Print

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

[Cindy]

Excerpts:

Defendants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle (“Pickle and Joy”) assert that the
MidCountry Bank records — consisting of private financial records of Plaintiff Danny
Lee Shelton, founder of Plaintiff Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) —
will support their baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. In effect, they want to
continue gathering private information about the Plaintiffs more than a year after the suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs have contended throughout that the MidCountry records were never relevant. Now that the case is over but for Defendants’ appeal, even the Defendants cannot articulate a plausible or even coherent reason for this information.

The suit was dismissed without reference to the MidCountry records. The documents had been produced pursuant to a third-party subpoena issued out of the U.S.
District Court for Minnesota, which had ordered that they be delivered under seal to
Magistrate Judge Hillman. Before the bank records were reviewed for relevancy, Judge Saylor granted plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs moved that the MidCountry records be returned to them. Judge Saylor granted that motion as well. Defendants never sought reconsideration of that part of Judge Saylor’s order and did not seek to suspend its operation pending their appeal of the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hillman obeyed the order and returned the MidCountry records to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the documents were never part of the district court record.

On January 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hillman denied Pickle and Joy’s: (1)
motion to forward copies of the MidCountry Bank records to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals; and (2) motion to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the MidCountry Bank
records and to stay the pending appeals. Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.” Instead, they make thinly-veiled threats to this Court —reminding it that they have now filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Saylor and court administrative staff demanding an inquiry into why Danny Shelton’s own financial records were returned to him unopened.

This lawsuit was intended to put an end to Defendants’ baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ bombast was then directed at the counsel for Plaintiffs, and now has focused on the Court itself. Their objections to Judge Hillman’s decisions should be overruled because the rulings are not clearly erroneous.

"Pickle and Joy’s campaign of harassment has now focused on this Court. It began
with the allegations of wrongdoing against the plaintiffs that necessitated the initiation of this lawsuit. Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery.

Frustrated by delays they encountered as this Court considered what sort of protective order and limits on the scope of discovery would be appropriate, Defendants circumvented this Court and obtained subpoenas from sister courts in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere in the hope of finding something to prove the truth of their assertions, which Plaintiffs contended were baseless.

Magistrate Judge Hillman ultimately put a stop to that activity and ordered that all subpoenas on third parties be preapproved. (Docket # 106 at 5). The subpoena for the MidCountry Bank records at issue in this motion was issued from the U.S. District Court for Minnesota. (Docket #208, Ex. A at Ex. F). The records are the personal financial records of Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton. (Id.). Shelton resisted
the subpoena on the basis that the information sought was personal and was not relevant to the case. (Docket #208, Ex. B). The Minnesota judge ordered the records produced to Judge Hillman under seal. (Docket #208, Ex. C). The case was voluntarily dismissed before anybody ever had occasion to look at the records. (Docket #139). Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties.

Pickle and Joy have waged an internet campaign of harassing commentary about
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and went so far as to bring a baseless motion alleging a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which was properly denied. And now their venom is aimed at this Court. Pickle and Joy have made unfounded allegations of misconduct against Judge Saylor, forcing him to recuse himself. (Affidavit of Robert Pickle). These allegations of misconduct also are directed at court staff. (Id.). Not surprisingly, Judge Hillman also recused himself after ruling on the motions. (Electronic Order dated January 29, 2010). Although Pickle and Joy do not directly allege misconduct against Judge Hillman, they cannot resist stating that, “the extreme brevity of the January 29 orders . . . leads one to suspect that, rather than ruling on the motions, the magistrate judge should have also recused himself . . .” (Def. Brf. at 2-3). Thus, the thinly-veiled threats continue. The unfounded allegation that Judge Hillman’s decisions are suspect is no basis for finding his decisions clearly erroneous. In fact, this Court cannot overturn Judge Hillman’s decisions even if the district court would have exercised discretion differently. Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26. Pickle and Joy’s paranoia and suspicion is not a legal basis for finding Judge Hillman’s decisions clearly erroneous.


 Pickle and Joy continue to insist that the MidCountry Bank records are their personal “property” and their return to plaintiffs was unlawful. Yet their disagreement with Judge Hillman’s orders does not make these decisions clearly erroneous. After all, this Court has confirmed that matters of discretion are rarely, if ever, contrary to law.Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26 (stating that even if another magistrate judge would have chosen to exercise discretion in another way, this would not be “contrary to law”).

To be clear, the MidCountry Bank records are merely reproductions of Plaintiff Danny Shelton’s personal financial documents. Merely because Pickle and Joy paid MidCountry Bank’s expenses incurred to reproduce these records does not make these confidential documents their own personal property. Pickle and Joy did not “buy” Shelton’s bank records. They did not acquire an ownership interest in these documents independent of their evidentiary value. Their interest in these records does not outlive the litigation to which they relate.

In fact, the court never determined whether these documents were even relevant to thelitigation. Pickle and Joy were never authorized to view these documents. Thus, even if the district court was still in possession of these documents and if they were transmitted to the First Circuit on appeal, the First Circuit would have no use for them because the substantive information was never considered at the district court level.

Judge Hillman’s orders confirming his decision to return these confidential
documents to plaintiffs is in compliance with Judge Saylor’s order. 3ABN’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) contained a request to
order the “return to Plaintiffs” of all confidential information under the Confidentiality
and Protective Order issued on April 17, 2008, including “records of MidCountry Bank
which were delivered under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge
Hillman. . .” (Docket #120 at 1). When the Court granted this motion, it ordered that “all confidential documents be returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned . . . .” (Electronic Order dated 10/31/08; see also Docket #208, Ex. E at 13-15) (emphasis added). Finally, when the Court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration, it stated that, “to the extent that the materials [considered in the motion to file under seal] are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman on this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago.” (Docket #193 at 3) (emphasis added). Thus, there is nothing “clearly erroneous” about Judge Hillman’s orders, directly following Judge Saylor’s orders. Notably, Pickle and Joy did not seek reconsideration or request a stay of execution of this part of Judge Saylor’s order. Their sudden realization that the records had been returned to Plaintiff more than a year after the fact is disingenuous, given that they never voiced disagreement with the order when it
issued.

Finally, there will be no irreparable harm based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s storage
of Danny Shelton’s personal financial records. Plaintiff’s Counsel has stated under oath that the documents are in a sealed box and will be maintained until the conclusion of this litigation. (Docket #208 at ¶ 8). Pickle and Joy’s absurd suggestion that these documents contain the district court’s or its administrative staff’s “notes” on these exhibits is unfounded, and would not materially change the analysis and make these documents relevant anyway.

CONCLUSION
Because Pickle and Joy provide no legal argument that would render Magistrate
Judge Hillman’s January 29, 2010 orders clearly erroneous, their objections to these
decisions must be rejected. "

To read the legal arguments and the above excepts in context, see the attached document.

[Johann]

Who uses vocabulary like that in a legal document?

Excerpts:

Defendants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle (“Pickle and Joy”) assert that the
MidCountry Bank records — consisting of private financial records of Plaintiff Danny
Lee Shelton, founder of Plaintiff Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) —
will support their baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. In effect, they want to
continue gathering private information about the Plaintiffs more than a year after the suit was dismissed. Plaintiffs have contended throughout that the MidCountry records were never relevant. Now that the case is over but for Defendants’ appeal, even the Defendants cannot articulate a plausible or even coherent reason for this information.

The suit was dismissed without reference to the MidCountry records. The documents had been produced pursuant to a third-party subpoena issued out of the U.S.
District Court for Minnesota, which had ordered that they be delivered under seal to
Magistrate Judge Hillman. Before the bank records were reviewed for relevancy, Judge Saylor granted plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal. Plaintiffs moved that the MidCountry records be returned to them. Judge Saylor granted that motion as well. Defendants never sought reconsideration of that part of Judge Saylor’s order and did not seek to suspend its operation pending their appeal of the case to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Hillman obeyed the order and returned the MidCountry records to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Thus, the documents were never part of the district court record.

On January 29, 2010, Magistrate Judge Hillman denied Pickle and Joy’s: (1)
motion to forward copies of the MidCountry Bank records to the First Circuit Court of
Appeals; and (2) motion to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the MidCountry Bank
records and to stay the pending appeals. Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.” Instead, they make thinly-veiled threats to this Court —reminding it that they have now filed a judicial misconduct complaint against Judge Saylor and court administrative staff demanding an inquiry into why Danny Shelton’s own financial records were returned to him unopened.

This lawsuit was intended to put an end to Defendants’ baseless allegations against the Plaintiffs. Defendants’ bombast was then directed at the counsel for Plaintiffs, and now has focused on the Court itself. Their objections to Judge Hillman’s decisions should be overruled because the rulings are not clearly erroneous.

"Pickle and Joy’s campaign of harassment has now focused on this Court. It began
with the allegations of wrongdoing against the plaintiffs that necessitated the initiation of this lawsuit. Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery.

Frustrated by delays they encountered as this Court considered what sort of protective order and limits on the scope of discovery would be appropriate, Defendants circumvented this Court and obtained subpoenas from sister courts in Minnesota, Illinois, Michigan and elsewhere in the hope of finding something to prove the truth of their assertions, which Plaintiffs contended were baseless.

Magistrate Judge Hillman ultimately put a stop to that activity and ordered that all subpoenas on third parties be preapproved. (Docket # 106 at 5). The subpoena for the MidCountry Bank records at issue in this motion was issued from the U.S. District Court for Minnesota. (Docket #208, Ex. A at Ex. F). The records are the personal financial records of Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton. (Id.). Shelton resisted
the subpoena on the basis that the information sought was personal and was not relevant to the case. (Docket #208, Ex. B). The Minnesota judge ordered the records produced to Judge Hillman under seal. (Docket #208, Ex. C). The case was voluntarily dismissed before anybody ever had occasion to look at the records. (Docket #139). Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties.

Pickle and Joy have waged an internet campaign of harassing commentary about
Plaintiffs’ counsel, and went so far as to bring a baseless motion alleging a violation of Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, which was properly denied. And now their venom is aimed at this Court. Pickle and Joy have made unfounded allegations of misconduct against Judge Saylor, forcing him to recuse himself. (Affidavit of Robert Pickle). These allegations of misconduct also are directed at court staff. (Id.). Not surprisingly, Judge Hillman also recused himself after ruling on the motions. (Electronic Order dated January 29, 2010). Although Pickle and Joy do not directly allege misconduct against Judge Hillman, they cannot resist stating that, “the extreme brevity of the January 29 orders . . . leads one to suspect that, rather than ruling on the motions, the magistrate judge should have also recused himself . . .” (Def. Brf. at 2-3). Thus, the thinly-veiled threats continue. The unfounded allegation that Judge Hillman’s decisions are suspect is no basis for finding his decisions clearly erroneous. In fact, this Court cannot overturn Judge Hillman’s decisions even if the district court would have exercised discretion differently. Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26. Pickle and Joy’s paranoia and suspicion is not a legal basis for finding Judge Hillman’s decisions clearly erroneous.


 Pickle and Joy continue to insist that the MidCountry Bank records are their personal “property” and their return to plaintiffs was unlawful. Yet their disagreement with Judge Hillman’s orders does not make these decisions clearly erroneous. After all, this Court has confirmed that matters of discretion are rarely, if ever, contrary to law.Gioia, 853 F.Supp. at 26 (stating that even if another magistrate judge would have chosen to exercise discretion in another way, this would not be “contrary to law”).

To be clear, the MidCountry Bank records are merely reproductions of Plaintiff Danny Shelton’s personal financial documents. Merely because Pickle and Joy paid MidCountry Bank’s expenses incurred to reproduce these records does not make these confidential documents their own personal property. Pickle and Joy did not “buy” Shelton’s bank records. They did not acquire an ownership interest in these documents independent of their evidentiary value. Their interest in these records does not outlive the litigation to which they relate.

In fact, the court never determined whether these documents were even relevant to thelitigation. Pickle and Joy were never authorized to view these documents. Thus, even if the district court was still in possession of these documents and if they were transmitted to the First Circuit on appeal, the First Circuit would have no use for them because the substantive information was never considered at the district court level.

Judge Hillman’s orders confirming his decision to return these confidential
documents to plaintiffs is in compliance with Judge Saylor’s order. 3ABN’s motion to
voluntarily dismiss this lawsuit under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) contained a request to
order the “return to Plaintiffs” of all confidential information under the Confidentiality
and Protective Order issued on April 17, 2008, including “records of MidCountry Bank
which were delivered under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge
Hillman. . .” (Docket #120 at 1). When the Court granted this motion, it ordered that “all confidential documents be returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned . . . .” (Electronic Order dated 10/31/08; see also Docket #208, Ex. E at 13-15) (emphasis added). Finally, when the Court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration, it stated that, “to the extent that the materials [considered in the motion to file under seal] are subject to the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued by Magistrate Judge Hillman on this matter on April 17, 2008, they should have been returned to plaintiffs some time ago.” (Docket #193 at 3) (emphasis added). Thus, there is nothing “clearly erroneous” about Judge Hillman’s orders, directly following Judge Saylor’s orders. Notably, Pickle and Joy did not seek reconsideration or request a stay of execution of this part of Judge Saylor’s order. Their sudden realization that the records had been returned to Plaintiff more than a year after the fact is disingenuous, given that they never voiced disagreement with the order when it
issued.

Finally, there will be no irreparable harm based upon plaintiff’s counsel’s storage
of Danny Shelton’s personal financial records. Plaintiff’s Counsel has stated under oath that the documents are in a sealed box and will be maintained until the conclusion of this litigation. (Docket #208 at ¶ 8). Pickle and Joy’s absurd suggestion that these documents contain the district court’s or its administrative staff’s “notes” on these exhibits is unfounded, and would not materially change the analysis and make these documents relevant anyway.

CONCLUSION
Because Pickle and Joy provide no legal argument that would render Magistrate
Judge Hillman’s January 29, 2010 orders clearly erroneous, their objections to these
decisions must be rejected. "

To read the legal arguments and the above excepts in context, see the attached document.

[Bob Pickle]

I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.

"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"

Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.

[Cindy]

I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.

"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"

Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.

I am quite sure that is your opinion and how you see it, Bob, but the fact remains that you don't have a stellar track record here. Your opinions don't trump the knowledge of those with far more education and experience than yourself or Gailon Joy ( who is again remarkably silent). So far those who really are "conversant with the rules and statutes in question" (in regards to every motion and argument you have made for over a year now) have disagreed with you, and the courts who are well acquainted with the "rules and statutes in question" have denied every single one of your motions and arguments.

They will rule here also. So can we avoid arguing about this for now and just wait and see what those who read your objections and consider them in the light of the rules and statutes in question ( those who have to weigh the facts and arguments from both sides impartially and without bias in the framework of the law) decide before we discuss this further?

Thanks,
Cindy

[Artiste]

It appears that the Plaintiffs are putting forth great efforts to keep the bank records secret.

[Bob Pickle]

I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.

"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"

Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.

I am quite sure that is your opinion and how you see it, Bob, but the fact remains that you don't have a stellar track record here. Your opinions don't trump the knowledge of those with far more education and experience than yourself or Gailon Joy ( who is again remarkably silent). So far those who really are "conversant with the rules and statutes in question" (in regards to every motion and argument you have made for over a year now) have disagreed with you, and the courts who are well acquainted with the "rules and statutes in question" have denied every single one of your motions and arguments.

They will rule here also. So can we avoid arguing about this for now and just wait and see what those who read your objections and consider them in the light of the rules and statutes in question ( those who have to weigh the facts and arguments from both sides impartially and without bias in the framework of the law) decide before we discuss this further?

There's really no reason to wait, Cindy.

This is the United States of America, not Roman Catholic Medieval Europe. In the latter, if you didn't have certain letters after your name you had to keep quiet. But the Protestant Reformation changed all that. Perhaps you might remember where Great Controversy page 246 says, quoting William Tyndale's conversation with a learned doctor, "It was not long after that a learned Catholic doctor, engaging in controversy with him, exclaimed: 'We were better to be without God's laws than the pope's.' Tyndale replied: 'I defy the pope and all his laws; and if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scripture than you do.' "

Simpson cites a particular statute and a particular rule. Get those out and read them, and then see if it's really true that we made no legal argument that addresses the test of that statute and rule. I think I specifically did. If you disagree, then show me specifically where my words as filed do not address the test.

More than once now I've seen Simpson simply pontificate that such and such is true. I think he is hoping that the judge will take his mere assertion as fact, which is what he has to do since he doesn't have a leg to stand on, if he wants to be unethical from a Christian and Adventist standpoint.

Christian and Adventist principles demand that Simpson be 100% truthful in everything that he files. If he didn't want to be held to that high standard by God Himself in the day of judgment, he should never have taken the case.

"But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:36, 37).

Simpson is playing around with some pretty serious stuff, with eternal consequences.

[Artiste]

More than once now I've seen Simpson simply pontificate that such and such is true.

Lawyers...

[Johann]

More than once now I've seen Simpson simply pontificate that such and such is true.

Lawyers...

And once in a while we discover that some lawyers cross the utter line of decency and are refused the privilege of calling themselves lawyers any more.

[anyman]

I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.

"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"

Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.

Both are plainly clear. Any reversal of decision made by the District Judge, reviewing the Mag. Judge's decision, must be made under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A)
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary -
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

[Bob Pickle]

Both are plainly clear.

Yes, they are plainly clear that orders regarding pretrial, non-dispositive matters can only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

And thus, as your quotations make clear, Simpson was incorrect, from what i can tell at this point.

[princessdi]

As I hope everyone does.  Who wants their bank records publicized?  Do you, Artiste, put your own personal bank records on display?  Why would you all turn a thing like exercising security of personal records into a problem? it is what everyone does.

In fact, let's turn this around.  Bob and Gailon went to great lengths to acquire this man's records, in case they could find something there......I know on the old Perry Mason shows that was called a "fishing expidition" and was not allowed.  The thing is to have your evidence when you go into court, not to ask the court and the plaintiff to help you find it.

Johann, I did find the language lacking the usual legalese.  However, I can see why.  Apparently when the rulings were rendered in the usual fashion, there were issues with comprehension.  This way there is no mistaken what the court is ruling.  it is all outlined from start to finish.  They dont' get the bank records.  They belong to Danny, just as Bob's belong to him, Gailon's belong's to him and yours belong to you.  I don't get to invade your privacy just because I was able to find and pay somebody to let me look at them.  Especially if I don't even know what is in there.  If I don't know for sure that they hold the information I need.......no, no, no........That is enough guys.  This is getting to silly for words. 

It appears that the Plaintiffs are putting forth great efforts to keep the bank records secret.

[tinka]

All sounds great Di except for one simple thing! The pew money was not meant for Danny's personel pockets!!!

 Just can't understand the sympathizers and justifiers not understanding. Poor deceived people were just  ignorant weren't we! We thought we were helping to spread the word through the channel of volunteers so often referred to but to a few that got wind or visulized  s were eating up the hayyyyy. Therefore the wind brought on those unpleasant smells and deposits back to waste. 

As a contrubutor way back when.. I did not like buying the hay or was it fuel for the jets?? or was it for the vanity of hair transplants who knows except for one thing. 3abn is not what it was supposed to be and therefore the jets seemed to take the nosedive. All facts that cannot be denied.

Yes, public money needs to be accounted for in what ever bank account it went in. God knows where every penny came from and what it was intended for and then what it was used for. Danny needs to comply or prove to people in all honesty. Problem is...he won't.  Honesty would never have developed these horrendous differences.  Sooner or later as the piles stack up even the wind smells.

[Pat Williams]

All sounds great Di except for one simple thing! The pew money was not meant for Danny's personel pockets!!!

 Just can't understand the sympathizers and justifiers not understanding. Poor deceived people were just  ignorant weren't we! We thought we were helping to spread the word through the channel of volunteers so often referred to but to a few that got wind or visulized   s were eating up the hayyyyy. Therefore the wind brought on those unpleasant smells and deposits back to waste.  

As a contrubutor way back when.. I did not like buying the hay or was it fuel for the jets?? or was it for the vanity of hair transplants who knows except for one thing. 3abn is not what it was supposed to be and therefore the jets seemed to take the nosedive. All facts that cannot be denied.

Yes, public money needs to be accounted for in what ever bank account it went in. God knows where every penny came from and what it was intended for and then what it was used for. Danny needs to comply or prove to people in all honesty. Problem is...he won't.  Honesty would never have developed these horrendous differences.  Sooner or later as the piles stack up even the wind smells.

Tinka,

One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side." or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly".

You can keep writing your outraged nonsense but all it is, is you regurgitating that kool-aid.

Danny Shelton has been held accountable to those he needs to be accountable to. That should be enough for you.

He gets paid a paycheck like every other employee at 3abn. They have a board which oversees and gets reports. They have a financial department to handle the money and book keeping. They do audits, they hire outside auditors to come in and check all on a regular basis, they have to file financial reports in accordance with the law, file with the IRS, and if that is not accountable enough for you, then consider that all of the accusations against them were reported to the IRS and the IRS launched a investigation The IRS visited something like 11 people who made tremendous accusations against DS on the internet. Do you know what they found out? That not ONE of these accusers had any first hand knowledge about DS or 3ABN's finances or any proof of wrong doing! The IRS spent nearly a year and went through over 100,000 pages of documents and did not find one infraction by DS or 3ABN!  All of  the allegations were false. For some reason LS's little internet  group seemed to think that if enough people made accusations  against DS and 3ABN that somehow it would stand that they were  guilty. The IRS found the truth. Innocent of all charges! Not one  penny was paid or negotiated.

And Pickle and Joy have from day one not had proof of their accusations and and are still desparately trying to find some to justify all the things they have repeated and claimed, as was just quoted yesterday from the court:

"Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery... Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties. "

You should find out what's in that koolaid before you drink it, Tink. Your posts come across as blind hatred to those of us who know better than to believe the pack here.

3D

[Pat Williams]

I found three statements in Simpson's response, not all of which you quoted above, which destroy his and his Plaintiffs' case.

"Both the United States Code and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require the reviewing court to consider Judge Hillman’s decision under a “clearly erroneous” standard. Pickle and Joy make no legal argument as to why Judge Hillman’s discretionary decisions are “clearly erroneous.”"

Is that even true? I don't believe it is, on several grounds. And I can't see how anyone conversant with the rules and statutes in question who read our objections could think that the above is true.

Both are plainly clear. Any reversal of decision made by the District Judge, reviewing the Mag. Judge's decision, must be made under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A)
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary -
(A) a judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by the defendant, to suppress evidence in a criminal case, to dismiss or to permit maintenance of a class action, to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action. A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a)

Rule 72. Magistrate Judges: Pretrial Order
(a) NONDISPOSITIVE MATTERS. When a pretrial matter not dispositive of a party’s claim or defense is referred to a magistrate judge to hear and decide, the magistrate judge must promptly conduct the required proceedings and, when appropriate, issue a written order stating the decision. A party may serve and file objections to the order within 10 days after being served with a copy. A party may not assign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to. The district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.

Yes, they are plainly clear that orders regarding pretrial, non-dispositive matters can only be set aside if they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

And thus, as your quotations make clear, Simpson was incorrect, from what i can tell at this point.

NOT. Your "pretrial" argument was also addressed very clearly, Mr Pickle.

Pickle and Joy, however, “request” a “de novo” standard of review based upon their interpretation of the word “pretrial.” They make the tortured argument that not only were Judge Hillman’s rulings “posttrial,” but that Judge Hillman must have been given power to make these rulings as a special master under Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. (Def. Brf. at 1-2). However, First Circuit caselaw makes clear that “pre-trial” matters are defined as those “unconnected to issues litigated at trial and not defined with respect to the time of trial.” United States v. Flaherty, 668 F.2d 566, 586 (1st Cir. 1981). In other words, courts considering the term “pre-trial” in Section 636(b) have not interpreted the term literally with respect to the time of trial. Robinson v. Eng., 148 F.R.D. 635, 641 (D.Neb.1993). Rather, courts have long interpreted this term to refer generally to matters unconnected to issues litigated at trial, such as postjudgment sanctions, attorney fees, and awards of discovery expenses. Id. (citations omitted). The fact that a ruling takes place “following dismissal of the action is of little significance, and does not transform the motions from preliminary procedural matters into posttrial matters.” Id. Thus, magistrate judges have the power to decide postjudgment matters that occurred pre-trial. Id. at n. 13.

Here, Pickle and Joy’s requests concerning discovery documents were “pre-trial,” even though their requests were made postjudgment. The discovery issue concerning the MidCountry Bank records are unconnected to any issue that might ultimately have been litigated at a future trial. Thus, Magistrate Judge Hillman’s power to decide these matters was based in Section 636(b)(1)(1) and Rule 72(a). The district court’s review, therefore, must be made under the “clearly erroneous” standard.

[tinka]

All sounds great Di except for one simple thing! The pew money was not meant for Danny's personnel pockets!!!

 Just can't understand the sympathizers and justifiers not understanding. Poor deceived people were just  ignorant weren't we! We thought we were helping to spread the word through the channel of volunteers so often referred to but to a few that got wind or visualized   s were eating up the hayyyyy. Therefore the wind brought on those unpleasant smells and deposits back to waste.  

As a contributor way back when.. I did not like buying the hay or was it fuel for the jets?? or was it for the vanity of hair transplants who knows except for one thing. 3abn is not what it was supposed to be and therefore the jets seemed to take the nosedive. All facts that cannot be denied.

Yes, public money needs to be accounted for in what ever bank account it went in. God knows where every penny came from and what it was intended for and then what it was used for. Danny needs to comply or prove to people in all honesty. Problem is...he won't.  Honesty would never have developed these horrendous differences.  Sooner or later as the piles stack up even the wind smells.

Tinka,

One lasting legacy of the Jonestown tragedy is the saying, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.” This has come to mean, "Don’t trust any group you find to be a little on the kooky side." or "Whatever they tell you, don't believe it too strongly".

Bible says "trust no man" and therefore I don't! especially from grave experience dished out by the SDA so called brethren and by the worst of fraudulent political corruption to devise a way to take what one has thru the corrupt lawyers and courts. I drink no ones "kool aid" as anyone should tell by Your so called "outraged Nonsense" name calling.  Since Kool-aid has given the belief of "all is well" in government systems rulings is far from truth and ! You are in the Jonestown massacre number. It is very obvious that one of the worst states is Ill. in vast corruption.

You can keep writing your outraged nonsense but all it is, is you regurgitating that kool-aid.

Danny Shelton has been held accountable to those he needs to be accountable to. That should be enough for you.

No that is not enough for me because I trust no one but true facts because of the known corruption that is viewable. The ones he needs to be accountable to is the ones that gave the funds, not the ones who got it. Did the Kool-aid give you the belief that all is kosher is big business giving back to the IRS. Big business hides it how ever they can and, even in off shore accounts.


He gets paid a paycheck like every other employee at 3abn.   (I am sure he does, plus what ever extra he can get from the use of sales thru a non profit organization supposedly) They have a board which oversees and gets reports. (But, don't they get paid too, and from where? I was so assured that it was the great volunteer system that 3abn was able to spread and the funds went to that cause in total) They have a financial department to handle the money and book keeping.(laugh, I have seen how some financial departments of conferences handle the money) They do audits, (lets see, they do audits, then they hire outside auditors to come in) they hire outside auditors to come in and check all on a regular basis, they have to file financial reports in accordance with the law, file with the IRS, and if that is not accountable enough for you,  (but the auditors cannot process when proceeds all cannot be seen or found) then consider that all of the accusations against them were reported to the IRS and the IRS launched a investigation The IRS visited something like 11 people who made tremendous accusations against DS on the internet. Do you know what they found out? That not ONE of these accusers had any first hand knowledge about DS or 3ABN's finances or any proof of wrong doing!  Now that is not surprising coming from staff of IRS or employees. The IRS spent nearly a year and went through over 100,000 pages of documents and did not find one infraction by DS or 3ABN! It is kinda like going through McDonald's and getting a sandwich without the meat, it throws them for a loop. They just don't know what to do. I know the workings of IRS and their junk. The businesses, put all on paper for them not --them doing all the paper work for the business. That is all they can go by. DS is smart in these issues. All of  the allegations were false. (IRS does nothing other then what is on paper as they are not the courts to determine investigation of this magnitude and if they really did I would be amazed that they could do it in a year.) For some reason LS's little internet  group seemed to think that if enough people made accusations  against DS and 3ABN that somehow it would stand that they were  guilty.The IRS found the truth. Innocent of all charges! Not one  penny was paid or negotiated. Where did DS get the funds for lawyers? In my view this had nothing to do with LS accusations but the vivid view of extravaganza living and adultery on someones part. The evidence appears as it is the flamboyant one, the bragger, the Nebuchadnezzar of stories.

And Pickle and Joy have from day one not had proof of their accusations and and are still desperately trying to find some to justify all the things they have repeated and claimed, as was just quoted yesterday from the court:

"Pickle and Joy have long made uncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them. In their Answer to the Complaint, they generally asserted that they were republishing information from a source which they then refused to reveal, claiming journalistic privilege. (Docket # 9 at ¶ 50). With respect to Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants’ allegations of financial misconduct were false, Defendants asserted that they lacked information sufficient to respond and indicated an intention to obtain information supporting their allegations through discovery. (Id.) In other words, they took the position that they did not presently have unprivileged information to support these allegedly defamatory statements, but intended to find such evidence through discovery... Plaintiffs continue to contend that Defendants want these records for reasons unrelated to this litigation – they are simply snooping into Shelton’s personal life in order to find something with which to discredit him. Their contention that the records contain anything unflattering is pure conjecture because they have never seen them. Pickle and Joy contend that their currently unsupported allegations might be proven through these documents, which were filed under seal and never reviewed by the court or the parties. "  This proves what I say, as TS already admitted what the courts denied of any wrong doing and who are they but a bunch of "vipers" just like Jesus called them!! The preachers and the lawyers had the most responsibility of being correct !  Hmmmmm. What makes you think that leaning does not go where the hand that feeds them? and you think I drink the Kool-aid.  

You should find out what's in that koolaid before you drink it, Tink. Your posts come across as blind hatred to those of us who know better than to believe the pack here.

 I think it is down to where the mind is seared and the accusations of hatred coming from the blamers within your courts is where the problem lies. There is no hate here just disgust for your hidden agendas. Proof is in the controller of the funds and its use. Did you ever hear the saying "who controls the land (funds) control the people! (lawyers) Plain to see, no blinders here and a man that I find quite unusual to treat a young son step child in the manner that was and for some reason "take" to 2 little girls (step children) as discribded in different manner? ?  Just what was the difference? I find this quite unusual and unstable and disgusting.No different in most of the family of Shelton's.

3D