Print

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

[Johann]

As I hope everyone does.  Who wants their bank records publicized?   

I suppose this is true, and it used to be that way until our banks collapsed. Now we see disclosure of the bank records of "wealthy" people in the media. We see it every day. It is by popular demand because people want to know who caused the bankruptcy.

Since it has happened here I'd suppose this could happen elsewhere. Now international pressure is leveled at former banking/tax havens to disclose the banking accounts of individuals. Just a few minutes ago I read that the female president of a university had withdrawn a huge amount only 15 minutes before a certain bank had to close. She had to quit her job as president.

[Johann]

Some of our banks have been forced to reveal what they had refused to do because they claimed it was bank secrets. There comes a day of reckoning, sooner or later.

[princessdi]

Problem, is Bob and Gailon want Danny and the courts to hand over his personal banks statements in order to TRY and find something wrong.  They don't even know that there is anything wrong.  Courts don't support "fishing expiditions".   They should have had that evidence once they made the accusation,  NOT expect the courts and plaintiff to help them make their case.  That doesn't work.  It is what this judge said, this time, in plain English.  He is not wrong they are.

I suppose this is true, and it used to be that way until our banks collapsed. Now we see disclosure of the bank records of "wealthy" people in the media. We see it every day. It is by popular demand because people want to know who caused the bankruptcy.

Since it has happened here I'd suppose this could happen elsewhere. Now international pressure is leveled at former banking/tax havens to disclose the banking accounts of individuals. Just a few minutes ago I read that the female president of a university had withdrawn a huge amount only 15 minutes before a certain bank had to close. She had to quit her job as president.

[Artiste]

They don't even know that there is anything wrong. 

How do you know that for a fact, PD.  Have you thoroughly researched it?

[tinka]

Simple Di, the IRS facts do not match the sales facts and how the sales came about through non-profit organization.

[princessdi]

Artiste, I surmised that because, according to the court papers, they had no specific information to submit to the court other than they supected there were kick backs, etc.  They would have to do better than that.  Submit, times, dates, etc. to the court to constititute reviewing those bank records.  "Judge, if you let us look in the records, I am sure we can find evidence of fraud" just doesn't work.  THEN once the law suit was dismissed, there was no point for them to try and find evidence of fraud, kick backs, or anything else.  Case is dismissed, the court is no longer interested in Bob and Gailon trying to defend themselves by proving Danny and 3ABN engaged in illegal activities with donor funds.

Tinka, the IRS did a complete audit of Danny's and 3ABN records and missed something that simple? If they were going to check anything, it would be exactly that trail, that they sales matched up all the way through, precisely because they are a no profit.  they would be calling that fraud, etc.  They don't take to kindlly to folks using non profit to hide profits........consititutes jail time in some cases.

[Artiste]

prindessdi, you might be surprised with what could be revealed with time...

[tinka]

IRS can only audit what they see. Point is that what they see is not what is factual in funds received.  I think some jail time would be great!

[Bob Pickle]

Di, you are mistaken about a number of points, perhaps because you are taking Simpson too seriously.

They belong to Danny, just as Bob's belong to him, Gailon's belong's to him and yours belong to you.

That's not true and never has been. The U.S. Supreme Court many years ago made it clear that bank records are the property of the bank, not the account holder.

Who wants their bank records publicized?  Do you, Artiste, put your own personal bank records on display?

Anyone who sues someone over something that has to do with bank records has already decided to put their bank records on display.

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.

Not so at all. In journalism you need two sources before you run a story. But two sources doesn't cut it in court.

What they did was accuse us of defamation per se, which rolled the burden of proof on us. So rather than they having to prove that what we said was false as in a normal defamation case, we had to prove that what we said was true. So of course we needed more evidence in court than what we already had, and that's why there's such a thing as discovery.

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.

But you forget, we do know what's in there, to some extent. We have the Remnant documents, right? So we know how much Danny got paid in kickbacks and royalties from Remnant. And we know how much Danny reported on his financial affidavit he had in two bank accounts. So there is quite a bit that we do know about the bank records.

[Bob Pickle]

Submit, times, dates, etc. to the court to constititute reviewing those bank records.  "Judge, if you let us look in the records, I am sure we can find evidence of fraud" just doesn't work.

You forget two things: 1) The lawsuit in some of the financial allegations includes no times or dates. It's open ended. 2) The magistrates in MN and in MA did not require us to do what you suggest.

THEN once the law suit was dismissed, there was no point for them to try and find evidence of fraud, kick backs, or anything else.

You forget three things: 1) There is no legal barrier to their suing us again over the very same things. 2) They still have to deal with abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims which require discovery of the bank statements. 3) They didn't reimburse us for the bank statements. 4) Without the bank statements, we would have a harder time prevailing against an anti-SLAPP motion. 5) Your point is irrelevant: There was nothing in the confidentiality order requiring us to surrender our discovery at the end of the case.

[Bob Pickle]

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. ..."

Think long and hard about the above words. Think long and hard.

What do you think, Danny_Defender, about Danny hiring such an attorney? Should Danny's local church hold him accountable for continuing to retain Simpson if Simpson is lying in court?

Note: Simpson said that our allegations regarding Danny covering up the child molestation allegations was uncorroborated and unfounded.

How many statements by alleged victims or their family members do we have to publish before Simpson will agree that  the allegations against Tommy are well founded and corroborated?

As far as Danny covering them up, when Walt Thompson says that Danny said that the allegations are 30 years old, when Danny knew that there were more recent allegations, how is that unfounded?

And when Danny left a recording at the Ezra Church of God, acknowledging that something had indeed happened, but trying to shut Dryden up, how is what Walt Thompson said uncorroborated?

[Bob Pickle]

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).

First off, we made it clear in our objections that Hillman was not appointed as a special master. Perhaps Simpson should have read more carefully. or perhaps he did.

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.

Even if Hillman's authority derived from § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a), Simpson is wrong. The "standard" are clearly erroneous for factual findings and contrary to law for rulings of law. There are no factual findings in the orders to apply the clearly erroneous standard to.

[Bob Pickle]

Artiste, I surmised that because, according to the court papers, they had no specific information to submit to the court other than they supected there were kick backs, etc.

We've proven that there were kickbacks quite some time ago. Any payments by Remnant to Danny for the sale of his PPPA booklets were kickbacks, and while were forbidden to say that the Remnant documents show that there really were such payments, Simpson already filed papers in court acknowledging that there were such payments.

So on Simpson's own word, there were kickbacks.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"In fact, the court never determined whether these documents were even relevant to the litigation. 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." Cindy

You are excellent at distorting the record and re-writing history. A court in Simpson's own state of Minnesotta clearly saw the basis for the subpoena and the relevance of the documents. The defense fund spent $3500 to recover these prima facia proof of financial mis-appropriation and clearly false statements in the Divorce case. Shortly after the production of the bank statements to Hillman, Hillman himself paved the way for the turn-over of the bank statements to the Defendants. However, somehow the bank statements mysteriously went missing despite our multiple requests. We had no way to determine why these documents were mis-appropriated and had every right in the world to demand an investigation to determine why they mysteriously went missing in a US District Court clerk's office. And the mystery took on a new color when the clerk turned over the "missing" documents to Plaintiff's Mass Counsel, Atty Pucci, in direct violation of Judge Hillman's own confidentiality order. Suddenly, the clerk's office had no answers and the the Plaintiff claimed they were Plaintiff's property, in direct controversy with the supreme court and the confidentiality order. Further, the plaintiff's expropriated these documents without re-imbursing the defense fund...and if you recall Saylor had conveniently disallowed costs to the defendants. That is "expropriation" by any definition and certainly justified a complaint and investigation.

We had known about the connection between Pucci and Saylor from the beginning...why do you think they selected a lawyer to sponsor their pro hac vici appearances from the furthest corner of the Commonwealth, a ninety minute drive on a good day, when Worcester is full of well established trial lawyers and former prosecutors? Frankly it did not prove to be a serious issue until Saylor clearly chose to protect the Plaintiff's lawfirms from prosecution in his dismissal hearing. And then Saylor refused to hear a clear Rule 11 Violation by Simpson, then refused to reimburse the Defendants for their costs...all actions clearly protecting counsel, the brother-hood of the BAR.

No member of the judiciary is required to recuse himself from a case, even when an investigation is under way. They both suddenly recused, one with a public comment and the other without comment, after he ruled on a Dispositive Motion!!! (and without comment or memorandum).

So, you are left to your own conclusion, but this much I do know...those records were produced to us by order of the court, and paid for by the defense fund... the Plaintiff has them without re-imbursement. If you see a good legal basis for this, I challenge you to demonstrate from the compendium of caselaw, statutes and rules of these United States the foundation for your thought process.  And don't forget to include an index with the supporting caselaw, rules and statutes upon which you rely. I still stand by the term expropriation!!!

For the record, I think we have made it pretty clear, this case is not finished, we have appealed and there will be a part two!!!

All the documents will indeed have relevance to any trial on the merits and we will be back for more. Just because a Magistrate orders all parties to pass all subpoena's before him or her for review, prior to issuing the same, would hardly be a deterrent to any of the subpoena issued. In fact, each request had already been reviewed by a magistrate and we won an order on every one based upon RELEVANCE!!!! You are left without a factual argument!!!

And if DAnny Lee Shelton wanted to preserve what little right to privacy he deserves...he should not have sued me!!! C'est la vie!!!

Better yet, I wouldn't have even noticed, IF HE HAD NOT DIVORCED HIS WIFE!!!!

What goes ariound, comes around...we have not come around quite yet!!!

As Yogi is famous for: It ain't over til it's over!!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[tinka]

All this type of corruption is so familiar as in our case but the fact is in ours even case law was overturned. Just glad there is some left standing to stand up to this one!