Print

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

[ERIK]

Forum,

Any news on the new subpoena.

Looks like Three times is the charm for the lawyer.

Erik

[Bob Pickle]

Nebraska Local Civil Rules state that adverse parties have 5 business days to object to a subpoena that will be issued and served upon a non-party, after receiving 10-business-day notice of its being about to be issued. Accordingly, I objected, serving my objections last Monday, which was within the required 5-business-day notice.

See Rule 45.1(a) and (b) at http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/localrules/NECivR07-1029.pdf

According to 45.1(b), these objections have to be resolved before the subpoena can be issued. A hearing can be held for unresolved objections.

Thus far I have not received any contacts from the other side that could be interpreted to be attempts to resolve the objections I raised.

[Snoopy]

What about the BlueHost subpoena?

[Daryl Fawcett]

Bluehost obviously prefers to comply rather than to spend any $$$s in challenging it.

[Bob Pickle]

We've asked plaintiffs' counsel to send the info back to BlueHost. Want to venture a guess whether they are interested in considering such a course?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Nebraska Local Civil Rules state that adverse parties have 5 business days to object to a subpoena that will be issued and served upon a non-party, after receiving 10-business-day notice of its being about to be issued. Accordingly, I objected, serving my objections last Monday, which was within the required 5-business-day notice.

See Rule 45.1(a) and (b) at http://www.ned.uscourts.gov/localrules/NECivR07-1029.pdf

According to 45.1(b), these objections have to be resolved before the subpoena can be issued. A hearing can be held for unresolved objections.

Thus far I have not received any contacts from the other side that could be interpreted to be attempts to resolve the objections I raised.

Calvin Eakin's counsel has made it clear they intend to challenge any properly noticed and served subpoena upon BlackSDA for improperly requested information.

It is noteworthy that we have now received thousands of pages of information pursuant to FRCP Rule 26 (better late than never, I suppose) from the Plaintiffs and the VAST, VAST majority was regurgitation of Forum and various SDA news entity information, including BlackSDA forum threads. But, it also included information from AToday, Spectrum, et al. We are still reviewing it for any real significance, but largely focused on the people of the SDA Church exercising their First Amendment Rights to freely express themselves.

It is clear the proponents of this lawsuite have the purest contempt for the First Amendment to the US COnstitution. It is also clear that those proponents, whether it be Danny Lee Shelton, the Officers and Directors of 3ABN or Garwin McNeilus need to learn to respect the rights conferred by that constitution and must be met head on with the same force that Mrs White called upon the church to meet John Harvey Kellogg, et al in the first and second decade of the ninteenth century.

They must be met and exposed for the serious danger they represent to the governance of the Seventh-day Adventist Church and it's properly constituted ministries. They must leaarn to respect and adhere to the counsel of many!!!

They must learn to respect due process.

They must learn to respect and the rights of individuals to freely express their right of conscience.

And they must respect the right of the stockholders in the pews to have and exercise accountability of any ministry they are asked to support.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[inga]

It is noteworthy that we have now received thousands of pages of information pursuant to FRCP Rule 26 (better late than never, I suppose) from the Plaintiffs and the VAST, VAST majority was regurgitation of Forum and various SDA news entity information, including BlackSDA forum threads. But, it also included information from AToday, Spectrum, et al. We are still reviewing it for any real significance, but largely focused on the people of the SDA Church exercising their First Amendment Rights to freely express themselves.

Gailon, I don't quite understand ...

1) What does the "information" of Forum and varous SDA news entities, including AToday, Spectrum & et al have to do with their legal action against you?  (Perhaps it is merely meant to confuse/bury information/consume your time??)

2) Does this "information" include information you have actually requested?

[Bob Pickle]

It is noteworthy that we have now received thousands of pages of information pursuant to FRCP Rule 26 (better late than never, I suppose) from the Plaintiffs and the VAST, VAST majority was regurgitation of Forum and various SDA news entity information, including BlackSDA forum threads. But, it also included information from AToday, Spectrum, et al. We are still reviewing it for any real significance, but largely focused on the people of the SDA Church exercising their First Amendment Rights to freely express themselves.

Imagine for a moment the Vatican following Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson, and 3ABN's example. Imagine for a moment the Vatican suing every Adventist evangelist and preacher and church that dares say anything amiss against it or its clergy.

Since Danny claimed in the summer of 2006 that Garwin McNeilus would pay for a lawsuit such as this one, and since Garwin has, to my knowledge, not yet publicly denounced the current lawsuit, I ask also what he thinks of these implications. Since Garwin opposed Charles Sandefur's re-election on the basis of an Adventist hospital system entering into some sort of alliance or merger with a Catholic health system, what does he think about the potential of this lawsuit paving the way for the annihilation of our freedoms of speech and religion as it relates to protesting as Protestants against the sins of Babylon?

If a Seventh-day Adventist preacher/apologist and a Seventh-day Adventist reporter cannot speak out against Danny Shelton's cover up of child molestation allegations, his unbiblical divorce, and his private inurement, without getting sued, how can any of us continue to preach the third angel's message? If we cannot speak out against child molestation allegations, how can we speak out against Rome's change of the fourth commandment, the idolatrous sacrifice of the mass, the persecution of those she called heretics, her intent to regain her lost supremacy, etc., etc., without being hauled into court by Rome?

Will Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson, 3ABN, and Garwin McNeilus (assuming Danny was telling the truth in his summer 2006 claim) go down in history as helping to pave the way for the mark of the beast by their initiating or continued support of this unconstitutional and frivolous lawsuit? If so, is that what they really want?

[Bob Pickle]

Helping to pave the way for the mark of the beast ... sound like too radical of an idea? Yet think about it. Take the lawsuit's claims and apply the same principles to what we preach. Our own brethren are either setting an example for Rome in how to deal with the likes of Adventists, or Rome is smarter than they are and knows that such a move would be the epitome of stupidity!

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

It is noteworthy that we have now received thousands of pages of information pursuant to FRCP Rule 26 (better late than never, I suppose) from the Plaintiffs and the VAST, VAST majority was regurgitation of Forum and various SDA news entity information, including BlackSDA forum threads. But, it also included information from AToday, Spectrum, et al. We are still reviewing it for any real significance, but largely focused on the people of the SDA Church exercising their First Amendment Rights to freely express themselves.

Gailon, I don't quite understand ...

1) What does the "information" of Forum and varous SDA news entities, including AToday, Spectrum & et al have to do with their legal action against you?  (Perhaps it is merely meant to confuse/bury information/consume your time??)

2) Does this "information" include information you have actually requested?

Relevancy is a very good question. Can't imagine they will be introducing much, if any of the information without adding significantly to their witness list. Problem is, they will probably be very disappointed to not find Linda Sue Shelton among any of the bloggers. In fact, most would be well beyond the reach of a trial subpoena. Therefore, they would have to expand the lawsuite to add parties to be certain they would be available for trial. That is an expensive expansion for them, but not outside the realm of feasibility. On the other hand, if you know the preponderance of the evidence is against you based upon the allegations against Gailon Arthur Joy and Bob Pickle, how else do you position yourself strategically to win at least something???

On the other hand, if they add Linda Shelton or Derrel Mundall they face crucifixion as they open themselves to serious counterclaims. But, they may face this, regardless of their trial strategy.

As to requested information, it may be in the realm of requested documentation, but not the information we know they have and still have not produced, because they hope for a favorable confidentiality order from the Judge. For us, we always have the Hearing De Noveau on the Confidentiality order before Judge Saylor if the order comes up unfavorably from the Magistrate Judge. Since the Magistrate Judge clearly knows Judge Saylor, he is unlikely to step outside the bounds of Saylor's thinking on the matter.

In the event we are unhappy with the confidentiality order at the district court level, there is always the possibility of an interlocutory appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Given that Saylor seems to be very much is line with First Circuit rulings, I doubt this would be neccesary, but the option is clearly there.

The entire direction of this case now awaits the belated decision on confidentiality that should have been resolved back in August of 2007. Since confidentiality is not an issue for us, we had no motivation to deal with the issue. They brought it up but given Judge Saylor's clear position at the time, they opted to not address it until the more favorably disposed Magistrate Judge would be the arbiter. Again, I doubt it will be a lot of help to them, but only time and an order will tell the tale with any clarity.

When we have final clarity, we will then be able to press forward with the discovery and get critical documents such as the 11 sets of bank Statements over eight years, add that to the documents from Remnant Publications and compare that to the Auditors documents and we should then have a complete picture that should represent a whole new set of problems for the Plaintiff's case. The financial experts should have a field day with all that information. Then we will be ready to conduct depositions that will clarify and lock in the testimony for the key witnesses on the other side.

Put any deal or a charge from the IRS into the mix and it will be summary judgement time on key issues. Assuming we have some parties with serious counterclaims in the mix and we have a gloomy outlook for the well heeled directors and officers of 3ABN. Unfortunately, it may well turn out the donors will pay the freight, but then, just maybe the donors may be the Directors. Poetic Justice, in my opinion!!!!

I hope that gives some clarity and if not, feel free to ask again.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Snoopy]

Gailon,

Is there any indication as to when Judge Saylor will rule on the confidentiality issues?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Gailon,

Is there any indication as to when Judge Saylor will rule on the confidentiality issues?

Discovery issues were referred by Judge Saylor to Magistrate Judge Hillman. The hearing on the confidentiality motion by Plaintiff's was heard by Judge Hillman. Judge Hillman took the issue under advisement and invited both sides to submit Proposed Confidentiality and Privilege Orders. In fact, I filed a proposed order, Bob proposed a modified proposed order and Counselors Hayes and Richards submitted their proposed order. We await a decision by Judge Hillman and thought it might be done by last week. Frankly, it is not easy to craft such a significant order and takes careful consideration to protect all the respective rights of the parties. Add to the mix that we are journalists with a propensity to publish newsworthy information and it further complicates the issue. You have a collision of rights of privacy vs right to know...a classic nightmare for any judiciary. But, they have faced it before and always seem to come up with well crafted orders that can protect all the various interests...not necessarily to either sides preferred position. So. we wait and see!!!

In the interim we press on as do they.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[reader]

It seems to me that they would have very little information that would need to be kept confidential. Except so that they are taken to court etc etc.

[Johann]

Has it been made clear to the readers of AT what has become of the confidentiality issue? In non-legal terms?

[Ozzie]

Has it been made clear to the readers of AT what has become of the confidentiality issue? In non-legal terms?

Would you clarify please Johann?  I am not sure what you mean by 'what has become of the 'confidentiality issue', but an explanation would be useful IMO.