah, the writ of mandamus as relief. Yes, it is an order of a court to require that a specific act either be performed or not performed. For people who do not know its legal history it is a good sound bite.
In general terms, with occasional rare exceptions, it is not issued against an individual. The ultimate right to issue such resides with the U. S. Supreme Court. Yet, as an outgrowth of Marbury v. Madison that court has almost abolished the practice of issuing such writs, while maintaining the right to do so. The reason for doing such is in that requirement that mandamus only be issued when there is not other legal remedy for a legal right.
Appellate courts do have the right to issue such writs only when there is a compelling reason to do so.
Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally prohibit District Courts from issuing such writs as it is generally assumed that in those courts other remedies exist.
My opinion: Perhaps the context would be right for the news media to obtain such a writ, and that was the context of Gailon’s comment. However, it probably would be a long shot for others to obtain such. It is not known if the news media would have any interest in this case in its present state of development. So, none should hold their breath while waiting for a writ of mandamus. NOTE: As I am not trained in law the preceding is my personal opinion and should not be construed as an opinion on the law. Anyone needing legal advice should seek that from a competent legal, licensed, professional.
-
IN SUMMATION: In my opinon the value of the order of the MN Court is unknown at this time. It is simply another step in what may be a very long process.
On another aspect: Negative comments have been made in regard to one of the 3-ABN lawyers....
Agreed. Negativity should have no place here.
While the MN law firm may have some lawyers on their staff who are stronger than others, they are all competent.
Gregory,
Are you stating that they are all competent as your opinion or as a fact? Do you have personal experience working with the lawyers at this firm? How do you know that they are competent? I'm not doubting that they are and have no clue as to the ramifications/importance of all the tactics used by both sides. Your thoughts?
-
Re:
Are you stating that they are all competent as your opinion or as a fact? Do you have personal experience working with the lawyers at this firm? How do you know that they are competent?
Sorrry. I have no intention of giving a reason for my statement. So, accept or reject it as you will. Take it solely as my opinion if you wish.
-
Sorrry. I have no intention of giving a reason for my statement. So, accept or reject it as you will. Take it solely as my opinion if you wish.
It is my personal opinion that in a free discussion like her none of us are obliged to give a reason for statements we make.
-
Sorrry. I have no intention of giving a reason for my statement. So, accept or reject it as you will. Take it solely as my opinion if you wish.
It is my personal opinion that in a free discussion like her none of us are obliged to give a reason for statements we make.
It is my understanding that people have gotten sued in federal court for allegedly making statements in a "free discussion" forum that were without reason. Perhaps Gregory was wise to indicate--multiple times, that much of his postings were merely his opinion, instead of stating something as being fact without adequate support or reason. I am in support of the belief that one does not need to give a reason for postings here.
Here is one place we do need a reason:
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" 1 Peter 3:15
SDAminister
-
Ah, the writ of mandamus as relief. Yes, it is an order of a court to require that a specific act either be performed or not performed. For people who do not know its legal history it is a good sound bite.
In general terms, with occasional rare exceptions, it is not issued against an individual. The ultimate right to issue such resides with the U. S. Supreme Court. Yet, as an outgrowth of Marbury v. Madison that court has almost abolished the practice of issuing such writs, while maintaining the right to do so. The reason for doing such is in that requirement that mandamus only be issued when there is not other legal remedy for a legal right.
Appellate courts do have the right to issue such writs only when there is a compelling reason to do so.
Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure generally prohibit District Courts from issuing such writs as it is generally assumed that in those courts other remedies exist.
My opinion: Perhaps the context would be right for the news media to obtain such a writ, and that was the context of Gailon’s comment. However, it probably would be a long shot for others to obtain such. It is not known if the news media would have any interest in this case in its present state of development. So, none should hold their breath while waiting for a writ of mandamus. NOTE: As I am not trained in law the preceding is my personal opinion and should not be construed as an opinion on the law. Anyone needing legal advice should seek that from a competent legal, licensed, professional.
A much closer citation is In Re: Providence Journal -vs- Buddy Chianci, the infamous case the Plaintiffs originally cited as "the law of the First Circuit"
and asserted supported the sealing of this case. Unfortunately, Judge Saylor
was not to be fooled and clearly with appropriate recitation saw the error of
the plaintiffs premise. You will note the Provident Journal has sought several
writs of Mandamus.
Other great cases that included Writs of Mandamus included US -vs- Nixon
(as in President Nixon of the Watergate Scandal) which also has a great ruling
on access to the press for sealed documents.
One other point, there is nothing to peak the curiousity of Court Beat Reporters than "sealed documents" or "sealed cases". I still think it best to not peak their curiosity. Besides, we have time!!!
But, thanks for that excellent explanation and analysis.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
On another aspect: Negative comments have been made in regard to one of the 3-ABN lawyers....
Agreed. Negativity should have no place here.
While the MN law firm may have some lawyers on their staff who are stronger than others, they are all competent.
Gregory,
Are you stating that they are all competent as your opinion or as a fact? Do you have personal experience working with the lawyers at this firm? How do you know that they are competent? I'm not doubting that they are and have no clue as to the ramifications/importance of all the tactics used by both sides. Your thoughts?
Competence to practice law is determined by ones completion of a course of study in Juris Prudence, successfully "overcoming" the Bar Exam for ones respective state and admission to the bar. Further accomplishment is recognized by ones becoming an associate or partner in a firm. All of the lawyers practicing with the firm in Minnesotta seem to have met all the criteria to establish a right
to be recognized as "competent". To state otherwise is unwise gloating, a manifestation of pride that should be contained and controlled.
The best firm in the world will have problems with cases that foundationally are
"factually challenged" or the prepondernce of the evidence stacks up against you as the case develops. This is a client problem, not a law firm problem and the firm will advocate for its client the best it can in the hopes of developing enough edge to at least negotiate a reasonable final settlement of the case.
Then there occasionally comes along those pig headed and indefatiguable defendants that just will not be reasoned with and see no need to negotiate,
surrender or otherwise be reasonable. It is best summed up as the unstoppable object headed for a collision course with the immovable object!!! There will, and must be, an explosion at some point and both will end up as dust particles spraying 360 degrees three dimentionally into the void of space. Spectators on both sides will view it as a spectacular display and one group will claim the unstoppable object won and the others will claim the immovable object won.
Neither will, in fact, serve any further purpose other than an occasional Leonid Shower as a belated show of glory totally irrelevant to the flow of the universe.
The lawyers will have made their billable hours and tolled the fees as they were required to do by their respective clients. Ultimately, it is irrelevant whether they win, lose or draw, the "competent" lawyers will be further ahead, regardless of the outcome. Do you think they really care about the "TRUTH"? Ney, never, they care about advocasy and providing "competent" counsel to their client. If the client has a "challenged" case, competent counsel will deal with it the best they can. They cannot help it if they have been "factually challenged" and are likely to utilize "factually challenged" information as the basis for working the harder and longer to overcome the adversitites of a case.
The point is, lawyers can only deal with the deck of cards as shuffled, and with the hand they have been dealt. If someone is willing to pay for someone elses clearly "factually challenged" claims, the better for Law Firm and Plaintiff, after all, what does either have to loose, regardless of how the die roll.
As defendants we are somewhat fortunate as we have been able to pick our battles and play the game to our advantage. We have the interior lines and we have the preponderonce of the evidence in our favor. Add to this our having peeked and knowing that there was an IRS Criminal Investigation going on collaterally and it was the equivalent of playing with a loaded deck. Not that we didn't try to share our peek a boo information, but arrogance begats arrogance and no-one listened!!! So, in ignorance, they played against a stacked deck and
ignored all the warning signs, failed to watch and count the cards played and then bet big on a lossing hand, apparently hoping to bluff!!! And they are still bluffing!!!
So, the point is you simply need to recognize that the problem the attorneys face is that they have been dealt a bad hand, apparently were not told the deck was stacked against them and now are stuck with the consequences. They have been and will continue to get paid handsomely to continue the bluff.
Sooner or later the defendants have no choice but to up the ante significantly and will call their bluff. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs will have paid handsomely regardless of how the chips may fall!!! While Bob and I will have little to claim, others will line up and take the winnings.
Is that "incompetence"??? Ney, never from counsels perspective. The Directors, officers and Members of 3ABN will be a bit chagrined and will rue the day they opted out of due process at various points, but, they have the money and will simply pay and still have money to play another day. Sadly, in the end, ironically, the client will frequently blame counsel for undesireable outcomes when in reality it was about "factually challenged" inputs. A hard and expensive lesson, probably never really learned...and counsel will "competently" pursue advocacy!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
All I can really say here is that these posts are very interesting and informative.
-
Hey, Bob, isn't it funny how reasonable and pliable they can be when pushing the protective order before the judge? I had to crack up when she was explaining just how reasonable they had been during the Protective Order Stipulation discussions???
She was T'ed off over your production of her "confidential" email discussions with you. Wonder how horrified she would have been if you gave the judge the entire log?
If we win, I guarantee they will not De Nouveau to Judge Saylor!!! He would most probably be not the least bit bemused by the stall and hold tactics. But what else do you have when you do not have the facts on your side???
Gailon Arthur Joy
Is this accurate? What was the real problem?
The Court Docket, and documents filed in the Massachusetts lawsuit case reveal that 3ABN filed a Motion for a protective order and request for oral arguments on December 18, 2007. On January 2, 2008 Robert Pickle filed an opposition to that.
Three mos later on March 3, 2008, and just 4 days before the hearing, the letters/correspondance referred to, dated Jan 23-24, 2008, were submitted as an attachment to a document that Robert Pickle filed as "Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [40] MOTION for Protective Order Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order and Request for Oral Argument"
Pickle filed these documents months after the deadline for a response had passed, and without first seeking leave of the court to so so. 3ABN's lawyers filed a Motion to strike or in the alternative be given leave to file a response. Pickle then belatedly sought permission to file. Judge Hillman granted the 3ABN Motion to strike and denied Pickle's request to file.
Local Rule 7.1 of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts governs motion practice. It provides that a party opposing a motion is to file an opposition within 14 days after service of the motion, together with any affidavits or other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the opposition is based. See D. Mass. L. R. 7.1(b)(2).
The rule further provides that papers other than a motion and an opposition to the motion, together with any affidavits or other supporting documents filed therewith, may be submitted only with leave of court. See D. Mass. L. R. 7.1(b)(3).
In any case, Here are the emails referred to so that you may judge for yourselves who has been negotiating in good faith and is willing to compromise, and who is, and who is not delaying this case...
(NOTE: the following email discussion submitted by Bob Pickle starts with his response to a proposed confidentiality agreement drafted by 3ABN, but does not include it nor any earlier or background info and emails. I have reversed the order from how they were submitted so that they may be read in consecutive order.)
Source: Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 51- (attachment 4) Filed 03/03/2008 by Bob Pickle, 8 pages uploaded from mailbox:///C|/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/BOB%20PICK... 3/3/2008 2:50 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:13 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement
Ms. Hayes:
In discussing the matter of a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Joy, we'd like to get back to you with a response by February 1.
In the meantime, it would be quite helpful to me if you could find out from 3ABN whether redacted donor names with an accompanying confidential list that tied donor codes to donor names, each name not being able to be disclosed without permission from that particular donor or his/her heir(s), would be acceptable. Such a procedure would allow us to verify who stopped giving for what reasons and still respect their privacy.
Thanks for getting back to me on this matter soon enough before February 1 so that I have time to do something regarding it.
Bob Pickle
Jerrie Hayes wrote:
I don't understand your request. Are you saying you have decided to propose an alternative draft confidentiality agreement and are proposing providing it to me by February 1? Or are you saying you haven't decided on the more fundamental question of whether there is a confidentiality agreement to which you could agree or not? If your statement means the former, February 1 is fine with me as a deadline for you to provide me an alternate proposed agreement. If your statement means the latter, I genuinely do not believe you need nine days to decide the issue and would want to know your answer much sooner than your proposed February 1 deadline. If your statement means the latter, I would request an answer on or before Friday, January 25.
In regard to the latter, I will take your proposal to the client, but before I do so, I'd like to clarify a logistic concern I have with the donor names. How would it be determined which donor would be asked to release their identifying information and how would you propose the donors be contacted to determine whether they would agree to such release?
Jerrie Hayes
From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:03 AM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement
Ms. Hayes:
There are confidentiality agreements to which both Gailon and I could agree, and I think we have made that fairly clear, even before I entered my appearance pro se. The question is really whether there are confidentiality agreements that the plaintiffs would agree to which would allow the case to be properly adjudicated under appropriate and traditional public scrutiny, which is why I asked what I did about donor names. Are the plaintiffs willing to allow necessary verification of their claims regarding the decline of donations and the reasons for any actual decline?
As a preliminary answer to your question regarding logistics, once donors going back to perhaps January 1, 2003, have been identified that have ceased giving or declined the amounts they have given, we would then be able to contact them to verify, including but not limited to regarding any declines claimed by the plaintiffs in the last half of 2006, a) whether their "donations" were truly donations or whether they were purchases or shipping charges, b) if true donations, why they chose to stop or decline giving, c) whether they would be willing to produce an affidavit stating those reasons, and d) whether they wished their name to continue to be kept confidential, if it is not already a matter of public record.
As far as names that are already a matter of public record, it could hardly be expected that the sharp decline in giving coming from the Garmar Foundation, declines which are reported on Form 990-PF, should be kept confidential. But of course, just the fact that such a name is a matter of public record does not mean that the decline was due to Danny Shelton or the defendants. There are other valid reasons why true donations could decline.
Bob Pickle
Jerrie Hayes wrote:
I now better understand your question concerning donors and will contact my client and get back to you. As to the February 1 issue, I believe you are saying you and Mr. Joy have agreed to draft a proposed confidentiality agreement and provide it to me by February 1. Please confirm if my understanding is correct.
Jerrie Hayes
From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:30 AM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur JoySubject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement
It seems to me that we need to first hear back from your client before we can say that we will begin working on a proposed agreement by any date. Thus far they have been unwilling to allow us to adequately challenge their claims regarding donation declines and the reasons behind any actual declines. If they will now change their position, then it makes sense to draft an agreement that would enshrine that new position.
Bob Pickle
Jerrie Hayes wrote:
First, I do not agree with your assessment of my client’s position on the donor information. 3ABN moved considerably from its initial proposal of providing no donor information, to a proposal that included
(1) providing all donor information (dates, amounts, etc.) except confidential donor identification information;
(2) providing donor codes that could be linked to letters, e-mails and other information from those donors as to why their donations were discontinued; and
(3) in camera verification of donor accuracy.
If, for whatever reason, that is still not sufficient in your opinion, you need to provide an alternative solution that provides you with the information you believe you need and still protects our donors’ confidentiality. This would need to include specifics about how and by whom donors would be contacted for permission to release their identifying information to you.
We are supposed to be engaged in good faith negotiations, here. I don’t think it makes sense for me to go to my client with one proposed provision at a time. We came to the table with a complete agreement to work from. Our second draft was also a complete agreement. It only makes sense that, if you believe there exists a confidentiality agreement to which you would be willing to agree, you show your good faith by providing it to us in similarly complete form to review and discuss. If you are willing to continue negotiations, please provide a draft complete confidentiality agreement you could live with, that includes your position on donors, financial records, and proprietary business and operational information, by February 1, 2008. If you are not willing to do so, please inform me and we can discontinue our discussions.
Jerrie Hayes
From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:38 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement
Ms. Hayes:
I believe I already provided you with a proposal, and that you already said you would be contacting your client about it. But you missed part of what I said: The donor names would be kept confidential unless they voluntarily choose to have it be otherwise. I never said one word about getting donor permission before their names would be given to us in a separate, keyed to redacted donor code, confidential list.
It makes total sense for you to test the waters of your client's willingness to allow us to challenge their claims in the manner I have suggested, a manner that protects the confidentiality of the donor information. If you have difficulty explaining to them the importance of allowing such a process, since all communications are to be had with counsel present, why not arrange a conference that would include your client as a participant?
Verifying the donation information is a critical, key component to the plaintiffs' case. We really need to test the waters, especially since we have yet to receive one single document from either plaintiff. If you need another issue to bounce off of them as well, I did not catch where your second proposal incorporated the idea that the public has a right to know what the correct figures should have been on the Form 990's and audited financial statements, since these documents are by statute a matter of public record. This was a point of mine that I made sure in our first conference that you understood I believed needed to be included.
Bob Pickle
Jerrie Hayes wrote:
Mr. Pickle;
If you reread my e-mail, you will see I told you that I could not take a proposal concerning the donors back to my client without you having clarified the terms of any such disclosure. You have not done so to my satisfaction and, as we exchange e-mails, I don’t think you can without putting your suggestions in writing – hence my request. My suggestion concerning disclosure of the donor names was that we provide all information in coded form, and allow verification to be conducted in camera. If there were specific donors you felt you personally needed to contact for verification purposes (a random sampling should be sufficient to serve your purposes), I would propose 3ABN contact the donor to see if they would voluntarily agree to a release of their name and donation information. That’s just one suggestion for a resolution; your draft might contain a different suggestion. But Plaintiffs need a concrete proposal to review and the ball is in your court.
We have provided not one but two versions of a proposed agreement that Plaintiffs could live with, neither of which were met with Defendants’ approval. It is now your turn to suggest an agreement to which Defendants would consent. I don’t know that my client will necessarily accept it without further negotiation, but it’s the fair and logical next step.
I am really not sure how to make this any clearer. To advance these negotiations, you (and Mr. Joy, if he is participating) need to provide to the Plaintiffs a complete, written proposed confidentiality agreement, incorporating all the issues you feel important and drafted in a fashion you could accept, on or before February 1, 2008. If you want to propose a different structure concerning donor information, you should include it. If you want to propose a different definition of "confidential" or "highly confidential" that reflects your views on whether the public is entitled not only to the actual 990’s and audited financial statements, but to the supporting documents underlying those reports, you should include it. I have already told you my client’s general position on these issues, but we cannot hope to agree to a confidentiality agreement operating in a vacuum using hypothetics – Plaintiffs must have a complete, written proposed agreement from Defendants to review and evaluate before any further progress can be made.
So, for the last time I will ask you a simple question with just two possible choices: do you want to provide to me a written, complete proposed confidentiality agreement by February 1, 2008, or do you want to discontinue our efforts to resolve the issue of maintaining confidentiality of donors, financial records, and proprietary business and operational information?
Please advise me of your choice (which I thought I would be getting by the end of the day yesterday), by the end of the day today.
Thank you.
Jerrie Hayes
From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:14 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement
Ms. Hayes:
I was crystal clear in my proposal, and my proposal stands as is. Find out from your client if they are willing to provide to us the donor information with names redacted, with an accompanying confidential list tying the donor names to the donor codes from the redacted documents. We would not disclose the donor names unless those donors explicitly gave us permission.
See if you can get back to me by the end of the day regarding whether your client is willing to allow us to adequately challenge their claims in the manner I have proposed, proposed more than once.
Then I would be able to work on a proposed agreement.
Bob Pickle
Jerrie Hayes wrote:
Mr. Pickle;
What we apparently have here is a failure to communicate. You are assuming my proposal provides you with the donor’s actual names and identifying information. It does not. I was NEVER talking about releasing the information to you and then, if the donor approves, allowing you to disclose that donor’s information to the public. I was talking about you identifying coded donors whose name and information you wanted, and then we would get the donor’s permission to release their identifying information to YOU! The idea of publishing the donor’s information to third parties has NEVER been on the table.
After your arguments concerning authentication, I made a compromise to you by suggesting that, although you have not shown any evidence that would lead a fact-finder to believe the donor information we would provide would be anything but authentic and genuine, my clients would be willing to accommodate your "verification" needs in two possible ways:
(1) allow the court to verify the information in an in camera review; or
(2) allow you to identify a random sampling of coded donors you believed would be sufficient to establish that the information as a whole was accurate and we would secure those donor’s permission to release their identifying information to you.
You would then be responsible for obtaining that donor’s permission to publish their information to third-parties or the public and, accordingly, responsible directly to the donor for any harassment or defamation the donor suffers as a result of your publication of their information.
I have now once again informed you of the manner in which my client is willing to accommodate your (as I see it, yet unfounded) need for verification. This is their most recent and current position. I will not go back to my clients until I have something new from you to present to them. Either of the alternative donor verification solutions could be included by you in a proposed written draft agreement to be provided to us, or your proposed agreement could include a different solution, understanding that my client, concerned about preserving their donor’s confidentiality and concerned about you, Mr. Joy or your investigative cronies badgering and harassing former contributors, does not intend to release identifying information for its donors without some assurance that those donors and their identities will be protected.
I will no longer belabor these points. For the third, and FINAL time, I will ask you a simple question with just two possible choices: do you want to provide to me a written, complete proposed confidentiality agreement by February 1, 2008, or do you want to discontinue our efforts to resolve the issue of maintaining confidentiality of donors, financial records, and proprietary business and operational information?
Jerrie Hayes
From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:11 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement
Ms. Hayes:
I never assumed that your proposal provided us with actual donor names, and I would think you would realize that. My proposal did that. Yours never has. Furthermore, if you cannot properly state what I have said, please either refrain from such attempts, or direct me to a different attorney who has an easier time grasping what is being said.
The idea of publishing confidential information, from what I recall, was placed on the table by your clients who used their concerns about that as a way to justify a protective order. My point is that there are some former donors out there who clearly do not mind their names being publicly disclosed, and I cannot agree to keep confidential what the former donors themselves want to be disclosed.
Due to the culture of prevarication that has existed at 3ABN, I do not see any other way to go about things. It would be one thing if it were just Danny who has prevaricated, but it isn't just him.
We have to be able to freely and thoroughly challenge and verify the claims of the plaintiffs regarding donation declines. And that could mean our attempting to verify every last former donor's existence, the amounts they gave in real donations, and why they stopped or decreased giving.
I would suggest that you not rely merely on the word of Mollie Steenson that 3ABN as a whole refuses to allow us to do what needs to be done. Perhaps the board could discuss the issue, or at least the president.
Perhaps the real problem is that 3ABN does not want its donors to know that it is in the midst of litigation.
At any rate, see if my proposal meets with tentative approval, and we would then be able to work on a proposed agreement.
Bob Pickle
Jerrie Hayes wrote:
Mr. Pickle;
Not having been employed by or, to my knowledge, having even visited 3ABN, your charge that 3ABN maintains a culture of Iying is nothing more than a second-hand opinion, not an evidentiary fact that would EVER hold up in court. If your comments constituted an effort to "prove" a need to verify 3ABN’s donor reports, you have failed miserably.
I am done with your efforts to "pass the buck" and lay all the responsibility for the creation of what is supposed to be a MUTUAL confidentiality agreement on the Plaintiffs’ shoulders. I will not go back to my clients without something new. It is Defendants’ turn to make a complete, written proposal for a confidentiality agreement. Period.
If former contributors have come to you, willing to provide you with their donor information, 3ABN cannot ask you to keep that confidential as the donors themselves have waived their confidentiality. But Plaintiffs intend to respect the donors’ confidentiality and will not disclose that information—even to you—without safeguards. I have proposed two options (in camera review or random sampling) in an effort to compromise on the issue and meet with your (as yet not established) need for data verification.
By your email you appear to be rejecting both those ideas, in which case the ball would be in your court to either propose—as part of a complete, written draft confidentiality agreement—a means of obtaining the verification you feel you need, while safeguarding the confidentiality of the donors’ identities, or ending the negotiations here and now, since my client’s position on the sanctity of the donor information is not going to change. But since I have three times asked you to make that choice, and since you have three times refused to do so, I believe our good faith efforts towards resolution have concluded.
Jerrie Hayes
Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement From: Bob bob@pickle-publishing.com Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:21:44 -0600 To: Jerrie Hayes jerriehayes@sbgdf.com CC: "G. Arthur Joy" Gailon@gabbjoy4.com>
Ms. Hayes:
I already gave you something new, unless I missed your telling me that you had already presented my proposal to your client. And unless I missed that, your statement is another mischaracterization of the situation.
I have not passed the buck. I have merely asked if they are willing to consider my proposal before I start drafting an agreement. Another mischaracterization. Is there another attorney I should be conversing with who will refrain from misinterpreting what I have said?
In camera review does not allow us to verify the information we need to verify, and it would be inappropriate to cross examine at trial the judge who did such a review.
The issues at stake are important enough that I would want to reserve the right to verify every donor, not just do a random sampling.
I would not call this dialog "good faith efforts," since I have repeatedly presented you with a proposal that would safeguard the donor's identity, but you refuse to acknowledge that fact. But very well. If you choose to break off negotiations and refuse to verify that your client is willing to consider my proposal, then that's the way it is. I can't force you to negotiate in good faith if both you and your colleagues refuse to do so.
Bob Pickle
The end result of this discussion was that Bob Pickle filed a motion to compel and asked for sanctions against 3ABN.
Sanctions were denied. His motion to compel was granted in part: "The Plaintiffs shall provide all Rule 26 (a)(1) documents that are not privileged or confidential to the Defendants on or before March 28, 2008." SOURCE: PACER- Court Docket
And 3ABN filed a motion for a protective order and asked for oral arguments concerning such. That hearing was granted, and after oral arguments took place on March 7, 2008, the Judge ruled on March 10, 2008:
" the parties are invited to provide this court with a proposed confidentiality order on or before March 20, 2008, which will govern the identification and disclosure of those documents that any party feels are privileged and/or confidential. I will issue a further order regarding the production of privileged and/or confidential documents. Until such time as this court enters a confidentiality order, the plaintiffs may withhold from production those documents referenced in this motion." SOURCE: PACER- Court Docket
-
May I ask: Do you have a job? When do you make time to post hundreds of pages on all the forums which deal with 3ABN? How much does Danny Shelton pay you to do his work?
Eduard
-
And 3ABN filed a motion for a protective order and asked for oral arguments concerning such. That hearing was granted, and after oral arguments took place on March 7, 2008, the Judge ruled on March 10, 2008:
" the parties are invited to provide this court with a proposed confidentiality order on or before March 20, 2008, which will govern the identification and disclosure of those documents that any party feels are privileged and/or confidential. I will issue a further order regarding the production of privileged and/or confidential documents. Until such time as this court enters a confidentiality order, the plaintiffs may withhold from production those documents referenced in this motion." SOURCE: PACER- Court Docket
The PACER court Docket records:
Document 57 Filed & Entered: 03/20/2008 "Proposed Confidentiality Order" submitted by Robert Pickle
Document 58 Filed & Entered: 03/20/2008 "Plaintiffs' Proposed Confidentiality Order" was submitted by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., Danny Lee Shelton,
Document 59 Filed & Entered: 03/21/2008 "proposed order governing identification and disclosure of privileged and/or confidential documents."
submitted by Gailon Arthur Joy.
All 3 documents are attached below, for those who want to read what each party proposed.
On 04/17/ 2008 Judge Hillman issued his "Confidentiality and Protection Order" (Document 60) which is also attached below for those who want to read it.
-
Why, thank-you, Ian for putting the peices together so well. Your legal capabilities and your analysis are improving with time. In fact, improving remarkably. And putting those links together is also masterful. Are you ready to participate in the drafting and submission of briefs as Bob clearly has acheived?
Now, again, I must ask your advise...should we request clarification on the issues in the order which really didn't use any of the three proposed orders? Did you notice it claims to be a stipulation? Was it actually a stipulation? And if we need clarification, would you explain the best form for that?
Thank-you so much for your continued participation. You are apparently a very bright young lady. Brilliant, in fact. With time we will help you to clear the fog, see the light and
move away from the dark side.
I await your response.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Has anything taken place in the last few days? No new posts about 3ABN, kinda outa touch with what is happening????
-
No new posts about 3ABN is probably due to the semi-private areas where discussion continues.
However, I think it's good to keep on with information in this public area also.
-
We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.
We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.
Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.
In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.
I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.
We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.
Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.
In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.
I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Is that news releases on Advent Talk?
Can't wait!
-
We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.
We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.
Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.
In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.
I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Thanks for the update Gailon. :TY: May God go with you as you sail ahead with discovery and trial preparation. You and Bob are in our prayers. :praying:
-
We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.
We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.
Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.
In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.
I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Is that news releases on Advent Talk?
Can't wait!
Have to clear that question with Bob. I would guess some of it will get the full Monte.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Have to clear that question with Bob. I would guess sum of it will get the full Monte.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Can hardly wait. Progress at last? We all need to remember to keep praying about this. :praying:
-
The end result of this discussion was that Bob Pickle filed a motion to compel and asked for sanctions against 3ABN.
Cindy, Do note that I filed the motion to compel and for sanctions on December 14, they filed their motion for a protective order on December 18, and the emails you posted all were written and sent in January. You thus are mistaken about the time line.
-
No new posts about 3ABN is probably due to the semi-private areas where discussion continues.
However, I think it's good to keep on with information in this public area also.
How does one get into these 'semi-private' areas? :dunno: What is the criteria being used to determine who gets in and who does not? I've asked but have not received an answer. Do I hafta play kissy-face :puppykisses: with somebody??
GrammieT
-
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
According to what it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998. Kind of sad I think.
-
No new posts about 3ABN is probably due to the semi-private areas where discussion continues.
However, I think it's good to keep on with information in this public area also.
How does one get into these 'semi-private' areas? :dunno: What is the criteria being used to determine who gets in and who does not? I've asked but have not received an answer. Do I hafta play kissy-face :puppykisses: with somebody??
GrammieT
GrammieT,
You need to be a "junior member" to get access - 6 posts gets you there!
-
No new posts about 3ABN is probably due to the semi-private areas where discussion continues.
However, I think it's good to keep on with information in this public area also.
How does one get into these 'semi-private' areas? :dunno: What is the criteria being used to determine who gets in and who does not? I've asked but have not received an answer. Do I hafta play kissy-face :puppykisses: with somebody??
GrammieT
GrammieT,
You need to be a "junior member" to get access - 6 posts gets you there!
:TY: Snoopy!
But how do I know when I have 6 posts? And can they be anywhere on Advent Talk or on those topics I wish to see? These are probably dumb questions, but maybe others want to know too?
:purr: GrammieT
-
:TY: Snoopy!
But how do I know when I have 6 posts? And can they be anywhere on Advent Talk or on those topics I wish to see? These are probably dumb questions, but maybe others want to know too?
:purr: GrammieT
Nope - not dumb questions at all!! They can be anywhere in AT, I believe. And you have 3 posts - it says that right below your name just to the left of your posts.
-
:oops: That got posted twice. I'm not havin a good nite in some ways.
:thumbsup: Thanks, Snoopy for your kind answer to my questions. I knew I had seen the number someplace but didn't remember where.
Duh-h-h ;)
GrammieT
-
:) Thanks to those who have posted since the silence for a few days. It seems that many do not know or refuse to believe the information about
3ABN around where I live. I pray that the Lord will open all hearts so that His love can be in control of all work done in the name of SDA.
-
:) Thanks to those who have posted since the silence for a few days. It seems that many do not know or refuse to believe the information about
3ABN around where I live. I pray that the Lord will open all hearts so that His love can be in control of all work done in the name of SDA.
I can understand any frustration you may feel about this Reader. I have objected to 3abn being promoted within our Church, and one would think that I am Judas reincarnated or perhaps that I'm a carrier of bubonic plague. :scratch:
Seems to me that there is still a belief that the 'anointed one' would not do anything wrong, but if he made a little slip up, we should 'protect' him from those evil people out there, who are trying to expose the sin within the camp. Are there many out there who are still finding this still to be the case? :dunno:
-
Scripture was not far off when Jesus proclaimed a prophet is not appreciated in his own country.
-
:) Thanks to those who have posted since the silence for a few days. It seems that many do not know or refuse to believe the information about
3ABN around where I live. I pray that the Lord will open all hearts so that His love can be in control of all work done in the name of SDA.
I can understand any frustration you may feel about this Reader. I have objected to 3abn being promoted within our Church, and one would think that I am Judas reincarnated or perhaps that I'm a carrier of bubonic plague. :scratch:
Seems to me that there is still a belief that the 'anointed one' would not do anything wrong, but if he made a little slip up, we should 'protect' him from those evil people out there, who are trying to expose the sin within the camp. Are there many out there who are still finding this still to be the case? :dunno:
In at least one place I know of where 3ABN has long been a credible source of church doctrine, it was losing a little favor in some quarters, but now appears to be roaring back with new features people are happy about...not necessarily anything about DS himself, but just 3ABN in general.
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: Bob Pickle at 04:30:19 PM
In the tax case the state/etc. asked for filled out forms for satellite system orders. 3ABN objected on the grounds that that info was confidential.
The state/etc. sought a protective order so they could get the info, and lost. All the7y ended up with was blank forms.
Then while Danny was on the stand, Atty. Rhoades was trying to admit into evidence those forms. Nick Miller objected because the forms had to be filled out in order to be admitted into evidence. So Rhoades explained that they had tried to get filled out forms and had been prohibited from doing so.
Judge Rowe had mercy on poor Rhoades, and allowed the blank form to be admitted into evidence.
I can see how filled out forms would have been relevant. I think the state/etc. wanted all such forms. They could then have better determined whether 3ABN was oeprating with a view to profit or not.
***************************************
Are you telling me that 3ABN objected to a confidentiality order? One must wonder just what was in those records that makes them confidential enough to keep them from being entered into the record.
GAJ
****************************************
How could revealing the contents of satellite system order forms cause them any problem?
-
They didn't want to reveal who bought what, I assume.
-
They didn't want to reveal who bought what, I assume.
Or is that they did not want to reveal who got the freebies? You know, those half dozen to a dozen they gave away every year? I am told it worked something like this: the bigger your wallet, the better your chances of getting a "gift". Were they marketing lose leaders?
Now those would be the orders worth getting your hands on.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
They didn't want to reveal who bought what, I assume.
Or is that they did not want to reveal who got the freebies? You know, those half dozen to a dozen they gave away every year? I am told it worked something like this: the bigger your wallet, the better your chances of getting a "gift". Were they marketing lose leaders?
Now those would be the orders worth getting your hands on.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Interesting thoughts. It just seems so very strange that they would want to keep that type of information 'CONFIDENTIAL' unless there was something there that would expose them? :oops:
-
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
According to what it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998. Kind of sad I think.
1. The readers should be able to see what things look like for themselves. Where is the quote of Danny Shelton testifying under oath in court, "that he believes he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998"?
2. How is this even related to Pickle's recent field excursion?
-
Is it possible that the entire 1800 pages of transcript will now be available for your reading pleasure?
Patience, my dear. The public record will be public. Each to make their own conclusions. And of course we have REAL legal opinions from REAL judges.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Q. Do you get any retirement benefits?
A. No. No, I don't.
Q. Do you get any housing benefits?
A. No, no.
Q. Does she get any retirement benefits?
A. No.
My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that.
So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it, ....
The only question left is whether it was in 1996 or 1998 that Danny Shelton asked the board to sell him that house dirt cheap so that he could build up equity for retirement.
-
There is another possibility, that Danny Shelton has taken classes from Bill Clinton. You know, the fellow who said, "I didn't have ___ with that woman," and who I'm told quibbled over the definition of "is."
So maybe Danny Shelton took his cue from Bill Clinton and would contend that 3ABN helping him build up equity for retirement is not a benefit, not a retirement benefit, and/or not a housing benefit. But his making nearly $129,000 in a single week off that 1998 house deal, I doubt anyone will buy or use that kind of reasoning, except maybe Walt Thompson or the 3ABN attorneys. I can't imagine anyone else contending that that wasn't a benefit, a retirement benefit, and/or a housing benefit.
-
Gailon, what are the implications of Danny Shelton saying something like this while on the witness stand and under oath? Can he get in trouble for saying something like this?
-
Isn't that the definition of perjury???
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/perjury
NOTE: I am not saying that I think Danny Shelton committed perjury. I am simply asking a question. Any who might need legal advice in this area should consult a licensed attorney.
:o
Gailon, what are the implications of Danny Shelton saying something like this while on the witness stand and under oath? Can he get in trouble for saying something like this?
-
Why don't you post it for us, Ian? I have come to rely on you for the posting of legal documents in this case.
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
According to what it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998. Kind of sad I think.
1. The readers should be able to see what things look like for themselves. Where is the quote of Danny Shelton testifying under oath in court, "that he believes he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998"?
2. How is this even related to Pickle's recent field excursion?
-
Has 3ABN invited Bill Clinton to speak on the 7th or 9th commandments for Ten Commandment Weekend?
If not, then to be consistent, 3ABN really ought to withdraw its invitation to Danny Shelton to be on the program, in light of the above testimony Danny gave under oath.
And unless the allegations against Tammy Chance have been cleared up, perhaps the invitation to her ought to be withdrawn as well.
-
Gailon, what are the implications of Danny Shelton saying something like this while on the witness stand and under oath? Can he get in trouble for saying something like this?
Depends upon whether it was a material fact...since we were talking about tax exemption, I would suspect the case could be made that it was a material fact. If it was a material fact then a case could be made that it would constitute perjury. Is that the answer you were looking for? We could re-inforce that with some definitions and case-law if you like.
Now dod I understand they used Danny as the cleanup batter here?
Oh, my, there we go again!!! Well, better document it or they could sue us for even more. Oh, I got ahead of myself, you already did that. Well, word has they will sue for more anyway!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Why don't you post it for us, Ian? I have come to rely on you for the posting of legal documents in this case.
Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.
According to what it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998. Kind of sad I think.
1. The readers should be able to see what things look like for themselves. Where is the quote of Danny Shelton testifying under oath in court, "that he believes he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998"?
2. How is this even related to Pickle's recent field excursion?
Snoopy, would you please not be so confrontational with Ian...we do not want her to pick up her marbles and go home... We want to convert her. Besides, I have come to really appreciate her intuitive statements and questions. Adds a bit of spice to the conversation. She will come around with time. They all do, you know. The truth will set you free!!! It is also very enlightening.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Confrontational??? NOT SNOOPY!! :puppykisses:
Please accept my most profoundest puppy apologies!!!!
-
Confrontational??? NOT SNOOPY!! :puppykisses:
Please accept my most profoundest puppy apologies!!!!
Now you have done it...nothing I hate more than being licked on the face by a dog!!!
(Don't let Linda know).
GAJ
-
Now dod I understand they used Danny as the cleanup batter here?
Danny is the first one to testify in the transcript. Linda is followed only by Cynthia Humm.
-
Q. Do you get any retirement benefits?
A. No. No, I don't.
Q. Do you get any housing benefits?
A. No, no.
Q. Does she get any retirement benefits?
A. No.
My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that.
So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it, ....
The only question left is whether it was in 1996 or 1998 that Danny Shelton asked the board to sell him that house dirt cheap so that he could build up equity for retirement.
Dear Readers,
I would disagree. I think there are many questions here. Some that immediatly come to my mind are these.
1. Did, or do Danny and Linda Shelton have a retirement plan with their employer the corporation 3ABN?
a. and if so, where has this been paid into, or recorded? b. if not, why bring up perjury?
2. Did 3ABN give them free, or subsidised housing? or did a donor give them a lifetime interest and home?
3. Is building equity for your own retirement the same as receiving retirement from your employer?
4. How much was the lifetime interest that both Danny and Linda Shelton already had in the house in they lived in, worth?
5. what was the remainder interest in the house worth?
6.. Is purchasing something/anything from your employer considered a excess benefit, or the same as receiving a retirement benefit??
7.Do answers to the above support this explanation and answer given by the Chairman of the board? Why, or why not??
Source: attached pdf file- document submitted by Robert Pickle
On 07/17/07 Walter Thompson wrote:
Dear J_____,
Thank you for your email expressing your questions and concerns. We appreciate hearing from our viewers and donors, and being given an opportunity to respond.
The property transfer to which you refer was properly executed by an attorney who served on our board at the time, and was employed by a NAD confernce and writing such documents. In brief, it was a situation where a donor made a gift to 3ABN with a lifetime interest for herself and for Danny and Linda. In other words, the house was theirs to use as long as they should live. When Danny and Linda decided they wanted to build a house and build up equity toward the day when they should no longer work, they requested the opportunity to purchase their lifetime interest in the property as determined by legal statistical tables calculated to determine the worth of the property at the statistical time of their death.
7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."
I'm sure there are many more questions, but when considering what is claimed here, these are included in the relevant ones which deserve answers and consideration, (in my mind) before I myself accept something as factual just because someone says/posts it.
edited to correct typo/date
-
If it was a material fact then a case could be made that it would constitute perjury.
Do charges get filed for something like that? How does that get handled?
-
Q. Do you get any retirement benefits?
A. No. No, I don't.
Q. Do you get any housing benefits?
A. No, no.
Q. Does she get any retirement benefits?
A. No.
My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that.
So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it, ....
The only question left is whether it was in 1996 or 1998 that Danny Shelton asked the board to sell him that house dirt cheap so that he could build up equity for retirement.
Dear Readers,
I would disagree. I think there are many questions here. Some that immediatly come to my mind are these.
1. Did, or do Danny and Linda Shelton have a retirement plan with their employer the corporation 3ABN?
a. and if so, where has this been paid into, or recorded? b. if not, why bring up perjury?
2. Did 3ABN give them free, or subsidised housing? or did a donor give them a lifetime interest and home?
3. Is building equity for your own retirement the same as receiving retirement from your employer?
4. How much was the lifetime interest that both Danny and Linda Shelton already had in the house in they lived in, worth?
5. what was the remainder interest in the house worth?
6.. Is purchasing something/anything from your employer considered a excess benefit, or the same as receiving a retirement benefit??
7.Do answers to the above support this explanation and answer given by the Chairman of the board? Why, or why not??
Source: attached pdf file- document submitted by Robert Pickle
On 07/17/08 Walter Thompson wrote:
Dear J_____,
Thank you for your email expressing your questions and concerns. We appreciate hearing from our viewers and donors, and being given an opportunity to respond.
The property transfer to which you refer was properly executed by an attorney who served on our board at the time, and was employed by a NAD confernce and writing such documents. In brief, it was a situation where a donor made a gift to 3ABN with a lifetime interest for herself and for Danny and Linda. In other words, the house was theirs to use as long as they should live. When Danny and Linda decided they wanted to build a house and build up equity toward the day when they should no longer work, they requested the opportunity to purchase their lifetime interest in the property as determined by legal statistical tables calculated to determine the worth of the property at the statistical time of their death.
7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."
I'm sure there are many more questions, but when considering what is claimed here, these are included in the relevant ones which deserve answers and consideration, (in my mind) before I myself accept something as factual just because someone says/posts it.
Cindy,
Would 3ABN giving Danny a life estate in a property he never paid for be considered a benefit or a housing benefit?
The donor never gave him the life estate, that much is clear from the deeds. The deeds show that 3ABn gave the life estate, and that 3ABN purchased the property from someone other than May Chung or Danny.
If I am incorrect, I welcome your correction by actually citing the relevant courthouse documents.
-
If it was a material fact then a case could be made that it would constitute perjury.
Do charges get filed for something like that? How does that get handled?
Rarely is there ever an issue made, else think of all the people who would serve jail time. It is only made a big deal of when a prosecutor wants to make a big deal and tag someone for life and make a public square spectacle, such as Martha Stewart.
Even Bill Clinton, who was caught in sworn testimony committing perjury, was exonerated by the Senate and while he initially lost his license to practice law, it was quietly restored about four years later.
Ethics and standards are not what they use to be and corruption and unethical behaviour spreads like a cancer in American society. Get use to it!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Ian,
Pray tell, HOW did you manage to come across a quote made by Walt Thompson on 7/17/08??? You guys really ARE good!!!
Snoopy
Dear Readers,
I would disagree. I think there are many questions here. Some that immediatly come to my mind are these.
1. Did, or do Danny and Linda Shelton have a retirement plan with their employer the corporation 3ABN?
a. and if so, where has this been paid into, or recorded? b. if not, why bring up perjury?
2. Did 3ABN give them free, or subsidised housing? or did a donor give them a lifetime interest and home?
3. Is building equity for your own retirement the same as receiving retirement from your employer?
4. How much was the lifetime interest that both Danny and Linda Shelton already had in the house in they lived in, worth?
5. what was the remainder interest in the house worth?
6.. Is purchasing something/anything from your employer considered a excess benefit, or the same as receiving a retirement benefit??
7.Do answers to the above support this explanation and answer given by the Chairman of the board? Why, or why not??
Source: attached pdf file- document submitted by Robert Pickle
On 07/17/08 Walter Thompson wrote:
Dear J_____,
Thank you for your email expressing your questions and concerns. We appreciate hearing from our viewers and donors, and being given an opportunity to respond.
The property transfer to which you refer was properly executed by an attorney who served on our board at the time, and was employed by a NAD confernce and writing such documents. In brief, it was a situation where a donor made a gift to 3ABN with a lifetime interest for herself and for Danny and Linda. In other words, the house was theirs to use as long as they should live. When Danny and Linda decided they wanted to build a house and build up equity toward the day when they should no longer work, they requested the opportunity to purchase their lifetime interest in the property as determined by legal statistical tables calculated to determine the worth of the property at the statistical time of their death.
7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."
I'm sure there are many more questions, but when considering what is claimed here, these are included in the relevant ones which deserve answers and consideration, (in my mind) before I myself accept something as factual just because someone says/posts it.
-
Ummm, Snoopy, you might want to leave Ian alone on that one. At least he is trying to produce that ever elusive evidence... even if it is coming back from the future.
Ian,
Pray tell, HOW did you manage to come across a quote made by Walt Thompson on 7/17/08??? You guys really ARE good!!!
Snoopy
-
Ummm, Snoopy, you might want to leave Ian alone on that one. At least he is trying to produce that ever elusive evidence... even if it is coming back from the future.
Ian,
Pray tell, HOW did you manage to come across a quote made by Walt Thompson on 7/17/08??? You guys really ARE good!!!
Snoopy
Hi Habanero
Just one point needs correcting here. Ian is NOT a male. Ian is actually Cindy - a female, so beware of wolves in sheep's clothing! :oops:
-
Uuuuuuummmmmmmm.......
He/she Ian is very good at producing evidence........on one side of the argument.......the other side has to produce its own....
Ummm, Snoopy, you might want to leave Ian alone on that one. At least he is trying to produce that ever elusive evidence... even if it is coming back from the future.
Ian,
Pray tell, HOW did you manage to come across a quote made by Walt Thompson on 7/17/08??? You guys really ARE good!!!
Snoopy
-
[7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."]
I'm sorry folks, but I must protest the foolishness in making an issue out this whole subject. The bolded part of the above quote says to me that Danny was saying if the board had been asked by he and Linda for retirement benefits that this would be a denial of his 'vision' for the work he was doing with 3ABN.
This seems to be the usual thinking in the Adventist world of 'sacrificing for the work' and in no way suggests that Danny was saying that he had lost his eyesight as some of you seem to be saying. But then maybe I am wrong, who knows? Can anybody clear this up or is the muddiness just too deep? :scratch:
GrammieT :beagle:
-
GrammieT, I took his words to mean that he would lose his spiritual sense of where the work should go, not his literal vision.
Sorry for the confusion.
-
[7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."]
I'm sorry folks, but I must protest the foolishness in making an issue out this whole subject. The bolded part of the above quote says to me that Danny was saying if the board had been asked by he and Linda for retirement benefits that this would be a denial of his 'vision' for the work he was doing with 3ABN.
This seems to be the usual thinking in the Adventist world of 'sacrificing for the work' and in no way suggests that Danny was saying that he had lost his eyesight as some of you seem to be saying. But then maybe I am wrong, who knows? Can anybody clear this up or is the muddiness just too deep? :scratch:
GrammieT :beagle:
Dear Grammie T,
You see we have e-mails produced by the official voice of 3ABN, Dr Walter Thompson, claiming that the house was transferred to allow for large capital gain a few days later in consideration of the fact that the Shelton's did not have a retirement plan from 3ABN. One must realize that setting up a pension plan for two executives, pursuant to ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) would mean setting up one for the entire staff that qualified. This "alternative retirement plan" was a nice easy way to compensate the founders without having to take care of the "little people" that make everything work from day to day.
But keep in mind, with all the explanations comes additional questions. How was the giftee able to gift money to 3ABN so that 3ABN could purchase the property and then it would benefit not only the giftee, as in an annuity or other trust instrument, but also to benefit the founders? And, the board approved the little plan to convert the asset in 1986 but the "deferred comp" was not taken until over two years later...how did this meet IRS Rules? Was this in effect a "top hat" deferred comp plan?
As you can see, the mud gets deep and gets even deeper when you see the explanations of the "official voice" and why we will have to hire a forensic accountant to help us sort out all the "mud" into some logical defense that a plain old all american jury can understand.
In any event, I took it to mean that Danny was so busy trying to inure himself in various ways that he really didn't want to make provision for the "little guys". I think the judges concluded the same thing. And that is why they declared 3ABN a Shelton business [coming soon on a thread near you!!!].
Thank-you for your inquiry.
Respectfuly Submitted,
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Uuuuuuummmmmmmm.......
He/she Ian is very good at producing evidence........on one side of the argument.......the other side has to produce its own....
So true Snoopy. As you were, Ian/Cindy. Keep up the good work. :TY:
-
One must realize that setting up a pension plan for two executives, pursuant to ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) would mean setting up one for the entire staff that qualified. This "alternative retirement plan" was a nice easy way to compensate the founders without having to take care of the "little people" that make everything work from day to day.
Did they violate any laws by doing it that way?
That was allegedly 1996 rather than 1986.
-
[7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath
GrammieT, I took his words to mean that he would lose his spiritual sense of where the work should go, not his literal vision.
Sorry for the confusion.
To Bob:
That's the way I meant what I said. ;D
GrammieT
in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."]
I'm sorry folks, but I must protest the foolishness in making an issue out this whole subject. The bolded part of the above quote says to me that Danny was saying if the board had been asked by he and Linda for retirement benefits that this would be a denial of his 'vision' for the work he was doing with 3ABN.
This seems to be the usual thinking in the Adventist world of 'sacrificing for the work' and in no way suggests that Danny was saying that he had lost his eyesight as some of you seem to be saying. But then maybe I am wrong, who knows? Can anybody clear this up or is the muddiness just too deep? :scratch:
GrammieT :beagle:
Dear Grammie T,
You see we have e-mails produced by the official voice of 3ABN, Dr Walter Thompson, claiming that the house was transferred to allow for large capital gain a few days later in consideration of the fact that the Shelton's did not have a retirement plan from 3ABN. One must realize that setting up a pension plan for two executives, pursuant to ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) would mean setting up one for the entire staff that qualified. This "alternative retirement plan" was a nice easy way to compensate the founders without having to take care of the "little people" that make everything work from day to day.
But keep in mind, with all the explanations comes additional questions. How was the giftee able to gift money to 3ABN so that 3ABN could purchase the property and then it would benefit not only the giftee, as in an annuity or other trust instrument, but also to benefit the founders? And, the board approved the little plan to convert the asset in 1986 but the "deferred comp" was not taken until over two years later...how did this meet IRS Rules? Was this in effect a "top hat" deferred comp plan?
As you can see, the mud gets deep and gets even deeper when you see the explanations of the "official voice" and why we will have to hire a forensic accountant to help us sort out all the "mud" into some logical defense that a plain old all american jury can understand.
In any event, I took it to mean that Danny was so busy trying to inure himself in various ways that he really didn't want to make provision for the "little guys". I think the judges concluded the same thing. And that is why they declared 3ABN a Shelton business [coming soon on a thread near you!!!].
Thank-you for your inquiry.
Respectfuly Submitted,
Gailon Arthur Joy
To Gailon:
Your reply does indeed make it look like the mud is even deeper than we thought. But are you certain that what you are implying is not your extrapolation of the 'facts' to make a point in your direction? :dunno: It kind of looks like that to me but I can see where you are coming from too; so I guess that you need to do what you need to do. :(
GrammieT
-
We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am sure there will be plenty.
Could someone please explain, in practical terms, what a "confidentiality order" means?
It appears that it means that Gailon will have access to certain "confidential" documents. Does it mean that he is bound to maintain the "confidentiality" of these documents and thus cannot share any of the contents?
-
Correct. It depends on if the label Confidential is put on the documents.
-
My name is on the list of those being subpoenaed. Will I still not know what is in those documents, or what my identity on AT will be used for?
-
We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am sure there will be plenty.
Could someone please explain, in practical terms, what a "confidentiality order" means?
It appears that it means that Gailon will have access to certain "confidential" documents. Does it mean that he is bound to maintain the "confidentiality" of these documents and thus cannot share any of the contents?
Is there any way at all to get this information out to the "Stockholders in the Pews" if it is marked confidential?
(Since when were leaks absolutely preventable?)
-
My name is on the list of those being subpoenaed. Will I still not know what is in those documents, or what my identity on AT will be used for?
I'd like to know what is in the documents too, and what my identity at AT is being used for, as I am also on the list of 'most wanted'. :oops:
-
To get back to the lawsuit, Gailon made these comments in another thread:
I can tell you this, the civil enforcement action to enforce the subpoena against Remnant Publications has been drafted and is being served and filed with the US District Court in Michigan.
Next comes the enforcement of the subpoena for the auditor in the Illinois district Court.
Then there will be a bunch of miscellaneous third party subpoenas that will need to be served and most likely enforced, one at a time.
Is there any further explanation of these processes, Gailon?
-
In any event, I took it to mean that Danny was so busy trying to inure himself in various ways that he really didn't want to make provision for the "little guys". I think the judges concluded the same thing. And that is why they declared 3ABN a Shelton business [coming soon on a thread near you!!!].
Thank-you for your inquiry.
Respectfuly Submitted,
Gailon Arthur Joy
Since I don't have the opportunity to watch 3ABN anymore, I was wondering if the music recordings of Tommy Shelton are still being advertised for sale on their programming.
-
Recently a few months ago there was a CD offered featuring Tommy Shelton and Donna Klein.
-
For the links below to work, go to http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx) and click "Civil, Family & Probate Case Records." Then do a search by "Party" rather than "Case." Put in Hayes as a last name and Jerrie as a first name, and then click search. The links below should then work, or you can use the links on the resulting search results page.
___________________________
Had a status conference today.
Not sure what it is with Jerrie Hayes, but it seems she likes to make derogatory comments about us being pro se litigants every chance she gets. She did it again today.
Not sure why. She was pro se in her divorce case (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=272445324) and in a suit against her by Washington University (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1610496885). For the case against her by Riverview Associates (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=328335011) it doesn't say whether she was represented by counsel or not.
Of course, maybe since she is a lawyer she can go pro se without other lawyers looking down on her, a privilege I can't claim. Think that's it?
-
Bob, I can't get the links to work. Is it just me?
Had a status conference today.
Not sure what it is with Jerrie Hayes, but it seems she likes to make derogatory comments about us being pro se litigants every chance she gets. She did it again today.
Not sure why. She was pro se in her divorce case (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=272445324) and in a suit against her by Washington University (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1610496885). For the case against her by Riverview Associates (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=328335011) it doesn't say where she was represented by counsel or not.
Of course, maybe since she is a lawyer she can go pro se without other lawyers looking down on her, a privilege I can't claim. Think that's it?
-
For the links above to work, go to http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx) and click "Civil, Family & Probate Case Records." Then do a search by "Party" rather than "Case." Put in Hayes as a last name and Jerrie as a first name, and then click search. The links above should then work, or you can use the links on the resulting search results page.
-
For the links above to work, go to http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx) and click "Civil, Family & Probate Case Records." Then do a search by "Party" rather than "Case." Put in Hayes as a last name and Jerrie as a first name, and then click search. The links above should then work, or you can use the links on the resulting search results page.
Seems like she believes in one rule for herself and another rule for others! :oops: But then Bob, I doubt that she would put you on a par with herself? :ROFL:
-
...
Had a status conference today.
Not sure what it is with Jerrie Hayes, but it seems she likes to make derogatory comments about us being pro se litigants every chance she gets. She did it again today.
Not sure why. She was pro se in her divorce case (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=272445324) and in a suit against her by Washington University (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1610496885). For the case against her by Riverview Associates (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=328335011) it doesn't say whether she was represented by counsel or not.
Of course, maybe since she is a lawyer she can go pro se without other lawyers looking down on her, a privilege I can't claim. Think that's it?
:dunno: as it looks like she did a good job in the cases, but I am thinking that most of you (unless you, yourself are one who likes making derogatory comments and want to join Mr Pickle in taking potshots at Jerrie Hayes) would rather hear about what happened at the status conference since that was brought up...
Status Conference held on 5/7/2008
Case Called,
Counsel and defendants pro-se appear for status conference,
Parties inform the Court of the status of discovery,
Both plaintiffs and defendants anticipate issues with discovery that will need court intervention,
Court informs parties to file motions to seek relief,
Court extends the time to serve production of document requests to 6/11/08,
Court sets a further status conference, ( 7/31/2008 at 2:00PM)
Source: Docket Text: Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV
There is also a hearing today at 3pm EST in Mr Joy's adversarial proceedings case.
edit- corrected typo
-
And where did I take potshots?
By the way, do you have any idea whether Jerrie Hayes lied to Magistrate Judge Hillman on March 7, 2008, about the IRS criminal investigation, or whether 3ABN or Danny lied to her? She told him there wasn't any IRS criminal investigation going on, and two days later Greg Thompson posted on BlackSDA that the IRS investigator was out on maternity leave. I can see only two possibilities, that Jerrie lied or that she was lied to. Which is it?
-
And where did I take potshots?
By the way, do you have any idea whether Jerrie Hayes lied to Magistrate Judge Hillman on March 7, 2008, about the IRS criminal investigation, or whether 3ABN or Danny lied to her? She told him there wasn't any IRS criminal investigation going on, and two days later Greg Thompson posted on BlackSDA that the IRS investigator was out on maternity leave. I can see only two possibilities, that Jerrie lied or that she was lied to. Which is it?
Folks,
Lying to the court or in court is a serious accusation, and charge. One that courts do not take lightly especially when it concerns attorneys. Nor does the Bar. This is a question better posed to JH, and a charge better made in court. Accusations of illegal, immoral or unethical acts etc, esp those without merit, and made to other parties can and do constitute defamation per se...
In any case this has been asked by Mr Pickle previously and was also answered previously on these forums, as so much has been to no avail...
This case has been held up even more by the investigating agent going on maternity leave. (FHB was correct when he made that statement)
How come Attorney Jerrie Hayes told the magistrate judge on Friday, March 7, 2008, that there was no criminal investigation going on? Was she fibbing to the court, or had she been fibbed to?
Better yet, how long have you known about the investigation, and about the maternity leave?
:dunno:
Because she was referring to the fact it's been put on hold, due to the maternity leave in question, and you are again twisting and reinterpreting what was said, to make an accusation????
-
But she didn't tell the magistrate that it had been put on hold. She told the magistrate that there was no IRS criminal investigation going on. So I ask again: Who lied?
And no, I did not accuse her of lying. I have tried to give her the benefit of the doubt as much as possible. I am allowing for the possibility that she unknowingly passed on the falsehood that she had been told.
-
But my question is a lose-lose situation for 3ABN/Danny. It either demonstrates that a ministry that claims to be a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and to promote the 10 Commandments hired an attorney who lied to a magistrate, or that a spokesman for that ministry or Danny lied to the attorney that they had hired. That's a lose-lose situation.
-
Isn't this something that can be easily verified, therefore, why not produce the actual documentation that will settle this question as to whether she actually said that there wasn't any IRS criminal investigation going on in relation to 3ABN?
-
Daryl, no one has disputed whether she said it or not. What the question is is why she said it. Did she think there wasn't one because someone lied to her, or did she know there really was one going on?
There is presently no documentation other than my written statements, unless they bought a transcript of the hearing. I heard what I heard and in my remarks to the magistrate I countered what I heard, and then I wrote my question on BlackSDA in response to Greg based on what I myself heard in that hearing.
-
In that case, as the transcript would prove what was actually said, and, as it is a known fact that there is an IRS criminal investigation against 3ABN, what she said wasn't true, therefore, that should settle this aspect of the matter.
-
But while we know what she said, we don't know why she said what she said. Did she know the truth or not?
-
1. Isn't this something that can be easily verified, therefore, why not produce the actual documentation that will settle this question as to whether she actually said that there wasn't any IRS criminal investigation going on in relation to 3ABN?
2. In that case, as the transcript would prove what was actually said, and, as it is a known fact that there is an IRS criminal investigation against 3ABN, what she said wasn't true, therefore, that should settle this aspect of the matter.
It is my understanding that the litigants and attorneys involved in the case have access to the transcripts.
So, I too wonder why there is no documentation being given here by Mr Pickle, except Mr Pickle's words, as he admits.
There is presently no documentation other than my written statements, unless they bought a transcript of the hearing.
I still maintain if the issue has any validity whatsoever it should be brought up and addressed and settled in court first. They certainly have access to the transcripts....
-
I fail to see how pointing out previous cases to which Ms. Hayes was a party is any different from bringing up Gailon Joy's bankruptcy case or his marital status per related documents. Potshots???
:dunno: as it looks like she did a good job in the cases, but I am thinking that most of you (unless you, yourself are one who likes making derogatory comments and want to join Mr Pickle in taking potshots at Jerrie Hayes) would rather hear about what happened at the status conference since that was brought up...
-
This is something that only she can answer, if she already hasn't done so and she chooses to do so.
Outside of that, we really can't document whether she knew or not at the time she said what she said that is documented in the transcript.
But while we know what she said, we don't know why she said what she said. Did she know the truth or not?
-
But while we know what she said, we don't know why she said what she said. Did she know the truth or not?
:huh:
Who is "we"?
Mr Pickle and the mouse in his pocket?
-
Who is "we"?
Mr Pickle and the mouse in his pocket?
Gailon and I qualify as "we."
It is my understanding that the litigants and attorneys involved in the case have access to the transcripts.
Want to pay for the transcript?
This is something that only she can answer, if she already hasn't done so and she chooses to do so.
Daryl, should be easy for the other side to say what they told her.
-
Then, as you and Gailon were both there and heard what she said with your own ears, which can be easily proven one way or the other, and as Ian seems to be questioning it, the onus is on Ian to present the proof.
-
That seems like some pretty weak logic there Mr. Fawcett. Is there a place where Mr. Pickle says that he and Mr. Joy were there in the court room when the attorney is supposed to have made this comment? Seems like you are also assuming that Mr. Pickle is remembering the comment clearly and that he isn't reworking it to make his accusations sound realistic. This Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy are always using the words honest, transparent, open so it seems as if it would be a smart thing for them to provide some unbiased third party proof, like that transcript to support their claims when they make them the very first time. This Ian doesn't have to prove that Mr. Pickle is fudgin the truth it seems obvious at this point. That would mean that he needs to provide some backup for his claims.
Then, as you and Gailon were both there and heard what she said with your own ears, which can be easily proven one way or the other, and as Ian seems to be questioning it, the onus is on Ian to present the proof.
-
Since the proof is out there and that it is my understanding that the transcript is available, I am asking somebody to, either provide us with a copy of that transcript, or a link to where it can be obtained.
-
It will cost someone to get it. It isn't free. But she said what she said, and I corrected her statement when I responded to the magistrate.
-
For the links below to work, go to http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/default.aspx) and click "Civil, Family & Probate Case Records." Then do a search by "Party" rather than "Case." Put in Hayes as a last name and Jerrie as a first name, and then click search. The links below should then work, or you can use the links on the resulting search results page.
___________________________
Had a status conference today.
Not sure what it is with Jerrie Hayes, but it seems she likes to make derogatory comments about us being pro se litigants every chance she gets. She did it again today.
Not sure why. She was pro se in her divorce case (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=272445324) and in a suit against her by Washington University (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1610496885). For the case against her by Riverview Associates (http://pa.courts.state.mn.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=328335011) it doesn't say whether she was represented by counsel or not.
Of course, maybe since she is a lawyer she can go pro se without other lawyers looking down on her, a privilege I can't claim. Think that's it?
It sounds like a lawyer intimidation technique to me.
-
It will cost someone to get it. It isn't free. But she said what she said, and I corrected her statement when I responded to the magistrate.
It's pretty common for lawyers to make statements like that which they can defend if shown to be wrong by saying that they had heard something different, or that it was their understanding at the time.
The court doesn't usually stop to quibble about something like that.
-
As I do not have any reason to doubt what Bob Pickle said, I am not going to be the one to spend any money on this, therefore, until somebody secures the transcript and shares it with us here, I consider this matter closed.
-
In Michigan: On June 20, the magistrate had ordered Remnant to produce documents directly to us. Remnant basically asked for reconsideration on June 27. On July 28 that was denied. On August 8 Remnant appealed the magistrate's order to the district judge. On September 8 the district judge affirmed the magistrate's order.
-
Thank you for that update, Bob. Any idea when you will get the Remnant documents you have requested now? And how will you get them? Do you have to go to Michigan?
Also, what about the DS bank statements? And the auditors? What's going on there?
-
Some info may be released later.
In the Southern District of Illinois: We filed a status report with the court I believe on September 15. What exactly is happening there I do not know at present.
-
IT shoudl be noted that there are a nulmber of lawsuits going on. Any comment as to what is going on in one lawsuit may not apply to what is going on in anoght lawsuit, although as there are some interrelationships.
For one recent decision of a court, you may want to check PACR for the following document that was signed by Judge Hillman in as I recall a hearing in MA:
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 107 Filed 09/11/2008
NOTE: A one sentence summary of the above might be: In the above ruling, Judge Hillman took everyone to task and gave everyone something.
-
IT shoudl be noted that there are a nulmber of lawsuits going on. Any comment as to what is going on in one lawsuit may not apply to what is going on in anoght lawsuit, although as there are some interrelationships.
For one recent decision of a court, you may want to check PACR for the following document that was signed by Judge Hillman in as I recall a hearing in MA:
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 107 Filed 09/11/2008
NOTE: A one sentence summary of the above might be: In the above ruling, Judge Hillman took everyone to task and gave everyone something.
Could you demonstrate where you feel he took us to task? I feel the failure of the Plaintiffs to limit the scope and relevance of discovery was a HUGE FAILURE. And what about that order requiring that the Attorney's, normally clearly exempt, must get clearance from the court to issue subpoena's? There own request backfired???Wow, that is also HUGE!!!
Yes, We have to restate some of our requests to produce, which has been done, but that was allowed without prejudice.
Production by subpoena proceeds on track with Bank Statements in, The Remnant Docs produced and the Auditors Subpoena referred to the magistrate for a most certain enforcement.
But, I have not figured out what they feel they will accomplish objecting to ticket and visa entry information? Could they be worried that we will further discredit their star liar???
Overall, your assessment virtually demeans the importance to the plaintiff's case of the failure of the Scope and Relevance motion!!! They are laid bare and open to reasonable discovery. ANd how did you like the judge pointing out that they brought the suit, therefore they have a duty to produce? Of course, one can only produce what one has, and that is where they are challenged...must be all that evidence against Linda evaporated in the summer heat!!! And the private detectives have just disappeared??? But, why would we challenge Danny's word, after all the 3ABN Board believed him...or did they just ignore the real evidence?
In the interim, our encirclement continues and our offensive is about to begin!!! The war is about to take a turn...
as we begin our march to the very gates and lay seige to the city of infidels!!! Might be time for the city to turn over the chief infidel for a little fireside chat...he can be the fire and we will chat!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Bob and/or Gailon, can you give us an update on what is going on with the lawsuit? Including the various aspects of it such as the general case in Massachusetts, the Remnant piece in Michigan and the auditor subpoena in Illinois?
-
Case in W.D. of MI: This one is done. Remnant decided not to appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, and they produced the documents requested.
Case in S.D. of IL: We haven't heard yet what Gray Hunter Stenn intends to do. There is still a motion to quash and a motion to compel pending in that court.
Case in D. of MA: We have a number of pending motions in the main case. There is a motion to extend discovery, and four motion, I think, to issue subpoenas.