Print

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

[Cindy]

The Attorney in the Massachusetts case further called on the court "through its inherent power to regulate the conduct of abusive litigants to enjoin defendants from filing any further motions to enlarge the post-judgment record."

The latest filing says in part:
"This is the fourth time that Defendants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle have
attempted to add the “Remnant documents” to the record after this case was dismissed...."
and points out how they should properly seek relief:
'The proper method for review of whether the Remnant documents should have been
added to the district court record is the current appeal."

More:

"This Court should prohibit Pickle and Joy from docketing any future motions in
this case without this Court’s permission. This Court should protect against future
redundant and frivolous motions that are intended to harass and to increase the cost of
this litigation. Pickle and Joy should be prohibited from future abuse of the litigation
process while this case is on appeal." and concluded:

"Pickle and Joy’s motion to file under seal should be rejected based on the fact that
it is unauthorized under the federal rules. There is no legal basis to add to the district
court record while the case is on appeal. Pickle and Joy’s motion represents their latest
attempt to add to this costly litigation after it was dismissed. Thus, this Court should
prohibit Pickle and Joy from docketing any future motions in this case without this
Court’s permission."

To read all, see the attached document...

[GRAT]

So what did you expect the attorney to say?   Whose side is he "attorneying" for?   

[Cindy]

So what did you expect the attorney to say?   Whose side is he "attorneying" for?  

I'm sorry but I fail to see what you find so funny or how you can form opinions without being informed.  Did you even bother read your side's motion and take the time to understand the issue and what they argued? because it's quite obvious you didn't read the document filed in reply to it as I just uploaded it and posted it, and the only view so far is my own..

[Bob Pickle]

Seems to me that Local Rule 7.2 allows for motions to file under seal, does it not? The case Simpson cited, the Greenier case, concerned a pro se litigant who was filing such things as "motion to object." Ever heard of such a motion? I have not. It's not in the rules.

But a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal is in the rules.

So how do we get permission before filing any other motions? Would it not be by filing a motion for leave to file a motion? And would we not be permitted to file a memorandum and affidavit (with exhibits) in support of such a motion seeking leave?

So what Simpson appears to be suggesting is that we be ordered to file a) a motion seeking leave whenever we want to file b) a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal, simply because 3ABN and Danny Shelton designated the Remnant documents to be confidential. Would Simpson be happier if we were instead ordered to file a) a motion seeking leave whenever we want to file b) a motion seeking leave to file c) a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal?

If 3ABN and Danny hadn't have designated the documents as confidential, or if the District of Massachusetts allowed us to file documents under seal without first obtaining permission, then we wouldn't have had to file the motion in question.

We have a constitutional question here which the U.S. Supreme Court may have an interest in. We contend that Local Rule 7.2 may be unconstitutional because it is being used by the plaintiffs to infringe on our due process rights by preventing us from filing documents which are relevant to issues at bar. Local Rule 7.2 as it currently is written does not seem to have any procedure built in which alleviates this potential constitutional problem.

It is not in 3ABN's best interest for this case to go up the ladder. So it would be a good idea for 3ABN to capitulate on this one. They could have Simpson contact me about it if they wanted to.

[Cindy]

But a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal is in the rules.

But it is not in the rules that you can keep filing motions " seeking leave to file a document [the same one] under seal"  over and over in the district court after your previous ones were denied by the courts, repeatedly...

We have a constitutional question here which the U.S. Supreme Court may have an interest in. We contend that Local Rule 7.2 may be unconstitutional because it is being used by the plaintiffs to infringe on our due process rights by preventing us from filing documents which are relevant to issues at bar. Local Rule 7.2 as it currently is written does not seem to have any procedure built in which alleviates this potential constitutional problem.

The Atty was not hindering you, he was actually helping you when he said the following, Bob:
 "'The proper method for review of whether the Remnant documents should have been added to the district court record is the current appeal."

[anyman]

Seems to me that Local Rule 7.2 allows for motions to file under seal, does it not? The case Simpson cited, the Greenier case, concerned a pro se litigant who was filing such things as "motion to object." Ever heard of such a motion? I have not. It's not in the rules.

But a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal is in the rules.

So how do we get permission before filing any other motions? Would it not be by filing a motion for leave to file a motion? And would we not be permitted to file a memorandum and affidavit (with exhibits) in support of such a motion seeking leave?

So what Simpson appears to be suggesting is that we be ordered to file a) a motion seeking leave whenever we want to file b) a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal, simply because 3ABN and Danny Shelton designated the Remnant documents to be confidential. Would Simpson be happier if we were instead ordered to file a) a motion seeking leave whenever we want to file b) a motion seeking leave to file c) a motion seeking leave to file a document under seal?

If 3ABN and Danny hadn't have designated the documents as confidential, or if the District of Massachusetts allowed us to file documents under seal without first obtaining permission, then we wouldn't have had to file the motion in question.

We have a constitutional question here which the U.S. Supreme Court may have an interest in. We contend that Local Rule 7.2 may be unconstitutional because it is being used by the plaintiffs to infringe on our due process rights by preventing us from filing documents which are relevant to issues at bar. Local Rule 7.2 as it currently is written does not seem to have any procedure built in which alleviates this potential constitutional problem.

It is not in 3ABN's best interest for this case to go up the ladder. So it would be a good idea for 3ABN to capitulate on this one. They could have Simpson contact me about it if they wanted to.

More than this instance, it has appeared that you don't understand the legal ladder. When you lose the appeals case and file cert, if you focus on LR 7.2 and argue it as unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will not allow you to wander off into your unsubstantiated allegations about anything else. You will be expected, and the Justices WILL hold you to it, focus solely on the question of LR 7.2. You will not be allowed to discuss anything else because appeals courts, which both the appeals and supreme level are, focus on deciding questions of law. They don't hear evidence, there is no examination of witnesses, and quite frankly, oral arguments are rarely a place where plaintiff or defendant get much time to "make a point." You would get about 30 seconds into your argument before the Justices would begin to pepper you with questions attempting to break through the nonsense and get to the core issue. The Justices don't sit back patiently and wait for you to finish. But, it won't get that far because your cert will most certainly be denied.

There are no constitutional issues underlying this case. You and GAJ have attempted to surreptitiously insert them into it in an attempt to create a perception that you are some poor little guy whose rights are being violated. The courts haven't agreed with you to this point - it's a safe guess they won't again. If you're planning, and we all have no doubt you are as it will keep your paycheck coming in, you better focus your efforts on after you are ruled against in the appeals court and denied cert by the Supreme Court.

[Johann]

So what did you expect the attorney to say?   Whose side is he "attorneying" for?   

This was very close to what I thought when I read that post.

[Bob Pickle]

The courts haven't agreed with you to this point ....

Simpson made that bogus claim too. But there are a lot of issues courts did agree with us on throughout the case, starting with the lifting of the case's impoundment and the form of electronic discovery.

[Nosir Myzing]

The courts haven't agreed with you to this point ....

Simpson made that bogus claim too. But there are a lot of issues courts did agree with us on throughout the case, starting with the lifting of the case's impoundment and the form of electronic discovery.

That really has nothing to do with the quote you are replying to or what was being spoken of, Mr Pickle.

There are no constitutional issues underlying this case. You and GAJ have attempted to surreptitiously insert them into it in an attempt to create a perception that you are some poor little guy whose rights are being violated. The courts haven't agreed with you to this point - it's a safe guess they won't again.

[Nosir Myzing]

So what did you expect the attorney to say?   Whose side is he "attorneying" for?  

This was very close to what I thought when I read that post.

Interesting. Did you read ian's reply to Grat, Johann?

I'm sorry but I fail to see what you find so funny or how you can form opinions without being informed.  Did you even bother read your side's motion and take the time to understand the issue and what they argued? because it's quite obvious you didn't read the document filed in reply to it as I just uploaded it and posted it, and the only view so far is my own..

It is always amazing and appalling to me how many here keep replying and reacting without even knowing what it is they are arguing against or for, or reacting to...

When I clicked on this topic it showed 24 views yet only 5 (myself included) have bothered to even look at the document the topic refers to.

Were you one of those five , Johann?

[Artiste]

So what did you expect the attorney to say?   Whose side is he "attorneying" for?   

This was very close to what I thought when I read that post.

I thought the same, Johann.

[Cindy]

So what did you expect the attorney to say?   Whose side is he "attorneying" for?  

This was very close to what I thought when I read that post.

I thought the same, Johann.

Really, Artiste? You expected the Attorney to say the following, and find it funny?

This is the fourth time that Defendants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle have
attempted to add the “Remnant documents” to the record after this case was dismissed.
The Remnant documents were never part of the substantive district court record because
the district court never reviewed their contents when deciding to dismiss this case. As
such, they are not properly part of the appellate record. This Court first denied their
attempt to add these documents after dismissing the case in conjunction with their motion
for costs. This Court then denied defendants’ motion to reconsider adding these
documents to the post-judgment record. After Pickle and Joy appealed this order denying
reconsideration, they attempted to add the same documents into the appellate record in
the First Circuit. The First Circuit denied this attempt to end-run the appellate process
The proper method for review of whether the Remnant documents should have been
added to the district court record is the current appeal.

Now, incredibly, defendants again attempt to add the Remnant documents into the
post-judgment record as an alleged response to plaintiffs’ response to defendants’
objections to Magistrate Judge Hillman’s order. This attempt to add additional
documents to the post-judgment record is so far removed from any procedurally proper
method of litigation that it can only be characterized as frivolous and an additional
attempt to increase the cost of litigation and waste judicial resources. After defendants
have accused Judge Saylor and Court staff of improper conduct, perhaps now defendants
assume that any newly assigned judge or magistrate will quickly acquiesce to their
repeated demands or face ethical inquiry. Yet the fact remains: defendants’ fourth
request to add the Remnant documents is procedurally unauthorized, redundant, and
frivolous. This is an additional example of Pickle and Joy’s unending and ironic efforts
to continue costly litigation against themselves despite plaintiffs’ efforts to end it. This
court should not consider defendants’ request. Further, this Court should — through its
inherent power to regulate the conduct of abusive litigants — enjoin defendants from
filing any further motions to enlarge the post-judgment record.

[tinka]

Ian,
This is the kind of attorney talk I was referring too. So what will the final outcome on this be? No one Knows! But Satan will give it his all for the corruption to continue and divert the Christians money.

All our documents an filings had all this Lawyer talk in it too but it different topics with different lies. Their biggest fight was not to let the evidence be on record or shown and they won. Therefore I put all documents of truth on a web site too. Attorney's are trained to do this. They are educated to win with their ways and means without the truth in sight.  It's all the same game.

It's who ever has the most money and can do the most persuasion. and the SDA public are providing DS the money. If your not an attorney why do you believe them and fight with them. This is how they operate and that is why I said "it implicates you". How ever the truth falls, and who ever is most guilty you are "implicated" one way or the other when you take sides with attorney's. And believe it or not you have shown their colors in these posts.

 I have looked at P & J not educated in lawyer tactics but smart enough to understand the law and stand up to the corruption of off shoots of the SDA church using to syphone money from SDA's when the church does not stand up it's self and still mingles with the likes of it. I do not know either of them or who they are except for the info on these posts. So I look at this as an outsider. On the other hand if you know them then your accusations should be proven.  I have seen them attacked in their personal lives but that has nothing to do with their work of stopping this corruption for the church or unknowing donators. 

You see the documents I posted for our website are all true and for 3 years not one peep of anything the other side can do about or say or deny it with the proof and it travels the world in truth everyday. We would love for them to sue for any misgivings, but they won't and can't because then we could prove......It is no different here in 3abn. If DS was innocent there would be none of this. But somehow the "lifestyle" was exposed and no doubt about it. It is all based on the promise that your sins "will find you out".  They are still going for the "money" and the charge of being the "TV personality" they love.

[Mary Sue Smith]

tinka, just because you say you went through something (which I don't believe because you have provided no website link to prove what you say you went through) in the court system doesn't mean what the Shelton's/3ABN are going through is the same thing you "say" you went through or that all lawyers are corrupt.  You seem to have a one-track mind and think because you were supposedly fleeced by lawyers, that 3ABN lawyers are doing the same thing.

In time you will find out you were completely mislead.

[tinka]

No, I have not displayed our web site on here but to certain ones I trusted that if they would vouch for us having a web site.

No our case was not the same but the tactics were if you read it more clear. I really don't care if you believe or not. You really do not need to know who I am, nor what we went through which now provides a clear shot of the political system and how it works big time for us with no doubt. We were a target for what we owned, worked and lost because of its value. They could not win by intimidating but they won with corruption. Some of the worst corrupt people involved came right out of the State of Ill orginally and moved into our area. The Attorney that wrote most of the lies even signed an affidavit stating the lies were true. (laugh) we have the proof. IF we could have presented to the court he would lose his licence. He felt assured with the backing he had politically. We were accidently given some codes by mistake and found in State records where top officials covered up. So be it. It is in God's record.  so don't trust no man of which I see going on here.

People are gullible, thinking the system is true blue. Auditors, IRS, EPA, Acorn, greenies, Private property takers, and corrupt parties of both sides of the gov of America. It's here, its, time and more is coming as we are not the only ones this has happened to and people like you that lean to actual happening and then hiding it. You are more then welcome to email the documents of truth. But I doubt I will hear anything from anyone. and besides that I am only one person and what I say means nothing. It is just an eye view different from yours of what I see with patterns of evil mingled with in. Show me something substantial as my comments are to draw out truth in case you think I'm pretty abrupt and cannot tolerate when I hit the nerves. But so far all I see on here is quotes on what attorneys say and the sympathizers agreeing with them. Nothing else is presented but denials.