Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

In light of Friday's decision in the Court of Appeals, it dawned on us that the MidCountry Bank records must be part of the record on appeal for both appeals. So we have filed a motion in district court to forward the MidCountry records to the Court of Appeals.

We have also filed a motion in the Court of Appeals asking it to hold our appeals in abeyance until it receives a copy of those records.

[Artiste]

What does that mean, or what significance does it have to the case, Bob?

[Bob Pickle]

Good question. Time will tell.

If the bank records eventually revealed transfers of funds (a) from 3ABN to Danny, (b) from Danny to offshore accounts, or (c) from Danny to Brandy or other women, any of those possibilities would be significant in showing that the lawsuit was frivolous from the get go.

What the bank records actually reveal I don't know, except that they could show large deposits attributable to Danny's income from Remnant, and could show that (a) Danny lied on his July 2006 affidavit when he said he had only two bank accounts, (b) Danny lied on that affidavit when he reported only $2500 in those bank accounts, and/or (c) Danny made large unknown expenditures that brought down his two bank accounts to but $2500.

Given the fact that Remnant's 990's show that Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, the bulk of that in 2006 for a book campaign that occurred in the year, I would think that at least one of the above 6 possibilities would have to be true.

Also note that it was so important that these bank records be kept from us that Danny via Jerrie Hayes lied to the district court in Minnesota by claiming that Danny's personal finances weren't at issue in Danny's lawsuit. Thus, there has to be something in those bank records Danny is trying to hide.

[Pat Williams]

I just read the following elsewhere. The courts will speak and rule soon and resolve and clarify this, but I am wondering it Mr Pickle or Mr Joy has any comments or rebuttals here in the meantime.

I don't think the Court has the Mid County Bank Records, nor that they were ever filed in the lawsuit case. They were at most discovery materials.

For those who don't know. In review.

The Mid County Bank records are all the personal bank records (dating back to 1998) which  Pickle and Joy had requested of Danny Shelton  in the lawsuit during discovery. DS naturally wanted a protection order first before handing over what was needed and relevant, so that only the relevant documents which needed to  be disclosed to the Pickle/Joy team were, and so that they would only be used by them in the lawsuit as needed for their case and defense, and not published nor diseminated as was/is their habit. During these negotiations and such, DS and 3ABN also asked that Pickle and Joy's discovery requests be fine tuned and specific rather than a  request for everything and all, (ie a fishing expedition to find something or anything to back up what they were already accused of saying and claiming in the the lawsuit filed against them)  and  also to prevent them from publishing all, and using all to violate DS and 3ABN's privacy rights, and continue slandering DS and 3abn in their attempts  to embarass and shame them.  So, the Judge/court ordered Pickle and Joy to redo their discovery requests and also although denying  Pickle and Joy's motions for sanctions and production of documents, cautioned 3abn that they needed to make their filed claims more specific to enable that, and ordered both parties to not issue further subpoenas without court approval.

 What had happened  was, that rather than waiting on the discovery issues and arguments to be resolved in the lawsuit and receiving the documents necessary to their case for free from the plaintiffs, Pickle and Joy had went and filed a bunch of 3rd party subpoenas here and there to try and get what they wanted from the Plaintiffs apart from their case in Massachusetts, and from third parties rather than the plaintiffs. In the case of the bank records Pickle and Joy  ended up unnecessarily having to pay for the labor and costs for the research and copying etc, but those records were never disclosed to them, instead they  were labeled confidential and delivered under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman, and the entire case was transferred to him in the Massachusetts court, per the pending protection order there, according to the ruling of the Judge in the Minnesota court who had heard and weighed all the arguments from both parties in his court.

In addition:

1.) Pickle and Joy argued that DS had no standing to object to their subpoena for his bank records and that his arguments and motions should be stricken from the record, and the Minnesota court denied their motion, and continued to consider Shelton's case and arguments, and quoted them  till the end and final judgment where it transferred the case to the Massachusetts Court. So, it makes no sense that Pickle argues in his recent appeal filing that the Judge agreed with him that Shelton had no standing to object although it is easily understood why he in his filing only quotes himself (5 times) about what he claims and  thought the Judge was saying, rather than quoting what the Judge actually said, or understanding that that Judge continued to consider Shelton's arguments and POV even after Pickles reinterpreted tale.

and 2.) When Pickle and Joy objected to the Minnesota court ruling and asked that the bank documents be delivered and disclosed directly to them, rather than to Magistrate Judge Hillman, claiming that his protection order had made the Minnesota Judges ruling moot, that Judge said "NO" and for the second time told them:the following: (Note the bold text, plz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING CASE NO. 08-MC-7 (RHK/AJB)
NETWORK, INC., AN ILLINOIS NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION, AND DANNY LEE SHELTON,
INDIVIDUALLY,
PLAINTIFFS, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION1
V.
GAILON ARTHUR JOY AND
ROBERT PICKLE,
DEFENDANTS.

This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on June 2, 2008, Defendant Robert Pickle filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 28, 2008, Order [Docket No. 29]. In that Order, the Court ordered the production of records subpoenaed by the Defendants from MidCountry Bank, N.A. (“MidCountry”). Said production was to be made under seal to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman in the District of Massachusets to accommodate the pending protective order Magistrate Judge Hillman was to
issue. The protective order was issued on April 17, 2008. Mr. Pickle claims that this
confidentiality order “renders obsolete the provision of this Court’s Order to produce the subpoenaed documents under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman.” See Mem. 1 [Docket No. 30]. Mr. Pickle also asked the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts in a status conference on May 7, 2008, to allow the subpoenaed documents to be produced directly to him, to which Judge Saylor referred Mr. Pickle back to this Court for such relief. For these reasons,
Mr. Pickle requests that this Court amend its order to allow the subpoenaed records of MidCountry Bank to be produced directly to the office of Mr. Pickle, while in accordance with Magistrate Judge Hillman’s confidentiality order.

Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton responded in opposition to Defendants’ request on June 18,2008 [Docket No. 34]. Mr. Shelton argues that Mr. Pickle’s motion should be denied as an improper motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g). Id. at 3. In particular, Mr.Shelton asserts that Mr. Pickle’s motion should be denied for failure to obtain “express permission of the Court” by means of a letter to the Court of no more than two pages as required by Rule 7.1(g). Id. at 4. Furthermore, upon reaching the merits of Mr. Pickle’s motion, Mr.Shelton contends that Magistrate Judge Hillman’s issuance of a protective order is not a “compelling circumstance” justifying reconsideration of this Court’s previous Order. Id. at 5.
Based upon the record, memoranda, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Pickle’s Request for Reconsideration is DENIED. Mr. Pickle has failed to show compelling circumstances to overturn the Court’s previous Order. Moreover, this Court specifically stated that the March 28, 2008, Order did not preclude the parties from seeking relief from Magistrate Judge Hillman as to the disclosure of the documents produced pursuant to the
MidCountry Bank subpoena. See Order 2-3 [Docket No. 28]. Therefore, the Court directs Mr. Pickle to seek relief from Magistrate Judge Hillman concerning the production of documents by MidCountry Bank subject to the subpoena served in this district.[/u]

Dated: July 1, 2008
s/ Arthur J. Boylan
Arthur J. Boylan
United States Magistrate Judge

Neither Pickle, nor Joy ever sought relief or filed any motion to get the documents disclosed or released to them. So, they were never filed nor admitted into the case nor record... ( many of the discovery materials or possible ones weren't entered and aren't part of the record.)SO, in the motion to dismiss conference/hearing dated over a year ago when Pickle claimed he had paid for the bank records and were his property, and if they were returned it would make him have to do it all over again, the Judge clarified that he ( Pickle) had never filed any counterclaims, and that there was thus no pending case, and told him he could file a motion for necessary costs but  said he was promising nothing, nor did he order they be given to Pickle as Hillman's "Confidentiality and Protection Order" already said : "The subject discovery materials will be used for no other purpose than this litigation.”and the litigation was over....  What Judge Saylor did say in administrating that order after Pickle interrupted him was: " Let me -- let me just finish. And any records that were delivered under seal and that are in the custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party that produced those documents." of course that was only the Mid county bank records... and almost 6 wks later a receipt for the return of those documents from Hillman to DS was signed for by his Attorney's office in compliance with that order, and Pickle even  included that receipt as an exhibit in his latest filing claiming it makes those possible discovery records  part of the Lawsuit case and filed there, but of course it doesn't.... They are gone, and were returned as ordered and Pickle and Joy have no right to them.

Pickle and Joy apparently don't get it and thus their "waaaah!" and their futile arguments. I am pretty sure the courts will enlighten them.... with some help from 3abn and attys, as they wait to file their appeal and ask it be put in "abeyance",  but  I will post any updates here regardless of what the Courts say and decide.

[Pat Williams]

Good question. Time will tell.

If the bank records eventually revealed transfers of funds (a) from 3ABN to Danny, (b) from Danny to offshore accounts, or (c) from Danny to Brandy or other women, any of those possibilities would be significant in showing that the lawsuit was frivolous from the get go.

What the bank records actually reveal I don't know, except that they could show large deposits attributable to Danny's income from Remnant, and could show that (a) Danny lied on his July 2006 affidavit when he said he had only two bank accounts, (b) Danny lied on that affidavit when he reported only $2500 in those bank accounts, and/or (c) Danny made large unknown expenditures that brought down his two bank accounts to but $2500.

Given the fact that Remnant's 990's show that Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, the bulk of that in 2006 for a book campaign that occurred in the year, I would think that at least one of the above 6 possibilities would have to be true.

Also note that it was so important that these bank records be kept from us that Danny via Jerrie Hayes lied to the district court in Minnesota by claiming that Danny's personal finances weren't at issue in Danny's lawsuit. Thus, there has to be something in those bank records Danny is trying to hide.

What all this really means to me is that you are clueless and don't know and have no proof of your accusations but are desperately hoping to find some, and yet can't stop making accusations and insinuating things you have no support for or proof of, still.

Sad...

[Bob Pickle]

What all this really means to me is that you are clueless and don't know and have no proof of your accusations but are desperately hoping to find some, and yet can't stop making accusations and insinuating things you have no support for or proof of, still.

What do you mean?

We know Danny got lots of money from Remnant that he perjuriously omitted from his July 2006 financial affidavit. That's a proven fact, is it not?

[princessdi]

Ok say that is true.  Do you really believe that the courts are going to let you go digging through his bank accounts to find the money?  That is not even legal.  Especially since the IRS seems to not have found this money, and you know they went a serious fishing in his records, bank accounts, etc.  Hamilton Berger on the old Perry Mason episodes said many a time that Perry was on a fishing expedition.  It is just not allowed.   This is why they don't want you with any of the docs, not on the premise that you might find something.

[Pat Williams]

What all this really means to me is that you are clueless and don't know and have no proof of your accusations but are desperately hoping to find some, and yet can't stop making accusations and insinuating things you have no support for or proof of, still.

What do you mean?

We know Danny got lots of money from Remnant that he perjuriously omitted from his July 2006 financial affidavit. That's a proven fact, is it not?

NO, that is NOT a proven fact. What that is is one of the claims and accusations you were sued for. You have never proven anything was reported falsely or not reported where it should have been.  The IRS investigated him and found nothing amiss, deal with it Mr Pickle, and move on.

[Nosir Myzing]

Here is a update on this subject which was posted somewhere else. In compliance with this forum's administrative rules I removed all references and links first so I hope it will be deemed appropriate content and it is acceptable to post it here.

O kaay.. It appears that Pickle and Joy have belatedly realized that the Mid County Bank records were returned to 3abn/DS a year ago, and were signed for and have been in the custody of 3abn's attorneys ever since. I just got done reading the following emails twice in regards to this:

From: Bob [mailto:bob@ ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:29 PM
To: John Pucci
Cc: G. Arthur Joy; Gerald Duffy; Jerrie Hayes; Kristin L. Kingsbury; William Christopher Penwell; Lizette
Richards; Greg Simpson

Subject: re: the return of MidCountry's records to the court

Counselor Pucci:

I just spoke with a clerk of court at the federal courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts. She informed me that the court does not have a copy of the bank statements that MidCountry Bank produced in response to our subpoena, and that the receipt docketed as Doc. 160 in our case shows who those
bank statements were given to.

That receipt, dated December 16, 2008, is signed as follows:

Christine Parizo
Fierst, Pucci & Kane LLP
64 Gothic St. Northampton MA 01060
(413) 584-8067

Thus, you received the only copy of MidCountry’s records that the court had. Would you stipulate to the return of MidCountry’s records to the court, accompanied by your certification that the returned records do not differ in quantity or content from that which you received?

If you do not so stipulate, we shall prepare a motion seeking an order commanding you to return MidCountry’s records to the court. (Such return would need to be accompanied by the same certification.) This letter would then be, pursuant to L.R. 7.1(a)(2), Defendants’ good faith attempt to narrow or resolve the issue before bringing such a motion. If you refuse to stipulate, would you oppose
such a motion?

I would remind you that the district court is without authority to eliminate material from the record on appeal. 20 Moore’s Federal Practice §310.40[2]; Belt v. Holton, 197 F.2d 579, 591 (D.C. Cir. 1952). Therefore, the bank statements must be returned.

Sincerely,
Bob Pickle, pro se


Subject: RE: the return of MidCountry's records to the court
From: "John Pucci"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:57:16 -0500
To: "Bob"
CC: "Gregory Simpson"

Dear Mr. Pickle:

In response to your letter of December 15, 2009, please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will
remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them.

You have moved to have the records sent to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals as part of the district court record. We will oppose your motion by filing an opposition memorandum. It is not appropriate to debate the legal issues raised by your motion informally because they will clearly need to be addressed in an
orderly fashion by Judge Saylor and potentially reviewed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.

In the meantime, you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition at least until the case is over and all rights of appeal are exhausted. Please consider this
response as written assurance that the MidCountry Bank records will be preserved to that extent.

In regards to the Mid county Bank records. Both parties have as indicated in the letter above, filed new documents in the USDC (since yesterday).  Both parties also attached the above letters to their affidavits. 3abn filed an "OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CERTIFY AND FORWARD PART OF THE RECORD" and Joy and Pickle have filed a new Motion. "MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records"


The new documents filed in the USDC been uploaded to our Pacer subforum here:
[Link deactivated per adventtalk rules]Court of Appeals Case 09- 2615 (the Mid County Bank Records)

The Massachusetts Judge, Saylor entered an electronic order this morning in the USDC there concerning both of Pickle and Joy's latest motions.

The entry and his order is as follows. From the Pacer docket:

Filed & Entered: 12/18/2009
Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge
Docket Text: Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered.
REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman
Referred for: ruliings Motions referred:
[204] MOTION to Forward Part of the Record,
[210] MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records (Castles, Martin) Motions referred to Timothy S. Hillman.

Timothy Hillman is the Magistrate Judge that Judge Boylan "ordered the production of records subpoenaed by the Defendants from MidCountry Bank, N.A. (“MidCountry”)" sent to. " Said production was to be made under seal to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman in the District of Massachusets"

Hillman is also the same Judge who issued the "Confidentiality and Protection Order on April 17, 2008, Concerning all documents and information produced, or to be produced in the Massachusetts Laws suit."  He did so after hearing the arguments of both sides and ordering them to each submit a "proposed order"   If you want to read his order or review it, it is [Link deactivated per adventtalk rules] HERE

On a personal note, I have renamed the lawsuit case filed against Pickle and Joy which was dropped by 3abn and "terminated" by the Court  on November 3, 2008: "Three Angels Broadcasting vs the Energizer Bunnies"  Pickle and Joy just keep going and going and going.....

[Bob Pickle]

NO, that is NOT a proven fact. What that is is one of the claims and accusations you were sued for. You have never proven anything was reported falsely or not reported where it should have been.

False. It is a proven fact that Danny received lots of money from Remnant that he perjuriously omitted from his July 2006 financial affidavit.

Are you suggesting that Danny didn't receive any money from Remnant in 2006 for the distribution of about 5 million of his books? If that is what you are suggesting, then say so.

[Bob Pickle]

No surmising,

Do you believe that John Pucci told the truth when he said that he was simply complying with the judge's order when he had Christine Parizo take those documents from the courthouse in violation of that same order?

[Nosir Myzing]

No surmising,

Do you believe that John Pucci told the truth when he said that he was simply complying with the judge's order when he had Christine Parizo take those documents from the courthouse in violation of that same order?

Those are your words and claims, Mr Pickle. What John Pucci said is in the letter above.

"...please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them..."

and "...you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition..."

Judge Hillman is the one ruling on your motions, so I believe it would be best for you to just stop maligning people and wait for him to issue his judgment in this matter.

I also believe it ridiculous that you think Danny Shelton doesn't have the right to his own personal bank records, but that you do.

But lets wait on the courts to decide.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

expropriation
n. a taking of property or rights by governmental authority...In such a case just compensation eventually must be paid to the owner, who can make a claim against the taker.

Now, when an attorney (an officer of the court) sends an emloyee into a federal court and expropriates what is not theirs based upon a clearly erroneous interpretation of the courts order, particularly when it is known that those records were clearly ordered delivered to Judge Magistrate Hillman for compliance with the pending confidentiality order and were received by the court and held pending a motion by the plaintiffs for in camera review. The review was denied by the magistrate resulting in a clear requirement that said records should have been turned over to the issuers of the producing subpoena (at a dear cost to the parties requesting the same). The order of the court by Saylor requiring "return" was subject to the confidentiality agreement. We assert that that document will speak for itself and these "Zealous Advocates" can read LEGAL documents.  Further, the case was under appeal and those records are clearly relevant to the allegations and counterclaims. In any event, there is NO legal basis for a presumption that "return" would be to former federal prosecutor Pucci.

So, what are the choices the victims of illegal expropriation have?

 NOSIRMIZING would argue that there was a court order (see Defendants Motion to Return the Record and the supporting Memorandum for clarification of the facts and the court record on this matter). In summary, a lawyer who actively participated in this case would well know that bank records ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. That has been clearly established. However, NOSIRMIZING has SIRMIZED that the term "return" is somehow construed to mean to the Plaintiffs. YOU WILL SOON FIND OUT THAT THIS IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS and counsel knows better. Is counsel relying upon his prior relationships to the bar to protect himself (why do you think Pucci was selected by 3ABN?).

Further, counsel would know that the documents would have been part of the record on review since they were held by the court pending the appeal as they were formally entered into the record by order of Judge Magistrate Boylan subject to the confidentiality order. And mysteriously, despite several requests and purported searches, the documents were never produced to the "purchasers" of the record. Must we SURMIZE that Pucci may have used his influence in the court to have held the documents in defience of Judge Magistrate Hillman's denial of "in camera review"? And just why were the records suddenly discovered and allowed to be given to the custody of "plaintiff's" counsel with no known interest in the same? Because they THOUGHT they could get away with it...and I believe that this is a substantial BREACH OF ETHICS by the former prosecutor and his cohort, Simpson, a member of the Minnesotta Bars "Ethics Committee"!!!!

Further, upon appropriate request, they have refused to return the records to the US District Court!!! And then oppose the motion...is this also "zealous" advocacy??? Me thinks it goes a bit further than that. Because, while the court simply faces a claim for expropriation, for these "Zealous" Advocates it could represent a far greater issue.

Now, what are our choices to address this FLAGRANT ABUSE?

And so we are left to contemplate the various options:

1) A citizens criminal complaint pursuant to the masachusetts criminal code to recover the misappropriation;
2) A complaint to various bars, Massachusetts, Mass Federal, Minnesotta and the Minnesotta Federal Bar;
3) A complaint to the Federal Administrative Judge;
4) A civil suite pursuant to Massahusetts General Laws 93-A for unfair and deceptive practices seeking treble damages;
5) All the above.

Since NOSIRMIZING is such an "expert" on ethics and the bar, perhaps you could ENLIGHTEN us regarding which of the
above ought to be undertaken?  I await your EXPERTIZE on the subject.

And why don't we do a poll to add a little spice to the subject just to liven up the Christmas Season?

And the fun continues!!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Bob Pickle]

At this point I vote for all of the above.

[Nosir Myzing]

Gailon I already gave my answer and I don't think it was hard to understand. Here it is again:

Those are your words and claims, Mr Pickle. What John Pucci said is in the letter above.

"...please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them..."

and "...you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition..." Judge Hillman is the one ruling on your motions, so I believe it would be best for you to just stop maligning people and wait for him to issue his judgment in this matter.

I also believe it ridiculous that you think Danny Shelton doesn't have the right to his own personal bank records, but that you do.

But lets wait on the courts to decide.

I'll be back to answer further, after that occurs.

Happy Holidays.