Print

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

[Daryl Fawcett]

When will this finally end?

[tinka]

Bob, guess I was referring to all the ways and motions that have been used throughout to delay or fight off all the documents against them that prove your points. In other words they are in it to win (hook or crook) and yes I have seen how they have made so many motions to prove their points when actual actions have no doubt been viewable on their part and that I am sure has been costly to you. I am looking at it as a whole although I know a little progress is encouraging. I do want truth to come out also. This has been so familiar on tactics that it hits really close to what we feel is corruption of tactics by certain judges deciding what to allow and what not to and yes we are just lay people but have learned the hard way and I do pray that you both have the stamina to endure.

[Bob Pickle]

When will this finally end?

It is ridiculous, isn't it?

[tinka]

It is ridiculous, isn't it?

It's the best "fox cunning" that attorneys and judges maneuver that money can buy to keep their money jingling from whence it comes. But somebody has to come forth to expose (for choice) which most people of the pew money, as in the "American Dream " have possibly realized too late once the devils ride is over.

I have now realized some of the bonds with evangelists on why 3abn keeps going without change of personnel. Ken Cox admitted and told his story and Doug's in early days. Unbelievable that it all comes down to this and only a few to stand.

Another thing watch the difference in programming as soon as "Hope" segiments are put on. So I perfer to watch some of the other instead of some of the Hots (disregarding foundational beliefs viewable, ) and the Pots (some made for the good and some made for the bad). Must be all confusing to newcomers.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

When will this finally end?

At the second coming and then at the third resurrection it will come up one more time!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Bob Pickle]

Simpson's response to our motion for sanctions is available at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellees-response-to-motion-for-sanctions-01-10-11.pdf.

I just don't understand why he isn't more careful about his facts:

Appellants originally described all of the exhibits they wished to file under seal as documents that were “offered to the lower court,” but not actually filed, in connection with electronic docket entries 153 and 173. (See Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal, p. 1). It is a matter of record that the district court denied Appellants’ motions to file those documents, so they never became part of the district court record. (See Electronic Order by Judge Saylor dated 4/15/2009 and Doc. 193).

Now, however, Appellants have changed their tune. They claim that 33 pages (of the thousand-plus pages that they move to file under seal) happened to be part of an exhibit that was filed under seal with the district court in connection with a motion. (Brief p. 1). Specifically, they say that Sealed Exhibits 1-33, were filed in the district court on July 21, 2008 as part of a different filing under seal in the district court, Docket No. 93. ...

Upon investigation, Appellants are correct in their assertion that the 33 pages designated as Sealed Exhibits 1-33 were in fact part of a larger exhibit that was filed under seal in the district court as Doc. 93.

However, the very first paragraph of our motion to file under seal has but three sentences, and the third sentence says:

The first four exhibits were filed below as part of sealed RA 93, and have already been forwarded as part of the record on appeal.

And on pp. 5 & 6 it says:

Regarding the documents in question:

? Selected pages from Shelton’s tax returns from RA 93: ....

? Bill Otterson’s Oct. 21, 2005, report from RA 93: ....

I think this kind of thing is utterly pathetic.

[Bob Pickle]

Here's another blooper by Simpson:

Having been told several times that they may not file these documents, Appellants try to re-interpret this Court’s order of December 4, 2009 denying them leave to supplement the appellate record as instead inviting them to file these documents. (Brief p. 2). The tortured analysis is based on language in the Court’s December 4 order indicating that this Court mistakenly believed that the documents had been “submitted” to the district court after the original Notice of Appeal, and were therefore not part of the record for the first appeal but would be part of the record for the second appeal. In fact, the documents were offered but not filed with the district court because local rules require that leave be sought and granted prior to filing anything under seal. (U.S. District Court, Dist. of Mass., Local Rule 7.2(d)). Thus, in the district court the Appellants did not file the actual documents themselves, and the dicta indicating that the records would be part of the record for the second appeal was in error.

Instead of correcting this Court’s misunderstanding that these documents had already been filed in the district court, Appellants now exploit it. They pretend that the Court’s order denying them permission to file these documents in the first appeal is an invitation to file them now because “this Court has already determined that the documents in question …‘are part of the record on appeal.’” (Brief p. 3). This absurd analysis fails to account for the fact that this Court denied leave to enlarge the record to include these records.

Based on the above, Simpson has asserted that the Court of Appeals thought the Remnant and Westphal documents were part of the record on appeal for the second appeal, though he contends that the Court erred in so thinking. He said the Court mistakenly thought the documents were filed below when they were not, but there simply is no way that the Court could have made that kind of mistake, in my opinion. The Court knew we had filed a motion to file those documents under seal below, and the Court knew that that motion, actually two motions, had been denied.

What the December 4, 2009, order clearly said was that since we offered the documents below and appealed the denial of that offer, the documents were part of the record on appeal for the second appeal.

Now for Simpson again:

Recall that in the topsy-turvy world of the Appellants, this Court’s December 4 order denying them leave to file documents under seal in the first appeal means that they should file the documents in the second appeal. Whether Appellants lacked diligence is beside the point: they filed documents that they were ordered not to file.

See the contradiction? If the December 4, 2009, order of the Court of Appeals mistakenly said the documents were part of the record on appeal in the second appeal, then that same order did not order us not to file the documents in the second appeal. But if that order did order us not to file the documents in the second appeal, it could not have simultaneously mistakenly told us that the documents were already part of the record for the second appeal.

[tinka]

Could be intentional or convienent for "total confusion". Confusion means..a way for more time and money. Ours was "Intentional" lies that Judges always leaned to from the organizational political powers. I am always short of right words but that is what I basically was implying before.