I already proved it when I filed the correspondence of Oct. 30 and 31 with the court.
Possibly you did.
I have looked and I can not find any correspondence from Danny Shelton.
Do you have a more specific reference to where Danny Shelton threatened you so that we may read it for ourselves?
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf where Simpson said, "If I become aware of any evidence that Confidential material has been retained by you or released to others by you, or if I become aware of internet postings that reflect or imply the contents of Confidential materials, my instructions are to immediately seek relief from the Court."
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf where Simpson made it fairly clear that he would construe comments based on Nick Miller's 2006 statements to be derived from confidential documents.
See page 9 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf for an explanation of how the Remnant documents could not possibly support a figure of $300,000 in "royalties," and that the plaintiffs have known since the beginning of the lawsuit that we have been floating around a figure of $300,000 based on what our source told us, our source being Nick Miller.
Thus, Simpson's efforts to tie Gailon's royalty figure to the Remnant documents was abusive.
I see. You were talking of legal ramifications and sanctions. I was under the impression from your posts that you were talking about Danny Shelton making personal threats.
Given your explanation above, in your opinion would any efforts to tie the post below to the Remnant documents also be abusive?
Yeah. OK. Right.
Ian, this might come as a surprise to you, but I was not provided with any relevant documents to review from 3ABN in spite of Bob and Gailon's REPEATED efforts to compel their production. Apparently you don't have a real good understanding of how the legal system works. Maybe you should check with your friend Cindi Randall. No, on second thought, better not!! The way it is supposed to work is that the documents produced during discovery are provided to the relevant expert for review. But in the case of Danny Shelton, he apparently likes to make up the rules as he goes along. Ever played with a kid like that when you were little? Anyway, since Danny is above the law and doesn't play by the rules, he didn't produce anything!! And 3ABN went out of their way to provide a fairly comprehensive collection of their purchase orders for office supplies but completely ignored our requests for RELEVANT documents. Now. The Remnant documents? There is another story. Talk about relevant!! Actually they went beyond relevant to downright damaging! Any competent judge will be able to see that, and I'll bet the State of Illinois will too. It's just a matter of time.
So you might get your pointy little finger out of my face and make some demands of your friend Danny Shelton instead!!!!!!
Sorry Mr. Myzing (or should I say Cindy or a Cindy clone), but I see what you are trying to do! I was merely agreeing with what Mr. Simpson has already put into the public record. So let me just help you out with a couple of quotes from recent filings. In Mr. Simpson’s very own Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, page 7, he admits that the Remnant documents were damaging:
************************
Per Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, page 7:
Since receiving information designated as “Confidential” under the Order issued in this case, Defendant Joy has published several
statements on internet blogs that appear to refer to material he has received under the confidentiality order, which state or at least imply
that the material proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs. An example is the following statement published shortly after Mr. Joy
received material pursuant to a third party subpoena issued to Remnant Publications, which produced records clearly marked as
“confidential” under the order issued in this case:
The message was carefully considered and designed to get a very specific Response. It has fulfilled it's (sic) purpose,
but, with the evidence we now Have, not simply sources, but real, hard, supportive evidence that demonstrates the
sources were woefully underreporting the scope of the abuses, I MUST STAND FIRMLY ON THAT STATEMENT.
(Simpson Aff. Ex. 3A) (italics supplied). On another occasion, also shortly after receipt of the Remnant documents, Mr. Joy wrote:
Those documents, and all other documents, are not subject to any “seal” per order of the court. YUP, old boy, they
came right to my desk and are still at my right hand until they are prepared for the “experts”. Those and the bank
statements and now the audit of the auditor will all be in the hands of experts in time!!!
(Id. Ex. 3B) Thus, the threat that the Defendants may reveal the contents of confidential information is not merely an idle possibility.
Mr. Joy is doing it already.
************************
As you can clearly see, Mr. Simpson refers to the Remnant documents and then cites two postings from Mr. Joy who is referring to the Remnant evidence, the scope of abuses, and that the evidence will soon be in the hands of the experts. Mr. Joy makes no mention of the content of the Remnant documents. Mr. Simpson is the one who makes the connection between “material that proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs” and the Remnant documents in asserting that Mr. Joy was revealing confidential information. Mr. Pickle points this out eloquently on page 9 of his Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal:
************************
Per Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to File Under Seal, page 9:
F. “... Defendants began talking freely about them on the internet ....” (Doc. 158 p. 2).
The Plaintiffs contend:
Instead of complying with this Court’s order to return the Remnant
documents, Defendants began talking freely about them on the internet,
stating falsely that they prove wrongdoing by the Plaintiffs.
(Doc. 158 p. 2). Yet Plaintiffs’ counsel knows this is not the case, since the Defendants already pointed out in their reply memorandum
in support of their motion to impose costs that the $300,000 figure Defendant Joy gave in the post in question came from Nicholas Miller’s
email of September 19, 2006. (Doc. 149 pp. 8–9). That date is more than two years before Remnant produced any documents, and even
before the instant case was filed.
Further, the Defendants demonstrated in that same filing from public documents that the Remnant documents must substantiate
sums of roughly $90,378, $482,589, and $176,739 in 2005, 2006, and 2007 respectively, not $300,000. (Doc. 149 p. 9). Table 1 of Docket
Entry # 154 gave even more detailed estimates of the sums the Remnant documents must substantiate, using publicly available
documents. (Doc. 154 p. 3).3
The Plaintiffs are well aware that the Defendants have been talking on the internet before this action was filed about Shelton
receiving several hundred thousand dollars in royalties, since the Plaintiffs filed the Defendants’ article to this effect as pages 8–10 of
Docket Entry # 3-2. As far as whether Remnant’s documents really do prove wrongdoing, Plaintiffs counsel himself asserted in his
memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss that to say that those documents prove wrongdoing is to reveal the information those
documents contain. (Doc. 121 pp. 7–8). However, Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to retract that position as well, now maintaining that the
Remnant documents do not prove wrongdoing after all.
************************
Author
Topic: Appellant brief filed (Read 27613 times)
