Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[princessdi]

I don't believe it was his job to protect you from any legal actions, especially if you continue in the activities which brought you to those legal actions to begin with.  Do you plan on shutting down this website(and any other activity) nearly entirely dedicated to the destruction of Danny?  I am quite sure they promised to sue you again, if you continued.  They cease, you cease.  They don't cease and you get to continue.  I am also sure that they promised to haul you back into court, if you tried to keep those docs, being unsure of your purpose in retaining them.  Or did they nearly promise to come after you no matter what you did?  If that was the case, what was the purpose of dropping the present suit?  Once, again, just trying to ascertain why the lawyer would out of the blue be talking to you about suing you again, after just dropping a suit.

[childoftheking]

Di, I know you are talking to Bob. However this is an open forum and I feel moved to comment. I don't believe this forum is dedicated to destroying Danny. He shouldn't fear being destroyed in the process of the public finding out about what he has done or is doing if he is innocent or if he has made an error which was not premeditated. But if there is a deliberate intentional pattern of claiming to do one thing while covertly doing the opposite and attempting to cover this up, it may very well destroy him.

Instead I believe it and other discussions are about the rights of us donors to find out what happened and is still happening good or bad and to communicate openly about it. I feel that it is wrong for anyone to solicit money from little old ladies who have sacrificed to purportedly only spread the gospel and then to use that money for personal profit and/or purposes for which it was not given - then to consciously cover up these actions. I was a donor. I wanted to know. Of course there must be proof. And it is not fair to others for me to find incriminating evidence, to quit giving myself and yet allow others to ignorantly waste a large percentage of their donations when the money could be better managed if the managers were held accountable. I would be guilty myself if I shut up after knowing. I see no indication that what has gone on in the past is not still happening. I feel that the lawsuit was instigated in an attempt to hide evidence and that it was dropped in an attempt to cover up evidence. Right along there has been no openness, no accountability, no transparency.

[GRAT]

Very well said, childoftheKing.  Thank you for putting into words what I was feeling.

[Bob Pickle]

I don't believe it was his job to protect you from any legal actions, ....

The law for Rule 41(a)(2) dismissals is that the judge must craft conditions that will protect the defendants from legal prejudice. That can include undue expense. Thus, for plaintiffs to litigate, then dismiss, then litigate, then dismiss repeatedly in order to bankrupt defendants, that is one thing judges would be expected to prevent by the conditions they craft.

Once defendants answer the complaint, plaintiffs no longer have an absolute right to dismiss their lawsuit. That's why 3ABN had to file a motion rather than a notice. Such motions sometimes are denied.

... especially if you continue in the activities which brought you to those legal actions to begin with.

If someone exercises their freedoms of religion, press, and speech, they should not be sued once, much less repeatedly, if all they said was the truth.

Further, one should not be sued for blowing the whistle on Danny's cover up of the child molestation allegations against Tommy.

Telling the truth is not illegal in America.

I am quite sure they promised to sue you again, if you continued.  They cease, you cease.  They don't cease and you get to continue.

Simpson explicitly told me on Oct. 17, 2008, that if we agreed to let them drop the suit and release them from all liability, that each side would be free to keep talking about the other side.

The threat he sent us on Oct. 30, 2008, was that if anything we said could be traced to a confidential document, that his instructions were to immediately seek relief in the court.

However, on Oct. 31, 2008, he made it clear that he would harass us over our sharing information that we got long before the suit was ever filed.

I am also sure that they promised to haul you back into court, if you tried to keep those docs, being unsure of your purpose in retaining them.

We have a legal right to keep those documents. If they didn't like the fact that Hillman's confidentiality order allows us to keep the documents, they should have appealed Hillman's order. Have they done that? No! Therefore, we don't have to return anything.

For them to take them away anyway is called theft.

Or did they nearly promise to come after you no matter what you did?  If that was the case, what was the purpose of dropping the present suit?

That's a question Gailon asked Simpson in response to one of his threats. Why did they drop the suit if they weren't ready to drop it all? It was a ploy that they thought they could use to muzzle us and take away all our evidence. But it didn't work.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Bob, Cindy is not responsible for giving the impartial blow by blow.  Now that she gave their response, you give yours........

Ok so, what is this about, really?  Can someone who is knowledgable in the law field please give me the reader's digest version of why any court is still entertaining motions regarding a dismissed action?  Or is this something completely different?  Or Is this to be able to retain the docs the judge said that should have been returned upon dismissal of the action?

Princess,

The Judge ordered the return of documents pursuant to the "confidentiality order" of his own court and does not require the return of documents by the parties.
Would you like a copy of the transcript of the hearing and a copy of the confidentiality order for your learned review?

And now you have a very serious abuse of that order by Plaintiff's counsel that have clearly expropriated defendants documents and the funding of the discovery of those documents. The judge clearly refused to require the Plaintiffs to cover our costs and then his clerk proceeded to take the liberty to "return" documents to the Plaintiff's that did not originate with the Plaintiffs. Never in the United States does one get to expropriate funds from another and go uncompensated per the order of a governmental agency. Further, there is a question as to why they were not forwarded as a part of the appellate record.

Did you really expect US to let such a key issue go unchallenged? Such a wimpish move would have been unforgiveable. Completely out of character, regardless of your concerns. We await justice, but not patiently.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter