Print

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

[anyman]

Well, 3ABN_Defender, you have proven that you have no problem running your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about, so why should anyone believe you?

Do the decisions of the Magistrate Judge answer your question? 

It certainly should. How many judges have now taken a look at everything and decided that the efforts to extend this case is merely an effort to clog the courts?

[Bob Pickle]

That is why when 3abn filed their motion to dismiss the lawsuit and specifically asked that they be returned, the Judge granted their motion and ordered that

Come on, Cindy, leave the spin machine behind and get it right. 3ABN could not have truthfully asked that the MidCountry records be "returned" to it since they never had them. And the judge ordered them to be returned to MidCountry, which was not what 3ABN requested.

[Bob Pickle]

It certainly should. How many judges have now taken a look at everything and decided that the efforts to extend this case is merely an effort to clog the courts?

Thus far, not one judge has "decided" such.

[Cindy]

That is why when 3abn filed their motion to dismiss the lawsuit and specifically asked that they be returned, the Judge granted their motion and ordered that

Come on, Cindy, leave the spin machine behind and get it right. 3ABN could not have truthfully asked that the MidCountry records be "returned" to it since they never had them. And the judge ordered them to be returned to MidCountry, which was not what 3ABN requested.

You appear to be in denial, sorry, but that won't change the facts. You already argued this in court, and the Magistrate Judge quite obviously did not agree with you, just as Judge Saylor did not in the status conference. You were/are wrong and you lost.

And, spin machine?!?  
Don't even try to go there, Bob.

No spinning is necessary. Here is the documentation and the truth in black and white for all to see. --oh, and some bold red for emphasis--  All with zero commentary or interpretations or explanations from me.  You should try it sometime...

Pacer Docket Entry:

120 Filed & Entered:     10/23/2008
       Terminated:           10/30/2008   Motion to Dismiss
MOTION to Dismiss voluntary by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., Danny Lee Shelton.(Simpson, M.) (Entered: 10/23/2008)

Pacer Document:

Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 120 Filed 10/23/2008

MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

MOTION

Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Shelton hereby move the Court for an Order as follows:

1. Ordering dismissal of the above-captioned lawsuit without prejudice;

2. Ordering return to Plaintiffs of all materials supplied to Defendants that Plaintiffs designated as Confidential under the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued in this case on April 17, 2008 (ECF Doc 60), including but not limited to the records of MidCountry Bank which were delivered under under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge Hillman and records of Remnant Publications produced directly to Defendants on September 22, 2008;

3. Ordering Defendants to dismiss any pending third party subpoenas that have been issued on the basis of this case; and

4. Staying discovery pending resolution of this motion, including but not limited to the pending obligation to respond to document
requests served by the Defendants.

This Motion is based upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of the same, and any affidavits filed herewith, the arguments of counsel and all other files, records and proceedings herein.

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court set a day and time for oral argument to be heard on this Motion, and further request that leave be granted for the parties to appear by telephone. Respectfully Submitted: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Shelton

Dated: October 23, 2008
....
s/ M. Gregory Simpson

Relevent exerpt from the "Status conference/Motion for Voluntary Dismissal BEFORE: The Honorable F. Dennis Saylor, IV
United States District Court Courtroom No. 2 595 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts October 30, 2008" :

...
THE COURT: All right. Here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to grant the motion. I'm going to dismiss it without
prejudice and with some conditions, which include the condition
that any claims brought by the plaintiffs, based on the same
facts and circumstances or -- or -- or nucleus of operative
events may only be brought in the Central Division of
Massachusetts, but let me be more formal about that.

The motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. I
order that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. I make
no finding of any kind as to the merits or lack of merits of
any of the claims or factual defenses set forth in the
pleadings, and I'm dismissing the claim principally based on the representation by the plaintiff that there is no longer any purpose for the litigation, because plaintiffs do not believe
that they can accomplish -- or achieve any meaningful relief
based on the facts and circumstances as they now exist,
including, but not limited to, the bankruptcy of one of the
defendants.

I am imposing this dismissal with the condition that
any claim or claims brought by plaintiffs based on the same or
similar facts and circumstances may only be brought in the
Central Division of the District of Massachusetts, so that if
this lawsuit in some ways comes back to life, it will be in
front of me, and I'll have all the facts and circumstances at
my disposal at that point and can make such orders as I think
are just under the circumstances.

I will order that all 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.

Destruction of the documents will only be permitted if
consistent with the terms of the order; and similarly, any
photocopying or other copying of any such materials will only
be permitted if permitted under that order.

Any pending third-party subpoenas are deemed moot, and
the party will -- any party having issued such a third-party
subpoena will take reasonable steps to notify the recipient of
the subpoena that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and the
subpoenas are no longer in effect.

MR. PICKLE: Your Honor, could I -- could I --

THE COURT: 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.

Yes, sir. Is this Mr. Pickle?

MR. PICKLE: Yes, it is.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PICKLE: Your Honor, one of the concerns that the
case law brings up is that -- see -- a voluntarily dismissal
without prejudice, one of the questions is well, will there be
plain legal prejudice to the defendants, and one of the things
that is, like, undue expense.

We've had -- and one of the factors they look at is
amount of time and effort and expense the defendants have
expended. We bring this out in our memorandum. Okay. What
the -- what the plaintiffs are doing -- see, our basis for
counterclaim --

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, Mr. Pickle. There's no
counterclaim filed, as I understand; is that right?

MR. PUCCI: Right.

THE COURT: In this case.

MR. PICKLE: That is correct, your Honor.

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.

MR. JOY: Your Honor, are you looking for -- this is
now Gailon Joy again.

Are you looking for our motion's total cost or --

THE COURT: Please characterize it as a motion, so
that it -- under the computer system, it -- it's flagged as
something requiring my action.

MR. JOY: Thank you.

THE COURT: But you can, you know, designate it
however you wish or think it's appropriate, and I'll permit
plaintiffs to oppose whatever it is you file, and I'll make
whatever decision I think is right under the circumstances.
I'll simply give you that opportunity is all I'm doing at this
point. Okay?

And if I do award -- decide to award any kind of costs
or expenses or fees, it will obviously be a further condition
of the order of voluntary dismissal, but we'll -- we'll take
that up as it comes.

MR. SIMPSON: Thank you, your Honor.

THE COURT: And I'll retain jurisdiction for that
purpose.

Okay. All right. If there's nothing further, then
we'll stand in recess...

Pacer Docket Entry:   

Filed:    10/30/2008
Entered:    10/31/2008      Order on Motion to Dismiss
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 10/30/2008. Case called, Counsel and dft's pro-se appear for status conference, Court hears arguments of counsel re: motion to dismiss, Court rules granting 120 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; The Court orders dismissal with conditions stated on the record, Any renewed claims brought by plaintiff shall be brought in this division in the District of MA. as ordered on the record, Court orders all confidential documents returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned, Court orders any motion for costs to be filed by 11/21/08. Order of dismissal to issue, (Court Reporter: M. Kusa-Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Simpson,Pucci/Dft's Joy and Pickle - Pro se) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 10/31/2008)

Pacer Docket Entry:

210   Filed & Entered:     12/18/2009   Motion to Compel
        Terminated:            01/29/2010
   
MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.(Pickle, Robert)

Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 210 Filed 12/18/2009

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO RETURN THE MIDCOUNTRY RECORDS

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 11(a) and the court’s inherent power, Defendants move this Court to order Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the bank records produced by MidCountry Bank (“MidCountry records”) to this Court.

Defendants have designated the MidCountry records to be part of the record on appeal, and have requested these records to be forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Contrary to this Court’s order of October 30, 2008, Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained the only copy of these sealed records from the federal courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs’ counsel must therefore return the MidCountry records to the Court, certifying that the returned records do not differ in quantity or content from that which he/they received. The clerk of court’s act of surrendering the Court’s sole copy of the MidCountry records to a party that did not own them, was not entitled to them, and had not paid for them, all contrary to this Court’s order of October 30, 2008, constituted a profound expropriation of Defendants’ property and a violation of the Fifth Amendment by the Court. Since this Court’s order of October 30, 2008, has never yet been executed by returning them “to the party that produced” them (Doc. 141 p. 13), that order should be stayed until the conclusion of Defendants’ appeals, if a stay is required to prevent such return. By this motion, Defendants do not waive their right to pursue other forms of redress.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the Court to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the MidCountry records to this Court, certifying that the returned records do not differ in quantity or content from that which he/they received; Defendants pray the Court to forward the MidCountry records to the Court of Appeals; Defendants pray the Court to stay the not yet executed order of October 30, 2008, if such a stay is required to prevent the return of the MidCountry records to MidCountry; and Defendants pray the Court to grant whatever further relief this Court deems equitable and just.

Dated: December 18, 2009
and
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gailon Arthur Joy, pro se
....
/s/ Robert Pickle, pro se
.....

Pacer Docket Entry:

Filed & Entered: 01/29/2010   Order on Motion to Compel
Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying [210] Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle. (Belpedio, Lisa)

edit: to add quote box

[Bob Pickle]

You appear to be in denial, sorry, but that won't change the facts. You already argued this in court, and the Magistrate Judge quite obviously did not agree with you, just as Judge Saylor did not in the status conference. You were/are wrong and you lost.

Cindy, based on what you yourself posted, you are the one in denial, not me. In the only status conference we have had since the motion to dismiss was filed, Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.

As far as whether the Magistrate Judge did or did not agree with this indisputable fact, he did not say.

[Pat Williams]

leave the spin machine behind and get it right..

you are the one in denial, not me.

You are a character, Mr Pickle.

"Oho!' said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."

"Not so! not so! kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean -without blemish or blot-
That your blackness is mirrored in me"
* Maxwell's Elementary Grammar.


What are the Origins of the Phrase "the Pot Calling the Kettle Black"?
 

 The origins of the phrase date back to at least the 1600s, when several writers published books or plays which included wordplays on the theme of the pot calling the kettle black. Despite suggestions that the phrase is racist or nonsensical, the meaning is actually quite obvious when one considers the conditions of a medieval kitchen.

Typically, pots and kettles were made from heavy materials like cast iron, to ensure that they would last and hold up to heat. Cast iron tends to turn black with use, as it collects oil, food residue, and smoke from the kitchen. Both pots and kettles would also have been heated over an open fire in a kitchen of the medieval period. As a result, they would have become streaked with black smoke despite the best cleaning efforts.

Since both are black, the pot calling the kettle black would clearly be an act of hypocrisy. The act could also be described by “it takes one to know one,” and it suggests a certain blindness to one's personal characteristics. There is another explanation for the term, involving the pot seeing its black reflection reflected in a polished copper kettle. In this sense of the pot calling the kettle black, the pot does not realize that it is describing itself.


    * "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
        but considerest  not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
    * "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones".

[Bob Pickle]

I backed up my comments with concrete, indisputable facts. You have not.

Come on, Cindy, leave the spin machine behind and get it right. 3ABN could not have truthfully asked that the MidCountry records be "returned" to it since they never had them. And the judge ordered them to be returned to MidCountry, which was not what 3ABN requested.

Be specific: what did I state above that is not 100% correct and accurate?

Cindy, based on what you yourself posted, you are the one in denial, not me. In the only status conference we have had since the motion to dismiss was filed, Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.

As far as whether the Magistrate Judge did or did not agree with this indisputable fact, he did not say.

Again, be specific and state what above is not 100% correct and accurate.

It is very easy to make vague assertions.

[Cindy]

You appear to be in denial, sorry, but that won't change the facts. You already argued this in court, and the Magistrate Judge quite obviously did not agree with you, just as Judge Saylor did not in the status conference. You were/are wrong and you lost.

Cindy, based on what you yourself posted, you are the one in denial, not me. In the only status conference we have had since the motion to dismiss was filed, Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.

No, Bob. You are saying he explicitly and specifically ordered that "the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank" That is your interpretation, that is your understanding, and that is what you claim he meant. But you are adding the words "Mid County Bank" Judge Saylor didn't say that. What he actually said was this, and unlike you I can quote what he said in that status conference:

"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."


The party you requested bank records from in your discovery requests during the lawsuit was Danny Shelton. Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena for his bank records to his bank didn't change that.

You even filed a Motion in the subpoena case asking the court to Dismiss his motion to quash the subpoena for his bank records calling them the bank's business records, and claiming he had no standing, and asking that his oppisition and arguments be stricken from the record, and you claimed that you had issued the subpoena to a "non-party", and again I quote, and I am quoting you, Mr Pickle, from your memorandum:

"Since Plaintiff Shelton has not made or demonstrated a claim of privilege in the information contained in the business records of the bank, he lacks standing to challenge a subpoena to a non-party, and his motions should therefore be dismissed."

Your motion was of course denied, and the court allowed DS to keep challenging the subpoena for his records. --Which should have given you a clue imo, that he did have priveledge and rights,but no, you are in denial about that too for I read you repeating that same claim in one of your latest filings and actually claiming the court agreed with you, as if that too is some indisputable fact cuz you say the Judge asking questions meant that.--

 Now you can continue living in your own little fantasy apart from reality if you choose, and you can argue with yourself, if you want about why you referred to your subpoena to the Mid County Bank as a subpoena to a non-party and are now claiming that the order to return the records "to  the party that produced those documents" means the Mid-County Bank, but I am not going to keep trying to argue about the obvious to you on this topic beyond this post.

Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.

As far as whether the Magistrate Judge did or did not agree with this indisputable fact, he did not say.

Bob, what you think and say is not an "indisputable fact". here I am disputing what you are claiming, because Judge Saylor did not say that, and Judge Hillman didn't have to use the exact words you require. He DENIED your Motion. That says it. That is enough for rational people to understand he did not agree with or accept your arguments.

Common sense and logic should tell you that if he agreed with it, and DS/3ABN were not the party that the records were supposed to be returned to, and the correct meaning of the order was that they be returned to the Mid County Bank, he would have ordered that. He would have granted your motion and ordered 3ABN to return the records to the court as you were asking. He didn't! Get a clue.

You know Bob, there's an old saying, I am sure you have heard of it, it goes like this: "Actions speak louder than words" You may, perhaps, be excused for misunderstanding what the Judges meaning and intent was in ordering that the records be returned to the party that produced them, but there is no excuse to not understand the intent or meaning from the actions which have followed.  There is no excuse for you not to see or comprehend that the attorneys, the Judges and the clerks all had a different understanding. There is no excuse for you to arrogantly claim in the face of that that your understanding is the only correct one and that it is an "indisputable fact" That is extremely arrogant and despotic in mo.

Those records were in the possession of a magistrate Judge, he read the order to return them issued by the District Court Judge and he understood it to mean 3abn was the party referred to. How do we know that? because he returned them to 3ABN! 3ABN's attorneys asked that the records be returned to them in their motion:

Ordering return to Plaintiffs of all materials supplied to Defendants that Plaintiffs designated as Confidential under the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued in this case on April 17, 2008 (ECF Doc 60), including but not limited to the records of MidCountry Bank which were delivered under under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge Hillman


Judge Saylor Granted their Motion and ordered:"Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."

You filed your Motion asking them to be returned to the court, and you made your arguments about how they were given to the wrong party and why, and the Magistrate rejected them, and denied your motion, He allowed 3abn to keep them.


The lawsuit is over Danny's bank records are his, and they are not your business and you have no business with them. It's done, get over it, and move on!

Now I am done about this, and just as Judge Hillman did after denying your motions I am withdrawing from this particular topic.

--     
Filed & Entered:     01/29/2010
   Order on Motion to Compel
Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying [210] Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle. (Belpedio, Lisa)
--    
Filed & Entered:     01/29/2010
   Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge
Docket Text: Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman. (Belpedio, Lisa)

[Bob Pickle]

"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."

The party you requested bank records from in your discovery requests during the lawsuit was Danny Shelton.

Judge Saylor referred to the party that produced those records, not the party I requested them from. His wording couldn't be clearer.

Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena for his bank records to his bank didn't change that.

Again, stop the spin and deceit.

The first subpoena we served on MidCountry Bank is dated Dece,ber 6, 2007. See p. 49 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-42.pdf.

My requests to produce for Danny Shelton were served on December 7, 2007. See p. 37 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-42.pdf.

The plaintiffs did not even file their motion for a confidentiality order until December 18, 2007. See p. 3 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-40.pdf.

... and you claimed that you had issued the subpoena to a "non-party", and again I quote, and I am quoting you, Mr Pickle, from your memorandum:

Nice try. But you ought to realize what the difference is between a non-party to a lawsuit and a non-party to a subpoena. MidCountry was a non-party to the lawsuit, and Danny was a non-party to the subpoena.

Your motion was of course denied, and the court allowed DS to keep challenging the subpoena for his records. --Which should have given you a clue imo, that he did have priveledge and rights,but no, you are in denial about that too for I read you repeating that same claim in one of your latest filings and actually claiming the court agreed with you, as if that too is some indisputable fact cuz you say the Judge asking questions meant that.--

Come on, Cindy, get it right. My motion to dismiss was denied as moot by Magistrate Judge Boylan because he denied Danny's motion to quash. See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mnd-08mc00007/mnd-08mc00007-doc-28.pdf. In other words, since he denied Danny's motion to quash, there wasn't any point to grant my motion and dismiss Danny's motion.

... here I am disputing what you are claiming, because Judge Saylor did not say that, ...

Sure he did. You've quoted it multiple times now. Even Simpson admits that those words don't apply to Danny.

Those records were in the possession of a magistrate Judge, he read the order to return them issued by the District Court Judge and he understood it to mean 3abn was the party referred to. How do we know that? because he returned them to 3ABN!

Then if Hillman gave them to 3ABN when Danny was squawking about them being given to anyone other than himself, there was no reason not to give them to us too.

The lawsuit is over Danny's bank records are his, and they are not your business and you have no business with them. It's done, get over it, and move on!

Then Danny ought to reimburse us for what we had to pay for those records. And he should also sign a stipulation not to file an anti-SLAPP motion if there is future litigation. Both these provisions are only fair if he wants to try to stack things in his favor despite case law and legal precedent.

[anyman]

And this round goes to . . . Ian. You can manipulate the info RJP, but that doesn't make you right. Happens all the time on Capitol Hill. Both sides use the info to make their case. A judge on the other hand, takes the info and makes an impartial decision. The judges decisions support Cindy completely.

What is your legal record so far? Maybe 3 wins and 25 loses?

Speaks volumes.

[Bob Pickle]

anyman, vague assertions are easy. Try being specific.

For example, Cindy asserted that our subpoena of MidCountry was an end run around the confidentiality issues Danny wanted to bring up after I served my requests to produce on him. And yet, according to what his side filed, our subpoena of MidCountry is dated before my requests to produce.

So in what specific way did Cindy win on that point?

And in what way did Cindy win when what she quoted proves beyond any doubt that Saylor ordered the MidCountry records to be returned to MidCountry?

I'd say that if you stacked everything up, we've probably won more than the other side, and lost less.

[anyman]

There was no vagueness in my comments.

A goodly amount of your subpoenas were "end arounds" as you knew there was no chance you were going to get all the unnecessary documentation you wanted. The fact that the subpoena was dated a day before the discovery request is simply evidence that you had no idea what to do, so you used the shot gun approach hoping you would score something, some how. Ineffective lawyering on your part and evidences you were unsure what to do.

The other aspect of the whole subpeona fiasco is that it tells the world you knew you had nothing to substantiate your defamatory claims and you had to collect as much discovery material as you could in the hope that you might find something you could knit into substantiation of your claims. Your footing has been weak from day one. Anyone following this should be able to ascertain the sandy foundation you built your house on.

On the other hand, Ian has not had to edit, couch, or manipulate one piece of the documentation used to substantiate her case. When judges consider any documentation - especially an order - the default to the plain meaning of the text. You need to spend some time reading the portion of opinions that establish "Standard of Review." Judges don't sit around trying to work their interpretation into a case the way you do - constantly do. They have no vested interested so the plain language interpretation of a statute is all that concerns them. You can berate them, libel them, they are still going to do what judges do - render impartial decisions based on the plain language. Over and over again judges have done this and you have made your accusations, accused judges of misconduct, lawyers of malpractice . . . and yet consistently you have lost. While that doesn't seem to have opened your eyes, had it, you would have realized early on that you had not a leg to stand on.

I don't need to be specific, and if I was it would take a multitude of posts to cover your inaccuracies, misrepresentations, lies, and efforts to defeat God. Your Jesuit training is serving you well. Cindy made her case, made if convincingly, and your response is one of your weakest yet.



The most amusing aspect of your response is your belief that you have "won" more than you have lost - that is unless you don't count your own soul in the lost column, because it's there at this point.

[Bob Pickle]

Your comments are uncalled for and inappropriate.

I will respond to one point:

The other aspect of the whole subpeona fiasco is that it tells the world you knew you had nothing to substantiate your defamatory claims and you had to collect as much discovery material as you could in the hope that you might find something you could knit into substantiation of your claims.

Not so, and any paralegal wannabe lawyer ought to know that.

Danny Shelton's allegations against us included defamation per se. The per se part put the burden of proof on us to some extent. That being so, we had to prove the truth of our statements rather than Danny having to prove the falsehood of our statements.

If Danny had been content with just suing us for defamation, it wouldn't have been that way. But he would have then had the burden of proof, not us.

A journalist needs two sources before going to press. He doesn't have to be able to prove a point in court before printing a story. He just needs two sources.

So it is readily apparent that the evidence one needs when defending one's self in a defamation per se case goes well beyond what one needs before printing a story.

Now if you are interested in having a meaningful discussion, kindly state what report we made that you believe wasn't accurate, and/or didn't have two corroborating sources.

Start about at the beginning if you want.

• Danny said Linda's Toyota Sequoia was titled in his name too, but his name never was on the title.
• Walt Thompson never contacted any of Tommy Shelton's alleged victims.
• Walt said that Danny told him that the allegations were all 30 years old, even though both Walt and Danny had a letter that suggested that there were quite recent allegations in Virginia.

Nothing looks wrong with any of those three.

It was Danny and 3ABN that never had evidence to substantiate their claims, not us. The problem is they knew that even if they did extensive discovery, they wouldn't have found any.

[Murcielago]

Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.

[Cindy]

Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.

Why are you asking Bob about why we are addressing his minutia? How would he know?

Why do you prefer to talk about people and surmise then talk directly to those people and get your answers from them?