Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Attorney Greg Simpson, representing 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton, moved for sanctions against the Defendants. See Appellees’ Response to Defendants-Appellants’ Motion to File Under Seal and Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants-Appellants.

Here's a few quotes:

The rules of this Court do not authorize a supplemental brief relating specifically to exhibits filed under seal. See 1st Cir. R. 28.1 (requiring “a specific and timely motion” in order to have a brief sealed). Thus, there is no authority for the Appellants’ supplemental brief and it must be stricken.

Further, Appellants’ word count certificate for their primary brief indicates its length is 13,982 words -- 18 words shy of the limit. See 1st Cir. R. 32(7)(B) (limiting principal brief to 14,000 words). The supplemental brief, except for the first 18 words, puts Appellants over their limit. This provides an additional basis to reject the supplemental brief.

The First Circuit rule book gives 1st Cir. Local Rule 11(c)(3) as follows:

(3) Limiting Sealed Filings. Rather than automatically requesting the sealing of an entire brief, motion, or other filing, litigants should consider whether argument relating to sealed materials may be contained in separate supplemental brief, motion, or filing, which may then be sealed in accordance with the procedures in subsection (2).

The Defendants' brief stated on page 64:

This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) (7)(B) because this brief and the supplemental sealed brief contain a total of 13,982 words, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).

Could someone please explain to me what we did wrong?

[Artiste]

Could you please give a synopsis in plain English?

[princessdi]

Whew!! It's not just me... Usually I can understand it pretty well but this one got me.  LOL!!! 

[Bob Pickle]

Could you please give a synopsis in plain English?

His response and motion cover a number of points. The two I've quoted above are that the rules don't allow filing a sealed brief that cites sealed exhibits, and that our sealed supplemental brief put us over the 14,000 word limit.

However, Local Rule 11(c)(3) says to file a smaller supplemental brief if you need to cite sealed material, and our certificate of compliance made clear that the 13,982 word count was for both briefs. Thus the supplemental brief did not put us over the word limit.

Feel free to look his response and motion over to see if you don't understand something, and comment if you see something of interest.

[Johann]

I am not a lawyer, but to me this sounds like he is desparate.

[Artiste]

Did 3ABN tell the lawyer to try to sanction you somehow?

[Bob Pickle]

Don't know.

[Bob Pickle]

By the way, Simpson is referring to our sealed supplemental brief when he wants to see the court reject our "supplemental brief."

[childoftheking]

Are you allowed or did you file an immediate reply to his motion or must you wait for a ruling?

[Bob Pickle]

Before sanctions can be imposed, an opportunity must be given to be heard.

Our reply is here: http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-reply-for-motion-to-file-under-seal-12-31-10.pdf.

Our response and our own motion for sanctions are here: http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/1st-cir-09-2615-appellants-response-to-motion-for-sanctions-and-motion-for-sanctions-12-31-10.pdf.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Did 3ABN tell the lawyer to try to sanction you somehow?

Simpson had warned in advance that he would oppose the Motion and that he would file a request for Sanctions.

It is a common legal tactic to intimidate and prevent the motion from being filed. And he has repeatedly threatened the maneuver, sometimes trying and sometimes passing. We were pretty firm in our response and I beleive he felt he had to TRY yet again...but then, he is clearly not an extensively experienced Appellate Attorney by curriculum vitae but can hardly pass up the billable hours opportunity in this economy.

Assuming 3ABN continues to retain him in the future, although if any insurer steps forward to indemnify, it is unlikely to be 3ABN's decision, Mr Simpson will be billing thousands of hours to defend the claims coming at 3ABN, now and in the future.

You will see many more Motions for Sanctions, so get use to it and it is at best a non-event.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter     

[Bob Pickle]

Another quote from Appellees’ Response to Defendants-Appellants’ Motion to File Under Seal and Motion for Sanctions Against Defendants-Appellants:

The sealed exhibits that Appellees want to file include (1) exhibits that were expressly rejected for filing by the district court and are therefore not part of the district court record; and (2) an affidavit by Robert Pickle that was expressly rejected by this Court’s order dated December 4, 2009 in the prior appeal of this case.

These documents are not properly part of the appellate court record because they were not first made part of the district court record. See Fed. R. App. P. 10(a). Appellants may be acting pro se, but they have previously been educated by this Court that such documents “are not properly considered as part of the record in this appeal.” (See Order dated Dec. 4, 2009).

And:

In its order entered December 4, 2009, this Court told the Appellants that the record on appeal would be limited to documents that had been submitted to the district court before the appeal was filed. Appellants understood this basic tenet of appellate practice, as evidenced by the fact that they brought a motion to enlarge the record in their first appeal.

Now, however, they have attempted to circumvent Judge Saylor and this Court by filing documents that unless rejected, will enlarge the record on appeal. There is no possibility that Appellants failed to understand that what they were doing was improper. They were told not to file these documents first by Judge Saylor, then by this Court, and finally, repeatedly, by the undersigned. (See email exchanges attached to Affidavit of Robert Pickle [dated 12/3/2010] at Ex. A).

Now read what the First Circuit ruled on Dec. 4, 2009, and see if it matches what Simpson said:

ORDER entered by Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge: Appellants move to enlarge the record in this appeal (Appeal No. 08-2457) to include certain documents. As those documents were submitted to the district court after the filing of the notice of appeal, they are not properly considered as part of the record in this appeal and, accordingly, the motion to enlarge the record on appeal is denied.

We note that, in any event, appellants filed a subsequent notice of appeal from the district court's refusal to accept the proffered documents. This new appeal has been docketed in this court as Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Joy, No. 09-2615, and the documents in question are part of the record on appeal in this subsequent appeal. To the extent that appellants intend to argue that the district court erred in refusing to accept the documents in question, that issue may be raised in Appeal No. 09-2615.

What do you think?

We asked the court in the first appeal to include the Remnant and Westphal documents in with the record on appeal. That request was denied, but the court then added that those documents were already part of the record of appeal in the second appeal.

Correct?

[tinka]

Hmmm, Corruption in the system--not hard to understand how and why. Good luck.
 
That is why we put all  our documents on web site for how ever long it takes to show how a system can work with the fingers of corruptions reaching into every aspect of taking where ever the money grows or land assets.  In this case SDA donors.  It's been a couple of years now and our web site has been all over the world. Some downloading all documents that sometimes take up to 21 hours at times. Amazing. At voting time you should have saw all the hits.

It seems that 3abn attorneys have these tatics. Wear them out and out spend them till they can resume their evil "extravaganza lifestyle" and get away with what they have done. Sure hope Bob and Gailon can withstand this. This is how it happened to us. Also the Political National organizational backing of corruption that hopefully will get shutdown with any change or help coming from "teaparty" as we have heard direct comments of this sort of thing coming from them. But then many will suffer oppression in end times such as we have had. Just hate that this is within the SDA people. But where else can the devil strike that is better.

[Bob Pickle]

Tinka, I see no corruption in the system in the above quotes.

The court's order said that the Remnant and Westphal documents were part of the record on appeal for our second appeal, and Simpson asserted that the court's order said they were not part of the record on appeal for the second appeal.

Who is right? Simpson or the court?

[Adam]

Tinka, I see no corruption in the system in the above quotes.

The court's order said that the Remnant and Westphal documents were part of the record on appeal for our second appeal, and Simpson asserted that the court's order said they were not part of the record on appeal for the second appeal.

Who is right? Simpson or the court?

Who else Bob? Of course the almighty Simpson is right.