Print

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

[Cindy]

By stealing the bank records we paid for away from us, we were prejudiced financially. Constitutionally in the United States, you can't take property away from someone without due process. No one told us that the confidentiality order was perhaps going to be altered so that we couldn't get the bank records. That shows a lack of due process.

quote=BRIEF OF THE APPELLEES

E. The District Court Did Not Err by Imposing Terms on
Defendants.

Pickle and Joy argue that the district court’s order that they return
confidential documents pursuant to the terms of the Protective Order is an impermissible “condition of dismissal.” But they fail to appreciate that 3ABN’s motion sought return of the confidential documents on the authority of the Protective Order itself, not under Rule 41(a)(2). (JA0299, JA0307-JA0310). The district court has “broad discretion” to decide when a protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required. Poliquin v. Garden Way, Inc., 989 F.2d 527, 532 (1st Cir. 1993). Great deference is shown to the district court in framing and administering such orders. Id. There being no continuing need for the confidential records, Judge Saylor did not abuse his discretion in enforcing the Protective Order as written.


V. APPELLANTS’ COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER ARE BASELESS.

A. The District Court Did Not Err by Ordering Return of
Confidential Documents per the Protective Order.

Pickle and Joy contend that the district court’s order that they return materials which they had obtained under the protective order is error. Both Judge Saylor’s ruling from the bench and the Electronic Clerk’s Notes reflect the district court’s intention that anything produced to Pickle and Joy under the protective order be returned. Pickle and Joy have not yet returned anything. Pending this appeal, 3ABN and Shelton have not yet moved to enforce the order. Pickle and Joy contend that there is a conflict between the ruling from the bench and the Electronic Clerk’s Notes. There is no conflict. Judge Saylor said “I will order that the materials produced in discovery that were designated as confidential under the confidentiality and protective order issued in this case on April 17th will be returned, as set forth in that order.” (DA0014). The order had provided that material produced under it “Shall be used for no other purpose than this litigation.” (DA0022-A0023). Recipients were required to sign an Exhibit requiring return of the documents at the conclusion of the case. (DA0029).

When Pickle and Joy complained at the hearing that they wanted to keep the confidential documents to spare them the expense of getting them again in the future, Judge Saylor said “There is going to be no lawsuit pending. You’ll have – we’ll have to wait and see how that plays out and in what court.” (DA0017). In short, Judge Saylor considered and rejected these arguments. There was no abuse of discretion in doing so.


B. The District Court Did Not Deprive Pickle and Joy of Property
without Due Process.

Pickle and Joy contend that the district court’s order to return the
MidCountry bank records amounts to a deprivation of the $3,534 that they were required to pay MidCountry for copying costs.

These were records subpoenaed in Minnesota, which the Minnesota court ordered be produced under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman in Massachusetts. The records were produced and sent to Judge Hillman. Pickle and Joy argue that Judge Saylor’s order to return those documents amounts to a deprivation of property without due process.

As a threshold matter, 3ABN and Shelton’s motion clearly identified as a separate motion their position that return of the MidCountry bank records should be ordered. (JA0299). Pickle and Joy submitted a brief in opposition to the motion. (JA0323). They addressed the subject at oral argument. (DA0017). In view of the lack of any legitimate reason for Pickle and Joy to have Shelton’s
personal bank records following the end of lawsuit, Judge Saylor was within his discretion in administering the protective order, and ordering return of the records.

In addition, the very entering of a confidentiality order indicates the court’s acknowledgment that documents obtained through discovery is not to be considered the property of the recipient. If appellants are requesting reimbursement of their litigation costs, the proper remedy is their motion for costs, which is presently pending before the district court."


Quote= Motion to dismiss hearing:

"THE COURT: You know, and -- and, you know, whether
you have some future claim against the plaintiffs, I make no
comment on of any kind whatsoever.

MR. PICKLE: It is --

THE COURT: In terms of -- just let -- let me, if I can. Just in terms of your costs and expense and attorney's fees, my understanding is that but for a brief appearance by Mr. Heal, I think, at the beginning of the litigation, you've been proceeding pro se; and let me add as a further condition that I will at least permit defendants to seek recovery of reasonable costs, fees, expenses -- reasonable cost of attorney's fees or expenses, if they file something within 21
days of the date of this order. I'm not promising that I will allow those to be paid, and I'll permit plaintiffs to oppose it, but I will give you the opportunity to make that argument formally and with a specific itemized detailing of your costs and expenses.

MR. PICKLE: Okay. Your Honor, if the discovery in
this case and work product is not transferable to -- to the
other -- the future actions, either by the plaintiff or
ourselves, that would prejudice the defendants.

THE COURT: Well, it's -- it is transferable, unless it's subject to the confidentiality order. If it's subject to the confidentiality order, you have to return it, or do whatever the order says you're supposed to do with it; and, you know, you have gained presumably a certain amount of information. You're not required to erase it from your brain, and you can use it consistent with the terms of the order as -- as may be permitted by that order, but that's --

MR. PICKLE: That would mean, your Honor, that we would have to spend months and months litigating again to get the documents from Remnant, for example.

THE COURT: There is going to be no lawsuit pending.

You'll have -- we'll have to wait and see how that plays out
and in what court.

MR. PICKLE: And the one other thing, your Honor, is that the MidCountry Bank records, as far as I know, they were never designated confidential by MidCountry Bank, and it cost us $3,500 to get those.

THE COURT: Again, I'm giving you 21 days to file
something with me setting forth what you believe are your
reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred in
this litigation.

Again, I'm not promising I'm going to pay any of them,
or permit them to be paid, but I will entertain any filing you
wish to make."



The entire "BRIEF OF THE APPELLEES" being quoted from is attached.

[Bob Pickle]

I am sorry, I am just a bit confused here.   So let me get this straight.  you want the case to be dismissed "with" prejudice which, in your reasoning prevents Danny from suing you again.  However, you are contesting the motion to dismiss........so that in essence Danny and 3ABN can continue to sie you..........after ranting and raving the entire time about being sued, how it was a waste of money, etc. and he should not be suing a member of the household of faith, etc..............which is it?  I am just completely confused.

The only way to contest the conditions of dismissal is to contest the order of dismissal. That's how it works, whether it makes sense or not.

I am sure your submission were read, in the usual manner, as they were filed.  AND once again....if the system is so corrupt, why are you appealing to this same corrupt legal system for moral, and even religious justice.  Very little, if any of this, at this point, makes any sense.  You started out alright, but you have waundered far from logic. What is the real deal here?

The judge's orders repeatedly suggest that he hasn't read our submissions.

Paul appealed to an earthly court when it was his right to do so.

[Bob Pickle]

I am sure your submission were read, in the usual manner, as they were filed. 

Bob, how many pages were in your submissions, mentioned above, that you said the judge didn't read?

235 pages.

[Bob Pickle]

Cindy, I find it really weird that you keep posting only one side of the story, a side written by a proven liar.

And that you would lead people to think that 235 pages was only 31 pages, how can you do that with a clear conscience?

[Bob Pickle]

By the way everyone, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the Remnant documents to be part of the record on appeal in our second appeal. That is certainly good news.

So the judges at the First Circuit will be able to look at those documents. Thus, Danny Shelton and his cronies have not been able to keep them under wraps and hidden from everyone.

That decision was handed down on Friday.

[Artiste]

So the judges at the First Circuit will be able to look at those documents. Thus, Danny Shelton and his cronies have not been able to keep them under wraps and hidden from everyone.

I'm happy to hear that.

[childoftheking]

Bob, could not pm you as your inbox is full.

[Pat Williams]

Cindy, I find it really weird that you keep posting only one side of the story,

I find it typical, but also weird, that you don't seem to realize or acknowledge that this forum, and you particularly, have consistently and are at present still only posting one side of the story, and that she is merely replying to your posts and claims and providing the other side to balance that,  so that all can (as you said) "get a good idea of what the two sides are saying".

********************************

You also know you just refused to post your own sides documents when invited to by Princessdi, while finding fault with Ian for not doing it here on this forum for you.

I find all of the above very pathetic and hypocritical among many other things.

a side written by a proven liar.

That is neither proven or documented. Perhaps you need to learn to differentiate between your personal opinions and constant claims of "liar liar" and  what is actually documented, factual and proven lest it is you who become the proven liar, Bob Pickle??

And that you would lead people to think that 235 pages was only 31 pages, how can you do that with a clear conscience?

I personally did not read anything about "ONLY 31 pages", Bob. It was my understanding that what was posted in answer to the question posed was that "Your submissions" (which you wrote, and which you claim the Judge did not read and lied about) were a "20 page memo, and a 11 page affidavit with attachments".

You may perhaps wish to "first" examine your own conscience and not be so quick to attempt to find fault with those who disagree with you, or be so inclined to misquote them and distort what they say, lest you again be found a liar?

******************************
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.

[Cindy]

By the way everyone, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has declared the Remnant documents to be part of the record on appeal in our second appeal. That is certainly good news...That decision was handed down on Friday.

Yes, that document was already posted and announced in this topic To requote it for clarity, and to be precise:

PACER:
12/04/2009 - Open Document - ORDER entered by Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge:


 

  United States Court of Appeals
    For the First Circuit

    No. 08-2457

    THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.,
    an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation, Et Al.,
    Plaintiffs, Appellees,
    v.
    GAILON ARTHUR JOY, Et Al.,
    Defendants, Appellants.


    ORDER OF COURT

    Entered: December 4, 2009

    Appellants move to enlarge the record in this appeal (Appeal No. 08-2457) to include certain documents. As those documents were submitted to the district court after the filing of the notice of appeal, they are not properly considered as part of the record in this appeal and, accordingly, the motion to enlarge the record on appeal is denied.

    We note that, in any event, appellants filed a subsequent notice of appeal from the district court's refusal to accept the proffered documents. This new appeal has been docketed in this court as Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Joy, No. 09-2615, and the documents in question are part of the record on appeal in this subsequent appeal. To the extent that appellants intend to argue that the district court erred in refusing to accept the documents in question, that issue may be raised in Appeal No. 09-2615.

    By the Court:
    /s/ Margaret Carter, Chief Deputy Clerk.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, could not pm you as your inbox is full.

Fixed.

[Bob Pickle]

I find it typical, but also weird, that you don't seem to realize or acknowledge that this forum, and you particularly, have consistently and are at present still only posting one side of the story, and that she is merely replying to your posts and claims and providing the other side to balance that,  so that all can (as you said) "get a good idea of what the two sides are saying".

I do not agree that that is what she was doing.

a side written by a proven liar.

That is neither proven or documented. Perhaps you need to learn to differentiate between your personal opinions and constant claims of "liar liar" and  what is actually documented, factual and proven lest it is you who become the proven liar, Bob Pickle??

For one thing, Simpson said the Remnant documents had no relevance to the lawsuit, and that was a bald faced lie, and he knew it.

And that you would lead people to think that 235 pages was only 31 pages, how can you do that with a clear conscience?

I personally did not read anything about "ONLY 31 pages", Bob. It was my understanding that what was posted in answer to the question posed was that "Your submissions" (which you wrote, and which you claim the Judge did not read and lied about) were a "20 page memo, and a 11 page affidavit with attachments".

Cindy's statement would lead people to think that we are talking about 31 pages rather than 235 pages.

[princessdi]

So the conditions of the dismissal that you are contesting are.......the fact that you have to return the docs, and..........?   Why contest it at all, especially after it was what you were asking for....the them to stop the suit?  I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but realy trying to understand why you went all that time asking for the lawsuit to be dropped, and when it was dropped, you contested it.

So the judge actually states that he didn't read your briefs?  OR are you suggesting that he could not have read them because his ruling did not agree with your briefs.  I believe the judge would have a HUGE problem from more that you and Gailon had he made a ruling without considering all the facts and evidence in the case. 

The only way to contest the conditions of dismissal is to contest the order of dismissal. That's how it works, whether it makes sense or not.

The judge's orders repeatedly suggest that he hasn't read our submissions.

Paul appealed to an earthly court when it was his right to do so.

[Bob Pickle]

So the conditions of the dismissal that you are contesting are.......the fact that you have to return the docs, and..........?   Why contest it at all, especially after it was what you were asking for....the them to stop the suit?  I don't mean to sound sarcastic, but realy trying to understand why you went all that time asking for the lawsuit to be dropped, and when it was dropped, you contested it.

If they really wanted to drop the suit, they wouldn't be trying to set things up to sue me again by dropping it without prejudice, taking all our documents away when they have no legal basis for doing so, and threatening to drag us into court again not 90 minutes after the status conference in which the suit was dismissed.

You may not understand it, and that's all right.

Long ago I read History of the Waldenses by Wylie. More than once those peace loving people got snookered by the foes who couldn't conquer them. "Just do this or that to show your good faith, and we'll leave you alone to worship God as you please." And they trusting those lying, thieving butchers, and then the slaughter began.

The one occasion that stands out in my mind was when they consented to allow the soldiers to stay with them for a few days in their homes to show their good will. Can you believe that? They went along with it and got slaughtered.

I don't trust Danny or his cronies, and Simpson has proven himself to be a man not of his word. I'm not giving up the substantial advantage we have simply because they say, "Trust us."

So the judge actually states that he didn't read your briefs?  OR are you suggesting that he could not have read them because his ruling did not agree with your briefs.  I believe the judge would have a HUGE problem from more that you and Gailon had he made a ruling without considering all the facts and evidence in the case. 

In the case of the dismissal, when Gailon told him we had filed an opposition, he asked when that was. If he had just read through 235 pages worth in the previous hour, he would not have asked that question.

In the case of the motion for costs, he ruled on the motion for costs two days before he ruled on the motion to file under seal, which was part of our reply to Danny's response to our motion. If he had read our reply, you would think he would rule on both motions at the same time, since the motion for costs depended on the motion to file under seal.

In ruling on the motion to file under seal, he stated that the Remnant documents didn't seem to be relevant, which is impossible. If the Remnant documents showed that Remnant didn't pay Danny one cent, they'd still be relevant because they would exonerate Danny of some of the allegations against him. If they do show payments to Danny, then of course they are relevant, since Danny perjuriously didn't report that income on his financial affidavit, which is a topic Danny himself put into Danny's own complaint in Danny's ownlawsuit.

In the court's Oct. 26, 2009, ruling on our motions, he said that we should have returned the documents some time ago, according to the confidentiality order. We had pointed out in five filings from about December 2008 to about June or July 2009 that the confidentiality order requires no such thing. If he had read our filings, I do not see how he could have made that statement.

[princessdi]

Ok so isn't it the judge who makes the determination whether a case is dismissed with or without prejudice, or does the plaintiff ask for that in their motion for dismissal?   I thought it was the judge who made that detremination.

Bob, in all honesty, I think I might have threatened to haul you back into court also, because you are posturing to do that very thing yourself.  I think since they dropped it, you all were supposed to do the same. 

The judge reads a lot more than 235 pages in the course of his cases.  He has many to preside over.  It does not surprise me that he had to ask you when yours was filed.  He probably could have looked it up himself, but it is your case, right?   He has already basically ruled in a manner in which he would not ever have to look at you or your briefs(or Danny and his briefs)again.............right?  To assume that the judge did not rule in your favor because you did not read your brief is absurd.  You are laboring under the mistaken idea that if he read your brief he was in some way obligated to rule in your favor.  This is not true.  He did not at all have to come to the same conclusions you did.

Anyway, you all are obssessing over this thing at this point, it is not healthy. I pray for you all.   Youa re all God's people and very good people, you desreve to give yourselves more credit than to expend so much enegery to destroy one your brothers in Christ.

[Bob Pickle]

First, it looks like I goofed. It looks like it was 255 pages, not 235. See p. 18 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-178-2.htm.

The judge makes that determination, and he is supposed to look at a variety of factors when he does. That didn't happen.

The status conference was scheduled to begin at 3 pm, and we filed our 20-page opposition at 1:55 pm. The 235 pages of affidavit and exhibits didn't get filed until 2:23 pm. If the judge had just read through all that by 3 pm, he wouldn't have asked Gailon, "When was that filed?"

The judge was not obligated to arrive at the same conclusions we did. But he was obligated to craft conditions that adequately protected us from legal prejudice. He didn't do that. Instead, the dismissal protected the plaintiffs, not us, and the sole condition he imposed on the dismissal was something that may not be enforceable.

Our energy at this point is being expended to ensure that Danny Shelton and his cronies don't destroy us. If the dismissal stands as is, there is no guarantee he won't be coming after us again. And he, through Simpson, has just about already promised that he will be coming after us again.