Print

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

[Fran]

GrandmaNettie;

Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency.  I believe you are just phishing for facts to see the amount of support they have received.

[Bob Pickle]

... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...

Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.

More to come.

[anyman]

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.

GrandmaNettie;

Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency.  I believe you are just phishing for facts to see the amount of support they have received.

[Johann]

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.

What are your words of wisdom for a vegetarian?

[anyman]

Reworded for the vegetarian:

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the cottage cheese loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.

of course if your vegan, then leave out any eggs, cheese and it is as follows:

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the tofu loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.

What are your words of wisdom for a vegetarian?

[GrandmaNettie]

Thanks for the clarification, Bob.  I re-read the thread and see that discovery costs is exactly where you said the donations were needed and would be used.  I posed part of my post on the Topic title, Defence Fund Needed.

I still maintain that it would be wise to detail where the donations have been spent.  Fran stated "Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency."  What about potential donors who would like to be confident that their donations would be spent as advertised?

To those who perceive my posts as phishing for facts to see the amount of support received, while you are partially incorrect in your conclusion I do believe that one's perception becomes one's reality so I do not see the value in attempting to change your minds.  Where you are correct is that I am, indeed, "phishing" for facts, as I always have been.

... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...

Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.

More to come.

[GrandmaNettie]

Most gracious of you to adjust your comments for those with other lifestyle choices.   

I'll take a serving of the vegan nutloaf avec the gravy, please.

Reworded for the vegetarian:

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the cottage cheese loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.

of course if your vegan, then leave out any eggs, cheese and it is as follows:

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the tofu loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.

Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.

What are your words of wisdom for a vegetarian?

[Johann]

And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?

[anyman]

Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away.

Since Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle have made such an issue of "transparency" and "openness" it would seem that when the same question, request, demand is put to them that they would have no problem publishing their receipts, itineraries, and anything else that can show a true and accurate accounting of their expenditure of the funds that have been provided them.

If you truly believe the veracity and integrity of these two, rather than trying to point at 3ABN or Danny, why don't you encourage them to be "open and transparent" to remove all doubt?

As for phishing for information about 3ABN or Danny you might be interesting in the courts latest actions in regards to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle's phishing expeditions. Seems as if their current one is caught in the doldrums with no bait and no wind in sight.

And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?

[Fran]

And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?

Very good Johann.

[Bob Pickle]

The judge in Illinois did not quash our subpoena, and the magistrate in Michigan ordered Remnant to produce documents.

[anyman]

Isn't it interesting how you can be honest and dishonest all at the same time.

You are correct Mr. Pickle, the judge didn't quash your subpoena (in the Illinois case where you seek all documents from 1998 forward applying to Danny Shelton and 3ABN). However, he did stay it and he told you, you better come up with some very good, solid, indisputable reasons why he shouldn't quash it on or before July 9. Additional, Atty. Simpson made a rock solid case against your request (in the Minnesota court) based on a few points, including the fact you didn't abide by Local Rule 7.1(g) . . . which requires you to make your case before the judge BEFORE filing the motion, this is clearly an attempt on your part at circumventing the previous court order. You must show "compelling" reason for the court to void its original decree and give you unmitigated access to the documents you so desperately want access to - and Atty Simpson was spot on when he said you are on a fishing expedition - he knows you and Mr. joy have nothing. You didn't make your case to the court before filing your motion and that would be in violation of the Local Rule 7.1(g) - which means you have no grounds >ever< to chastise, criticize, or make fun of (all of which you have done) any attorney you face who doesn't perfectly cross their "T's" and dot their "I's".

In Illinois the court found that your demands were overly broad, overly burdensome, and did not fit with in the scope of the case. And, I am going to guess that your actions in the Minnesota court will result in another set back on your part. It is obvious once again that if you would stop attempting to play an attorney on the Internet and focus on your case you might not make such errors. You  may think your smarter than licensed attorneys but it isn't playing out that way. Maybe you can pick up a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures as well as the State regulations in all the states you have now involved in the process, cross reference them, and be able to understand the expectations of you as you attempt to be your own attorney.

As for the Michigan situation . . . let's wait and see what happens Mr. Pickle, those buttons you been a poppin' might need to be sewed back on as they popped prematurely.

The judge in Illinois did not quash our subpoena, and the magistrate in Michigan ordered Remnant to produce documents.

[Ozzie]

Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away.

Since Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle have made such an issue of "transparency" and "openness" it would seem that when the same question, request, demand is put to them that they would have no problem publishing their receipts, itineraries, and anything else that can show a true and accurate accounting of their expenditure of the funds that have been provided them.

If you truly believe the veracity and integrity of these two, rather than trying to point at 3ABN or Danny, why don't you encourage them to be "open and transparent" to remove all doubt?

As for phishing for information about 3ABN or Danny you might be interesting in the courts latest actions in regards to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle's phishing expeditions. Seems as if their current one is caught in the doldrums with no bait and no wind in sight.

And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?

Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days?

Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc.

It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease?     

[Bob Pickle]

Your commentary is incorrect, anyman.

Gregory Simpson said he faxed a document on June 6, and he said he mailed it too. I still haven't received either one.

Local Rule 7.1(g) concerns motions to reconsider. I did not file a motion to reconsider.

I do not believe the court in Illinois found any such thing.

[Nosir Myzing]

Isn't it interesting how you can be honest and dishonest all at the same time.

You are correct Mr. Pickle, the judge didn't quash your subpoena (in the Illinois case where you seek all documents from 1998 forward applying to Danny Shelton and 3ABN). However, he did stay it and he told you, you better come up with some very good, solid, indisputable reasons why he shouldn't quash it on or before July 9........In Illinois the court found that your demands were overly broad, overly burdensome, and did not fit with in the scope of the case. ....

Your commentary is incorrect, anyman....I do not believe the court in Illinois found any such thing.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3abnDefended/message/108

Re: New file uploaded to 3abnDefended

The File is more aptly described "Judgment in favor of 3ABN in Illinois subpoena, w/ Pickle ordered to show cause"

What I find interesting is that after  GRANTING 3ABN's Motion and STAYING the Subpoena Duces Tecum until further Court order; Judge Gilbert, basically went straight down the list of reasons 3ABN gave in his further order to Pickle and Joy:

 

"The Court further ORDERS the defendants to SHOW CAUSE on or before July 9, 2008, why the Court should not quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum

because it subjects a third party to undue burden, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv),

because it requires disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(i),

and because it is not tailored to request records relevant or with a nexus to the issues in the underlying litigation."

.......