Print

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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.

And can you prove from the record that he is telling the truth? A thus sayeth NOSIRMIZING is hardly the gospel according to the actual record, but then you never have been much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, have you?

Now, I dare you too prove from the record that what is said by Pucci is the backed by the record...and to give you a good lead, consider our motion for clues as to where you can find the TRUTH!!!

Pardon my disdain for your misnomer, but I find you to be the most mis-informed SIRMIZER I have ever run into. But, Keep up the great work!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Pat Williams]

... 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.... And just why were the records ...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...

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Hmmmm...

Right to Financial Privacy Act

The Right to Financial Privacy Act (RTFPA) of 1978 became effective on March 10, 1979 (12 U.S.C. 3401). It was enacted because financial institution customers have a right to expect that their financial activities have a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The Act establishes specific procedures for government authorities which seek information from a financial institution about a customer's financial records and imposes limitations and duties on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies.

Prior to the Act, customers could not challenge government access to their financial records. Nor did the customer have any way of knowing that personal records were being turned over to a government authority. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), the Supreme Court held that financial records, because they are kept by the institution, are the property of the institution rather than the customer. As such, the customer had no protectable legal interest in
records kept by the financial institution, nor could he or she limit government access to those accounts. It was principally in response to this decision that the RTFPA was adopted.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The RTFPA generally requires that the customer must receive:
• A written notice of the agency's intent to obtain financial records,
• An explanation of the purpose for which the records are sought, and
• A statement describing procedures to use if the customer does not wish such records or
information to be made available.

Source: Examination Handbook Section 1345-1, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Office of Thrift Supervision, United States Department of Treasury, Approved – FFIEC

The courts will indeed rule on what has and has not been "clearly established".

[Bob Pickle]

Hey Danny_Defender,

Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!

[princessdi]

Ok, sooooooooo, that means if I ask for you and Gailon's bank records, I can have them just because I believe you are up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?   

Hey Danny_Defender,

Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!

[Johann]

I have no legal background, but common sense tells me you have no business poking into Gailon Arthur's financial records unless you have just cause  to believe there is something there that concerns a matter you happen to be dealing with. The daily news tell me that most official people, including people on TV or in the entertainments business have to open up a number of their accounts, especially if these people are dealing with public funds or private contributions. This could include a pastor, an elder, a treasurer. The rules may differ greatly in various countries or states. This is why such a great number of business people move to places like London, and a number of other countries where they feel safe from their own authorities -as soon as they realize some journalists are examining their financial records.  Believe me, we are listening to the accounts of these journalists several times daily ever since the collapse of some of our banks. It seems like government appreciates what the journalists are snooping into of what seems to be purely private finances. Our government has even hired a special prosecutor to investigate such records.

This is what I learn from our daily news reports, and I must admit I often spend 3-4 hours daily listening and reading to know what is going on in this area.

Ok, sooooooooo, that means if I ask for you and Gailon's bank records, I can have them just because I believe you are up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?  

Hey Danny_Defender,

Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!

[Wendall]

This is basic law that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their bank records from the Government. They have full acces to them if they so choose.  The logic behind that is the bank already knows what is in your records and so why should not the Government be able to acces the information to obtain the same information.The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the Government. Dealing with issues between private parties the fourth amendment is not implicated because there is not goverment action. If the private party action is between parties to the lawsuit and not a third party then perhaps rule 34, 35 of Federal Rules of Civil procedure are used=discovery etc. If the bank records are wanted from a non-party to the lawsuit then a subpoena duces tecum should be used.

[princessdi]

Ok Wendell, English, please.....LOL!!!  I completely understand about government....not so much about the private parties.

[Wendall]

Applying to the parties 3ABN, Pickle, Joy if there is information you believe is relevant to your case which the other party has you can through the discovery process obtain that information. Of course if that information is within the attorney-client privilege then most likely you cannot obtain it. So, if one of the parties to the lawsuit wants the bank records of another party to the lawsuit (by the way bank records and phone records are almost always discoverable and give the other party potentially all kinds of relevant information) then through certain rules they can obtain them.  Of course if the party wants to try to deny access to the bank reocrds then they can through the court file motions totry to prevent discovery of them.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

... 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.... And just why were the records ...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...

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Hmmmm...

Right to Financial Privacy Act

The Right to Financial Privacy Act (RTFPA) of 1978 became effective on March 10, 1979 (12 U.S.C. 3401). It was enacted because financial institution customers have a right to expect that their financial activities have a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The Act establishes specific procedures for government authorities which seek information from a financial institution about a customer's financial records and imposes limitations and duties on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies.

Prior to the Act, customers could not challenge government access to their financial records. Nor did the customer have any way of knowing that personal records were being turned over to a government authority. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), the Supreme Court held that financial records, because they are kept by the institution, are the property of the institution rather than the customer. As such, the customer had no protectable legal interest in
records kept by the financial institution, nor could he or she limit government access to those accounts. It was principally in response to this decision that the RTFPA was adopted.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The RTFPA generally requires that the customer must receive:
• A written notice of the agency's intent to obtain financial records,
• An explanation of the purpose for which the records are sought, and
• A statement describing procedures to use if the customer does not wish such records or
information to be made available.

Source: Examination Handbook Section 1345-1, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Office of Thrift Supervision, United States Department of Treasury, Approved – FFIEC

The courts will indeed rule on what has and has not been "clearly established".

Defender...

Thanks for the Administrative Procedures Act notice, but these are properly subpoenaed and produced documents under court order of the US District Court in Minnesota and you really do need a good course in discovery. Of course, I would argue you need a good course in a lot more than that, but we should not get too personal at this festive time of the year. But I am required to ask...did you fail civil litigation? It is quite frequently a second semester course.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Ok, sooooooooo, that means if I ask for you and Gailon's bank records, I can have them just because I believe you are up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?   

Hey Danny_Defender,

Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!

You can ask for anything you want...and we can politely decline... but if we are ever stupid enough to then sue you for defamation, you will then unconditionally have the right to subpoena those records under the Federal Rules of Evidence and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and despite every cry and hue and blocking tactic...yup, you will get them!!!!

Now, I wonder, would I ever be stupid enough to open that door? Particularly if I am "up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?"

People who live in glass houses should really avoid ...!!! I'll let you fill in the blanks.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

At this point I vote for all of the above.

Whoa, Mr. Pickle...I guess you are serious...do those latest Motions set the foundations?

G. Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[ex3abnemployee]

... 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.... And just why were the records ...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...

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Hmmmm...

Right to Financial Privacy Act

The Right to Financial Privacy Act (RTFPA) of 1978 became effective on March 10, 1979 (12 U.S.C. 3401). It was enacted because financial institution customers have a right to expect that their financial activities have a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The Act establishes specific procedures for government authorities which seek information from a financial institution about a customer's financial records and imposes limitations and duties on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies.

Prior to the Act, customers could not challenge government access to their financial records. Nor did the customer have any way of knowing that personal records were being turned over to a government authority. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), the Supreme Court held that financial records, because they are kept by the institution, are the property of the institution rather than the customer. As such, the customer had no protectable legal interest in
records kept by the financial institution, nor could he or she limit government access to those accounts. It was principally in response to this decision that the RTFPA was adopted.

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The RTFPA generally requires that the customer must receive:
• A written notice of the agency's intent to obtain financial records,
• An explanation of the purpose for which the records are sought, and
• A statement describing procedures to use if the customer does not wish such records or
information to be made available.

Source: Examination Handbook Section 1345-1, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Office of Thrift Supervision, United States Department of Treasury, Approved – FFIEC

The courts will indeed rule on what has and has not been "clearly established".

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?

[Cindy]

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...

You were/are wrong.
They were never part of the record, they were at most possible discovery materials which were never ordered disclosed to you, or filed in the case. 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


From Pacer - the court docket entry

01/29/2010       Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying 204  Motion to Forward Part of the Record by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.

[Cindy]

... 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.... And just why were the records ...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...

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Magistrate Judge Hillman who drafted the protection order and who Judge Saylor sent your "motion to compel" to for a ruling, quite obviously doesn't agree with you, Gailon.

From Pacer - the court docket entry:

01/29/2010       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. ..Entered: 01/29/2010)

[quaddie47]

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?