Print

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

[Cindy]

Those were the rulings from the District Court in Massachusetts yesterday on all of Pickle and Joy's pending motions.

Full Pacer -Court Docket Text for document 193:
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered
denying [169] Motion to Alter Judgment;
denying [169] Motion for Reconsideration;
denying [169] Motion to Amend;
denying [173] Motion for Leave to File;  
denying [183] Motion for Sanctions.

Some select quotes from that order ( bold text, mine):

...Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously. Defendants are not entitled to argue the same matter twice simply because they are unhappy with the result. Accordingly, the Court is not convinced that it should reconsider its previous decision, much less reverse it. The motion for reconsideration and to amend or alter the judgment (Docket #169) is therefore DENIED
1 Defendants also sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), which is clearly inapplicable here.

The relevance of the documents is unclear, and plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the information is newly discovered and could not reasonably have been submitted with the original motion. Furthermore, to the extent that the materials are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman in this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago. The motion for leave to file under seal (Docket #173) is therefore DENIED

The Court has carefully reviewed defendants’ submissions....all of the disputed assertions fall within the bounds of permissible zealous advocacy, and none are sufficiently problematic to warrant the imposition of sanctions. Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Docket #183) is therefore DENIED.

 

[tinka]

Ian,

Don't be so glued with this. Fact remains fact. This may have entered into man's unjust courts of dishonest judges that can be bought and sold or for what ever reason will side anything against the cause of correctness and aganinst the cause of good will.  This has been the devils playground and folly with great glee.  This is not the final step because facts now enter the Court of the most High and with the judge knowing all things. That is when I would be shaking in my shoes. That is for real and not these fiascos played out in corrupt courts of the devils playground. Have you not watched any news at all of correctness in courts? Me and my family will be prime examples of what courts can do when higher political want what you have and worked for all your life.

[Pat Williams]

...Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously. Defendants are not entitled to argue the same matter twice simply because they are unhappy with the result. Accordingly, the Court is not convinced that it should reconsider its previous decision, much less reverse it. The motion for reconsideration and to amend or alter the judgment (Docket #169) is therefore DENIED
1 Defendants also sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), which is clearly inapplicable here.

I had forgotten what the motions were even all about it had been so long. While reviewing the documents on the defenders forum I found the Judges rulings quite interesting (especially the first part which wasn't quoted.) in light of all that Pickle and Joy thought they had accomplished with their unproven claims ,accusations, and irrelevant data. Despite the denials of a small group here who prefer living in la la land, it has been increasingly obvious that they were clearly in over their heads without a leg to stand on. It also appears that their ignorance of what is fact and law is only exceed by their extreme arrogance so it doesn't appear likely the first will change.

Here are both documents quoted in full for those interested in reading all for themselves.


Document 169:

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER AND MOTION TO AMEND FINDINGS
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b) for factors that cannot be considered under 59(e), and 52(b), Defendants move the Court to reconsider its denial of Defendants’ motion to impose costs (Doc. 130), move the Court to reconsider its denial of Defendants’ motion to file under seal (Doc. 153), and move the Court to amend the findings in its orders of April 13 and 15, 2009. Defendants’ motion to file under seal concerned documents relevant to the motion to impose costs, documents which indisputably demonstrate that Plaintiffs filed a frivolous suit, and vexatiously multiplied proceedings.

The Court in its order of April 13, 2009, made the clearly erroneous finding,

    “There is nothing in the record to suggest that the plaintiffs filed this suit simply to harass, embarrass, or abuse the defendants or that they sought to increase their costs ....”

On April 15, 2009, Defendants inquired about the status of the motion to file under seal. Later that same day the motion was denied, stating, “The documents do not appear to be relevant,” which cannot possibly be true.

The only condition imposed upon Plaintiffs in their Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal may be unenforcible, and Defendants may therefore be left without any curative conditions to alleviate prejudice. The order of April 13 incorrectly suggests otherwise. Defendants also seek clarification of the findings regarding Defendants’ experts [**********; et al] and miscellaneous expenses.

Defendants, with their limited resources, will be unduly burdened by the incurring of duplicative expenses for discovery and obtaining favorable rulings.

Plaintiffs made material misrepresentations in obtaining their Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal and opposing the motions in question, and used the confidentiality order to hamper or prevent Defendants’ submission of relevant evidence of Plaintiffs’ culpability to the Court.

Plaintiffs have asserted that the dismissal order of November 3, 2008, was not a final order. Defendants disagree. But if Plaintiffs are correct, and only if Plaintiffs are correct, Defendants hereby incorporate the request for relief found in the conclusion of Defendants’ Brief of Defendants-Appellants. (Affidavit of Robert Pickle Ex. B at p. 68).



WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the Court to ALTER or AMEND the orders of April 13 and 15, 2009, in order to GRANT in whole or in part Defendants’ motion to impose costs, GRANT Defendants’ motion to file under seal, and AMEND the findings in question.

Dated: April 26, 2009
and
Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Gailon Arthur Joy, pro se
Gailon Arthur Joy, pro se
Sterling, MA 01564
Tel: (978) 333-6052

/s/ Robert Pickle, pro se
Robert Pickle, pro se
Halstad, MN 56548
Tel: (218) 456-2568
Fax: (206) 203-3751

Document 193

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
RECONSIDER AND TO AMEND FINDINGS, MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE UNDER SEAL, AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

SAYLOR, J.

On October 30, 2008, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), this Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss without prejudice on the condition that any renewed claims brought by plaintiffs shall be brought in this Court. On November 13, 2008, defendants, proceeding pro se, filed a motion for costs in connection with that dismissal.

On April 13, 2009, the Court issued an order denying defendants’ motion for costs. On April 15, 2009, the Court issued a further order denying defendants’ motion for leave to file certain documents under seal.

On April 27, 2009, defendants filed a Motion to Reconsider and to Amend Findings. That motion sought reconsideration of the Court’s Orders of April 13 and 15, 2009, and sought amendment or alteration of the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P.60(b).1 The same day, defendants filed a further Motion for Leave to File Under Seal seeking to seal certain documents filed in support of the Motion to Reconsider.

Plaintiffs opposed both motions in pleadings filed on May 11, 2009. Defendants then filed, on June 24, 2009, a Motion for Sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2), and the Court’s inherent powers, alleging various misstatements in plaintiffs’ opposition filings.

For the reasons stated below, all three motions will be denied.

A. Motion for Reconsideration and to Amend or Alter the Judgment
 A motion under rule 59(e) to alter or amend a judgment may not be used to relitigate matters already determined by the court. See In re Williams, 188 B.R. 721, 725 (D. R.I. 1995). Similarly, a motion to amend may not be used to raise arguments, or to present evidence, that could reasonably have been raised or presented before the entry of judgment. Williams v. Poulos, 11 F.3d 271, 289 (1st Cir. 1993); FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir. 1992). The party seeking to amend a judgment must demonstrate a manifest error of law or present newly discovered evidence. FDIC v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d at 16. Reconsideration of a previous order is an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly when necessary to achieve justice, and with due consideration for the interests of finality and conservation of judicial resources.

 Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously. Defendants are not entitled to argue the same matter twice simply because they are unhappy with the result. Accordingly, the Court is not convinced that it should reconsider its previous decision, much less reverse it. The motion for reconsideration and to amend or alter the judgment (Docket #169) is therefore DENIED.

1 Defendants also sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), which is clearly inapplicable here.


B. Motion for Leave to File Under Seal
Defendants’ motion for leave to file under seal seeks an order permitting plaintiffs to file certain exhibits and a related affidavit under seal. The relevance of the documents is unclear, and plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the information is newly discovered and could not reasonably have been submitted with the original motion. Furthermore, to the extent that the materials are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman in this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago. The motion for leave to file under seal (Docket #173) is therefore DENIED.


C. Motion for Sanctions
Defendants also seek sanctions against plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 and pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers to redress litigation abuses. In substance, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ memoranda opposing the foregoing motions were “riddled with misstatements of fact that have no evidentiary support” and, in some instances, are “demonstrably intentional.” The Court has carefully reviewed defendants’ submissions. It appears to the Court that all of the disputed assertions fall within the bounds of permissible zealous advocacy, and none are sufficiently problematic to warrant the imposition of sanctions. Defendants’ motion for sanctions (Docket #183) is therefore DENIED.

So Ordered.

/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge

Dated: October 26, 2009

edit to fix format.

[Bob Pickle]

Furthermore, to the extent that the materials are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman in this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago.

Okay, Ian and Who_Knows_What_Defender, can you please cite the language from the confidentiality order the order is referring to above, the language that requires parties to return anything?

Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously.

Remember that part of our evidence was Danny and 3ABN's appellees' brief. Could you please explain how we could have presented that evidence earlier since it hadn't been written yet?

Another part of our evidence was certain 3ABN World issues that 3ABN refused to produce. Could you please explain how we could have presented that earlier since we never had them?

Now if your answers to the above 3 questions does not jive with the above language taken from the order, could you please explain why the order is worded that way?

[anyman]

Furthermore, to the extent that the materials are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman in this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago.

Okay, Ian and Who_Knows_What_Defender, can you please cite the language from the confidentiality order the order is referring to above, the language that requires parties to return anything?

Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously.

Remember that part of our evidence was Danny and 3ABN's appellees' brief. Could you please explain how we could have presented that evidence earlier since it hadn't been written yet?

Another part of our evidence was certain 3ABN World issues that 3ABN refused to produce. Could you please explain how we could have presented that earlier since we never had them?

Now if your answers to the above 3 questions does not jive with the above language taken from the order, could you please explain why the order is worded that way?

Nobody owes you any kind of an explanation. The judge was clear and concise (you might learn something from that). The judge clearly understood your motions, clearly understood the law, and deftly and clearly applied it to the case (again, an opportunity for you to learn something). You can continue to play your games, continue to whine, continue to libel the judges and lawyers - but the courts have obviously grown weary of your shenanigans and have decided to hold you to the standard expected. The judge was clear -

No more trying to litigate the case with frivolous motions. No more whining about having to abide by the law and the rules of procedure. When the judge uses language such as, "Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously." He has taken the time to consider your claims, consider the law, and render his judgment. Your disrespect and libelous claims about the judges/attorneys speaks to your lack of character. Then there is the footnote that clearly lets you know that you haven't even gotten the law right, "1 Defendants also sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), which is clearly inapplicable here."

He goes on to point out your failure to effectively make a claim, "[ ] plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the information is newly discovered and could not reasonably have been submitted with the original motion." Your argument did not withstand judicial consideration. A man who has spent his life working with the law has determined that you swung and missed - lesson to be learned. Should people believe your belly-aching or a judge who knows the law? The reasonable individual will accept the judge's order as being a fair and just representation of the law.

The judge also sent you a clear message. You have claimed that he never read your filings previously, something you have NO (none, nada, nilch) evidence to support . . . and Judge Saylor says, "The Court has carefully reviewed defendants’ submissions." You need take note of this because it is clearly connected to your earlier libelous claims. He then goes on to educate you in the American process of jurisprudence - zealous advocacy. That is what this nations system is all about - advocacy. That is what attorneys, or pro-se defendants, do, they advocate, zealously. That doesn't mean it is illegal, doesn't mean it is lying, misrepresenting, misappropriating, or misleading. Attorney Simpson has lead a restrained approach to dealing with you and need be commended for his stellar, honest, and genuine work.

You have attempted to try your "case" in the courts and in the court of public opinion and you have lost on all fronts. 3ABN continues to be an instrument of God reaching the world. Weekly new converts are baptized across the world with words of gratitude on their lips for being introduced to the love of the Savior via 3ABN. It is safe to say that not a one has stood in the batisimal font and claimed that they were lead to the foot of the Savior's cross of by Robert Pickle or Gailon Joy. You will have to live with that the rest of your life, when called, and you ask, "When did I miss an opportunity to serve you Lord?" He will answer, "All the while you fought against Me. All the while you attacked My people. All the while you focused on your own fame and fortune at the expense of reaching the hurting souls."

anyman

[tinka]

Anyman,

Your glee has nailed you. what era are you from anyway. You have the sound of living in many generations. This era is down to almost no stability in anything with the courts of corruption to use the system in any fiasco to down God's people. After all they are really siding to take God out of everything. And this is the side you claim for your self. The truth shall stand and let us watch what God does about it. Your glee will come to nought.

I watch the glee of people also that love the execution of ones fallen with lost souls. What lost souls will you be gleeful over when new members 3abn have scanned in and then because they found a message of truth finally realize the Baker and DS agendas and turn with disgust to loose their souls.  Injustice surrounds this earth this day and time and you are a protector of it.  eat on   

[Bob Pickle]

When the judge uses language such as, "Defendants make no argument, and present no evidence, that was not either raised previously or should have been raised previously." He has taken the time to consider your claims, consider the law, and render his judgment.

Anyman, how could we have presented evidence previously that we didn't have or that didn't yet exist?

Then there is the footnote that clearly lets you know that you haven't even gotten the law right, "1 Defendants also sought relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(b), which is clearly inapplicable here."

And why didn't he give any reason as to why it was "clearly inapplicable"? Since the judge made two findings in his previous orders that were clearly erroneous, and since FRCP 52(b) concerns the correcting of such errors, in what way is 52(b) inapplicable?

He goes on to point out your failure to effectively make a claim, "[ ] plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the information is newly discovered and could not reasonably have been submitted with the original motion."

The printing invoices don't need to be newly discovered since they go to the question of the proper interpretation of newly discovered evidence, as we already pointed out. Plus, since we have to get leave of the court to file sealed material, and since the court refused to let us file under seal the Remnant documents, it is difficult to see how we could have "reasonably ... submitted" any of the material earlier.

Should people believe your belly-aching or a judge who knows the law?

Anyone can see that the confidentiality order does not require parties to return documents, and that you can't present evidence before it exists or when the other side withholds it from you.

You have claimed that he never read your filings previously, something you have NO (none, nada, nilch) evidence to support . . . and Judge Saylor says, "The Court has carefully reviewed defendants’ submissions."

Sure, he said he read that one. But the evidence indicates that he didn't read our opposition to the motion to dismiss before he dismissed the case.

That is what attorneys, or pro-se defendants, do, they advocate, zealously. That doesn't mean it is illegal, doesn't mean it is lying, misrepresenting, misappropriating, or misleading.

Are you therefore saying that the disputed statements are 100% correct?

3ABN continues to be an instrument of God reaching the world.

We aren't saved by works. Good works don't excuse Danny Shelton from covering up Tommy's child molestation, or engaging in private inurement, including receiving kickbacks, or divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, or filing a frivolous suit.

It is safe to say that not a one has stood in the batisimal font and claimed that they were lead to the foot of the Savior's cross of by Robert Pickle or Gailon Joy.

I would certainly hope not. The glory should go to God, not me. But I could introduce you to some folks who have stood in the baptistry because God used me, a fallible human being.

[tinka]

With personnel email to Fran I sort of led in questions that I suspected the outcome might be just that way before Ian's great announcement. I know how the system works and for what reasons.
I am wondering Fran if you got my mail and vouch for what I am saying.

[ex3abnemployee]

3ABN Defender, you have no credibility. You lied about my brother and me. You were called on it and made no attempt to prove what you said. Why should anyone pay attention to you?

[princessdi]

Uh, Bob, it might be time for you all to give this one up.  Why are you asking Ian and Duane to clarify the judges decision?  He is quite clear, however, you should consult him on any questions you have regarding his judgement.  Ian and Duane are only "quoting" the decision.  it is not their place to explain the judges decision.  I usually have to take it slow in reading legal documents, but this one was quite clear.

I believe Tinka is right, and the time for the earthly courts is over.  At this point, we just to have faith that God knows best and it will al work out according to His will.  Just remember, you still might not like His decision either...afterall... His is allowing this to unfold as it is, and so far, He seems to agree with the earthly judge........that is until we hear or see something else.

[tinka]

Princessdi,
What Bob is doing is showing the inadequacies of how the judges can twist and use their ego authorities to lean how ever they want.
I do not blame him one bit. I have done the whole thing my self on all the injustice of our case on a huge web site for all to see what state, federal and huge national organization did.  In fact many other people's cases are out there that have suffered fraudulent agendas lobbists of political offices. and you know what these big guys cannot do one thing about our web site as they take their blows inch by inch as the truth prevails. In fact it is quite funny to watch now our stat counter at the culprits frantically go from one link to the next and then their buddies pick up where we know they are at.  Their own documents from day one with all their signitures and their fraudlent schemes are all out there for all to see. I left a place for the feedback and not one negitive thing has come because they are in a place of "can't do a thing about the truth".  Now we will be working on the twisted Court of Appeals (opinion) sentence by corrupt sentence of lies and post that soon too. i keep right on it. This political "money pit government" is not for the people but who will get us into the one world order and in their stupid ignorant way think they will be the messiah of all things. Your Adventist you know what I am talking about and how this will end. DS is just a little scale of his management in money that I see no different.  It's a good con game. One thing for sure Bob and Gailon are not in the shoes and side that DS is on.

First of all, I do not know Bob or Gailon but a very good suggestion of what was against them from the beginning is courts are not susceptable for very intelligent people that are not on the lawyers bar to out show the court and they look down on anyone going into the courts that can show you need not be an attorney to enter what every American has the right to do.  or maybe they are attorneys, I do not know. Just try and enter their ground. I believe Bob and Gailon and knowing the courts with what all we have been through did an emaculate job.  I wish they could have been on our side and our battle because my husband is another to stand in front of 12 senators at a time and speak with out notes until you could hear a pin drop.

It is not that these men lost because of their lack of knowhow, but again this is the time of the end where sin prevails. Some of us are going through it now. We can only fight until the end or God does the knock down. This sort of thing is never of God but he permits some of his best to be used to test others.  Many have been tested by our situation. We have tried to stay strong knowing this could be a possibility that the Lord used us in this manner and also for ourselves to learn the devils folly.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Interesting developments here.

What happens next, or, as princessdi has suggested, is that it?

[ex3abnemployee]

Uh, Bob, it might be time for you all to give this one up.  Why are you asking Ian and Duane to clarify the judges decision?  He is quite clear, however, you should consult him on any questions you have regarding his judgement.  Ian and Duane are only "quoting" the decision.  it is not their place to explain the judges decision.  I usually have to take it slow in reading legal documents, but this one was quite clear.

I believe Tinka is right, and the time for the earthly courts is over.  At this point, we just to have faith that God knows best and it will al work out according to His will.  Just remember, you still might not like His decision either...afterall... His is allowing this to unfold as it is, and so far, He seems to agree with the earthly judge........that is until we hear or see something else.

Huh? I think you have me confused with someone else. 

[tinka]

ex3abnemployee,
Since it might be public knowledge and I do not know if this might be right to ask but would you email me on your knowledge of who 3abn defender is? It seems you know. Thanks Duane.

[Bob Pickle]

Interesting developments here.

What happens next, or, as princessdi has suggested, is that it?

No, that isn't it. But what happens next, well, you'll just have to wait and see.

It dawned on me yesterday another problem with being forced to return documents that the confidentiality order doesn't require me to return. At any point in time Danny can drag me back in to court and claim I'm in contempt for revealing something in those documents, and he could theoretically even show the court a document I never received, claiming I was revealing something I had received. I would then not be able to show the court what I had actually received, making it more difficult to prove Danny's claim false.

As far as I'm concerned, allowing for the possibility of that sort of situation is unacceptable.

The confidentiality order doesn't require parties to return any documents, and everyone either knows or should know that by now, especially since no one, not Simpson, not anyone, can quote where the confidentiality order does so require.

Now if Danny and his cronies want to act like men and Christians and negotiate some sort of fair way to resolve these concerns and others, I'm more than interested. But if not ...

Stay tuned!