Print

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Case number 1:08-cv-40090 is now on PACER

Yes, the adversarial proceeding in BK court is now transferred to the US District Court and another front is opened.

As some may know, the Attorneys for 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton will be defendants in this matter and their conflict of interest becomes self evident.

I have posted it so the curious can follow it in the US District Court on PACER. So, Ian and Gregory, you have a reference with which to follow and give your analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Bob Pickle]

Conflict of interest, Gailon? What do you think? Was Pucci's motion for an emergency status conference last fall a manifestation of that conflict, or was it nothing of the sort?

[Artiste]

Case number 1:08-cv-40090 is now on PACER

Yes, the adversarial proceeding in BK court is now transferred to the US District Court and another front is opened.

As some may know, the Attorneys for 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton will be defendants in this matter and their conflict of interest becomes self evident.

I have posted it so the curious can follow it in the US District Court on PACER. So, Ian and Gregory, you have a reference with which to follow and give your analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

What are the practical implications of this conflict of interest?

[Daryl Fawcett]

What are the ramifications of this in relation to the other lawsuit, etc.

[Pat Williams]

Case number 1:08-cv-40090 is now on PACER

Yes, the adversarial proceeding in BK court is now transferred to the US District Court and another front is opened.

As some may know, the Attorneys for 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton will be defendants in this matter and their conflict of interest becomes self evident.

I have posted it so the curious can follow it in the US District Court on PACER. So, Ian and Gregory, you have a reference with which to follow and give your analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Greetings Gailon,

I have been reading elsewhere about this. Did you mean what you said here, and do you really welcome replies on this topic (from even ian for example)?

More importantly. Are you going to post any updates, or any resolution or Judgements in your case here as it is now apparently closed?

Thanks,
3D

[Nosir Myzing]

Case number 1:08-cv-40090 is now on PACER

Yes, the adversarial proceeding in BK court is now transferred to the US District Court and another front is opened.

As some may know, the Attorneys for 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton will be defendants in this matter and their conflict of interest becomes self evident.

I have posted it so the curious can follow it in the US District Court on PACER. So, Ian and Gregory, you have a reference with which to follow and give your analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Greetings Gailon,

I have been reading elsewhere about this. Did you mean what you said here, and do you really welcome replies on this topic (from even ian for example)?

More importantly. Are you going to post any updates, or any resolution or Judgements in your case here as it is now apparently closed?

Thanks,
3D

Okey Dokey. It seems Joy is gone again so isn't going to answer for awhile, and ian either as she somehow got herself banned while answering here, but here is the conclusion of this whole matter.

The first complaint Joy filed was dismissed for not proving his claims. He next filed an amended complaint, and then 3abn, DS, and the attorneys filed a motion asking that it be dismissed also, which was denied. 3abn et al next filed a motion for a summary judgment and that motion was granted on 12-08-09

The same day a judgment was entered:

Filed & Entered: 12/08/2009 Judgment
Docket Text: Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants[DS, 3ABN, & ATTYs] against Plaintiff.[G.A.Joy]

The case is now closed.

[Snoopy]

Ian,

I believe I owe you an apology.  You made a post a couple of days ago to which I made some edits to change what appeared as shouting to an "inside voice".  But it appears that while I was editing your post, you were as well, and when your edits appeared they over-rode my edits.  I misinterpreted this chain of events and initiated a ban and removed your post.  I see that I was wrong, and I hope you can accept my apology.  I have disabled the ban and would welcome you to re-instate your post, but would encourage you to use the "inside voice".

Most sincerely,

Snoopy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Case number 1:08-cv-40090 is now on PACER

Yes, the adversarial proceeding in BK court is now transferred to the US District Court and another front is opened.

As some may know, the Attorneys for 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton will be defendants in this matter and their conflict of interest becomes self evident.

I have posted it so the curious can follow it in the US District Court on PACER. So, Ian and Gregory, you have a reference with which to follow and give your analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Greetings Gailon,

I have been reading elsewhere about this. Did you mean what you said here, and do you really welcome replies on this topic (from even ian for example)?

More importantly. Are you going to post any updates, or any resolution or Judgements in your case here as it is now apparently closed?

Thanks,
3D

I do not recall EVER not WELCOMING replies on any topic. It is how the right to free expression is manifest and as far as I know I have
never endorsed or approved in any form the suppression of the right to free expression. I am a supporter of the First Amendment!!!

As to the Adversarial Proceding, I beleive that counsel did not respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment and the courts' order now
stands. I beleive the complaint is not "verified" and an affidavitt was not submitted by this complainant. Nor was any evidence to sup-
port the allegation proffered, a sure fire way to loose a summary judgment.  Counsel tells me he was simply too busy saving peoples
homes to deal with the summary judgement Motion but asserts that an "affidavitt" and a trial on the merits would have won the day.
I would suggest that counsel is asserting the adversarial complaint was lost because of my inertia on the issue. You are left to your
conclusion on the record and readily admit to inertia on any of the bankruptcy issues. My motion to dismiss is where I lost interest.

In fact, in retrospect, the bankruptcy was a bad option and turned out to be an ineffective move given the reason for the filing at the
time. No thought was given to the impact upon the 3ABN litigation at the time and 3ABN counsel certainly used the event to their
advantage, to the degree they won anything. I am guessing they spent far more than the value received, but it certainly became a
seriously handi-capping event in the short term. But, then a business collapse in a very serious market collapse is never a convenient
event and certainly proved very handi-capping as we proceeded with the vigorous defense of the 3ABN case.

On the other hand, the entire event has become an excellent updating of my litigation experience and has served to re-ignite my love
for the sport of adversarial law. Rules had changed and procedures have been significantly updated and brought into the 21st Century,
and I have had the unique opportunity to hone those new skills to my great benefit.

I and Bob have learned a good deal about the US Bankruptcy code and this also serves me well.

In fact, I have to credit Bob and his very professional and well researched effort throughout this entire event with a good deal of the
effort throughout this entire saga. I am certain he has added enormously to his skills and his strategic thinking and has unequalled
tenacity for the battlefields that have ensued. I still assert that if I were to share a trench with anyone in any battlefield environment,
anywhere in whatever circumstance, it would unconditionally be with Bob Pickle. In 58 years, I have yet to meet his equal, ANYWHERE
and under any circumstances.

I will go further and say that I have met and worked with hundreds and even thousands of people over my life and a good number of
them have ultimately been wimps or traitors with a singular purpose known simply as SELF INTEREST. If you have a battle and you
want a man of incredible integrity and unequaled tenacity, I can HEARTILY recommend Bob Pickle over NONE OTHER!!!

I know that Bob's skills are being honed for a much bigger battle than we have ever faced and it will be a great pleasure to have stood
shoulder to shoulder with a real patriot and standard bearer as imovable as the Rock of Gibraltar. He will serve that great cause with
distinction and tenacity that only death will destroy.

In summary, I have made many mistakes in my life, but the 3ABN Saga was not one of them. The bankruptcy was a stumbling block
and a poor decision that had some handicapping features, but was simply a bump on the road to victory and the victory is yet to be
had. A final resolution will require much more reformation than we have seen so far and the issue of succession is not yet clear. To
allow the return of Danny Lee Shelton as President and CEO with the evidence we have and his failure to confess and repent for the
unacceptable governance and financial mismanagement of his 22 years at the helm would be an unacceptable resolution. And I have
little regard for the board that covered up and endorsed the major malignancy that plaqued 3ABN for all that time.

I also have utter contempt for the post severance actions of certain board members to "destroy" the most visible evidence of Danny
Lee Sheltons miscreant and illegitimate behavior in firing and divorcing Linda Sue Shelton. They have yet to receive their just rewards,
although the Lord may have already spoken to some in ways that proved judicial. I am now certain that Linda will soon be exonerated
in ways that will be public and decisive, but will not be restorative and we must leave that to the Lord to work out. If the board has
any integrity, they will make Linda whole and work with her to restore her. I have yet to see that integrity on this purported Three
Angels Messages committed board.

There will be wins and losses but the battle will continue with periodic flareups until true reformation is clearly and publicly demonstrated
and victims are made whole. May justice prevail and the Lord's will be done. 

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Cindy]

Ian,

I believe I owe you an apology.  You made a post a couple of days ago to which I made some edits to change what appeared as shouting to an "inside voice".  But it appears that while I was editing your post, you were as well, and when your edits appeared they over-rode my edits.  I misinterpreted this chain of events and initiated a ban and removed your post.  I see that I was wrong, and I hope you can accept my apology.  I have disabled the ban and would welcome you to re-instate your post, but would encourage you to use the "inside voice".

Most sincerely,

Snoopy

 I do accept your apology, but, with the hopes we don't have further misunderstandings like this, as I am sure you do as well since this same exact thing happened once before.  Having said that, I appreciate your apology all the more as you didn't need to make it publicly either time, but did, and I know that isn't always easy. Thank you, Snoopy. Please understand that I wouldn't edit any admin or mod notes out of any post- or try to undermine admin actions like that or any other way here - at least on purpose.

I would also like to clarify one further misunderstanding here in regards to shouting, and your attempts to edit my post into an "inside voice". It was not my intention to shout. I'm sorry if it appeared that way to you. I actually did not add any caps to my post or change anything I was quoting into caps. The caps in my post were supplied by the clerk who entered the judgments and documents in the Court Docket. I just copied and pasted them from PACER as they were entered there. For accuracy in quoting I am leaving them in my repost below and I hope that it is ok with you now that you understand why they are there.

I do appreciate you allowing me to repost my reply here and removing my ban also. Thank you.

Have a good day.

~ Cindy

[Cindy]

Repost:

Case number 1:08-cv-40090 is now on PACER

Yes, the adversarial proceeding in BK court is now transferred to the US District Court and another front is opened.

As some may know, the Attorneys for 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton will be defendants in this matter and their conflict of interest becomes self evident.

I have posted it so the curious can follow it in the US District Court on PACER. So, Ian and Gregory, you have a reference with which to follow and give your analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Well you were certainly silent and gone for awhile... Seeing your recent posts here I wondered what had rattled your cage...

IMO The truth has a way of prevailing,-- as you know and even claim here very frequently-- so there was no need for either of us to previously give our analysis, and comment to just provide you further opportunity to argue, spew, boast, or bicker, as that would imo solve/resolve nothing and cause nothing but further unfruitful debate and contention. Better to wait on the Court to rule, right?

And the facts were: You had quite obviously already been found in contempt of court and had sanctions of 1000 dollars imposed against you in your bankruptcy case, and already had your  adversarial proceedings dismissed once:

Matter:  #4 Motion of Defendants, Danny Lee Shelton, Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc, to Dismiss Adversary Proceedings and # 15 Opposition of Debtor."


"Order Granting [4] Motion filed by Defendants Danny Lee Shelton, Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding. #4 GRANTED. PLAINTIFF [G.A.Joy] HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE ALL ELEMENTS OF 11 U.S.C. 362 UNDER THE STANDARD SET FORTH IN THE SUPREME COURT BELL ATLANTIC CASE. PLAINTIFF SHALL HAVE UNTIL FEBRUARY 11, 2008 TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT.

Since you were granted a second chance, and subsequently filed that amended complaint, and the District court has now ruled on that and your adversarial proceedings, claims, and attempts to get a judgment against DS and the 3ABN Attorneys to the tune of just under 40,000 it is my opinion that things have changed and that it is now time for an update and response to your post here, Gailon.

Per the Pacer court docket entry:-----> Case Closed 12/08/09

NOW COME Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”), Danny Lee Shelton (“Shelton”), John P. Pucci (“Pucci”), Jerrie M. Hayes (“Hayes”), Gerald S. Duffy (“Duffy”), Fierst, Pucci & Kane LLP (“Fierst Pucci”), and Siegel Brill Gruepner Duffy & Foster, P.A. (“Siegel Brill”), Defendants in the above-captioned proceeding, pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P.7056 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, as well as Local Rules 7.1 and 56.1, and hereby file this Motion for Summary Judgment, along with the accompanying Statement of Material Facts, Memorandum of Reasons and Affidavit of Gerald S. Duffy. Defendants seek Summary Judgment as to the entireclaim asserted by Debtor, Gailon Arthur Joy (“Joy”), in his Amended Adversarial Complaint. In support thereof, Defendants rely on the material facts of record as to which there is no genuine issue to be tried as set forth in the accompanying Statement of Material Facts (and as established by the affidavit, Rule 2004 Examination transcript, and other documentation referenced therein and submitted therewith), as well as the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Reasons.

WHEREFORE, 3ABN, Shelton, Pucci, Hayes, Duffy, Fierst Pucci, and Siegel Brill respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant Summary Judgment in their favor as to the entire claim asserted by Joy in his Amended Adversarial Complaint and grant whatever other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems fair and just.

   
Filed & Entered: 12/08/2009
Order on Motion for Summary Judgment Docket Text: Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting Motion for Summary Judgment.

1. On April 6, 2007, Three Angels Broadcasting Network (“3ABN”) and Danny Lee Shelton (“Shelton”) commenced an action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Gailon Arthur Joy (“Joy”) and one other Defendant, Robert Pickle (“Pickle”), entitled Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., an Illinois non-profit corporation. and Danny Lee Shelton v. Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle, docketed as Case No. 4:07-cv-
40098-FDS (“Civil Action”).1 See Civil Action Docket.

2. The Complaint in the Civil Action alleged inter alia that Joy and Pickle were infringing on 3ABN’s trademarks and publishing defamatory statements about 3ABN and Shelton on the Internet. The Complaint sought damages for Joy and Pickle’s conduct, as well as injunctive relief requiring that Joy and Pickle stop infringing on 3ABN’s trademarks. See Civil Action Complaint (Civil Action Docket, ECF Doc. No. 1). 3. 3ABN and Shelton are represented in the Civil Action by the law firm of Siegel Brill Greupner Duffy & Foster, P.A. (“Siegel Brill”), including Attorneys Gerald S. Duffy (“Duffy”) and Jerrie M. Hayes (“Hayes”), as well as by the law firm of Fierst, Pucci & Kane LLP (“Fierst Pucci”), including Attorney John P. Pucci (“Pucci”), as local counsel. See Civil Action Docket. 4. Joy proceeded pro se in the Civil Action. Pickle initially was represented by Attorney Laird Heal (“Heal”), although on November 10, 2007, he also filed his appearance pro se. See Civil Action Docket and Pickle Notice of Appearance (Civil Action Docket, ECF Doc. No. 31).

5. On August 9, 2007, this Court held an evidentiary hearing in the Civil Action in consideration of a dispute between the parties concerning the form for production of electronic and electronically-stored information. See Electronic Clerk’s Notes (Civil Action Docket).

1 On November 3, 2008, Judge Saylor entered an Order dismissing the Civil Action without prejudice based on a Motion for Voluntary Dismissal filed by 3ABN and Shelton. See November 3, 2008 Order (Civil Action Docket, ECF No. 129). While Joy and Pickle did not assert any counterclaims in the Civil Action, they have nevertheless
appealed the Order of dismissal and the appeal is pending before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. See Notice of Appeal (Civil Action Docket, ECF No. 133). Moreover, on April 27, 2009, Joy and Pickle filed a Motion to Reconsider and to Amend Findings with respect to Judge Saylor’s Orders of April 13 and 15, 2009 concerning Joy and Pickle’s Motion for Costs and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal, respectively. See Motion for Reconsideration and memorandum in Support (Civil Action Docket, ECF Nos. 169 and 170). Case 4:08-cv-40090-FDS Document 10 Filed 05/15/2009

6. Following that hearing, on August 13, 2007, this Court issued an Order in the Civil Action that the parties submit proposed orders with respect to the format that any electronically-stored information should be provided to the opposing party within 14 days. See August 13, 2007 Electronic Order (Civil Action Docket).

7. On August 14, 2007, Joy filed a Voluntary Petition under the provisions of Chapter 7 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (“Bankruptcy Case”). See Ex. 1 submitted herewith (Bankruptcy Case Docket). The Bankruptcy Case is pending before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts, docketed as Case No. 07-43128-JBR. See id
.
8. Joy is represented in the Bankruptcy Case by Attorney Heal. See Bankruptcy Case Docket.

9. Joy did not list either 3ABN or Shelton as creditors in his Bankruptcy Schedules,despite the fact that 3ABN and Shelton had pending claims against him for monetary damages in the Civil Action; accordingly, neither 3ABN nor Shelton received notice from the Bankruptcy Court that Joy had filed his Bankruptcy Case. See Bankruptcy Petition (Adversarial Case Docket No. 4:08-cv0090-FDS, ECF Doc. No. 2-10).

10. Nor did 3ABN, Shelton, or any of their attorneys receive notice from Heal or Joy that Joy had filed his Bankruptcy Case. See Ex. 2 submitted herewith (Affidavit of Gerald S. Duffy, hereinafter “Duffy Aff.”), at ¶5 11. Pursuant to this Court’s August 13, 2007 Order in the Civil Action, which issued one day before his filing of the Voluntary Petition, Joy submitted his proposed order regarding
the production of electronically-stored information, along with an accompanying memorandum of law, on August 27, 2007. See Proposed Order and Memorandum of Law (Civil Action Case 4:08-cv-40090-FDS Document 10 ) Joy did not make any reference in either of these two pleadings to the fact that he had filed his Bankruptcy Case two weeks earlier. See id. As a pro se litigant in the Civil Action, Joy electronically signed these two documents himself, but they were filed through his bankruptcy attorney’s (Laird Heal’s) ECF account. See Notices of Electronic Filing (Civil Action Docket, ECF Doc Nos. 26 and 27).

12. On or around August 29, 2007, counsel for 3ABN and Shelton learned of Joy’s Bankruptcy Case by undertaking a “party search” on PACER in the ordinary course of preparing the Civil Action. See Duffy Aff., at ¶6.

13. On September 13, 2007, Attorney Hayes sent a letter to Attorney Heal. See Amended Adversarial Complaint, at Ex. 6 (Sept. 13, 2007 letter) (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 2-14). In that letter, Hayes advised Heal that 3ABN and Shelton had learned of Joy’s Bankruptcy Petition and that: Under our reading of all applicable bankruptcy statutes and rules, the automatic stay suspends all pending activity involving Gailon Joy in the matter of 3ABN v. Joy and Pickle, thus prohibiting any additional pleadings by Mr. Joy and precluding Mr. Joy’s involvement in discovery and pretrial practice in this case. We also believe the automatic stay applies until such time as relief from the automatic stay is ordered by the Bankruptcy Court upon Plaintiffs’ motion for such. See id. Hayes further expressed that Heal’s continued representation of Pickle in the Civil Action, while he was also representing Joy in the Bankruptcy Case, represented an irreconcilable conflict of interest. See id.14. On October 24, 2007, 3ABN and Shelton, through their attorneys, filed a Motion for Status Conference in the Civil Action. See Motion for Status Conference (Civil Action Docket, ECF Doc. No. 29). In this document, 3ABN and Shelton advised this Court that Joy had filed his Bankruptcy Petition and requested a status conference to address the issue of preservation of electronic evidence stored on the Debtor’s computer equipment given that Joy had listed “electronic office equipment” as a personal property asset, and 3ABN and Shelton were concerned that the equipment might be seized and/or liquidated by Joy’s Chapter 7 Trustee.
See id. In the Motion, 3ABN and Shelton also advised the Court of the perceived conflict of interest in Heal’s continued representation of Pickle in the Civil Action, while he was simultaneously representing Joy in his Bankruptcy Case. See id. Joy did not file an opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Status Conference (see Civil Action Docket), nor provide any prior notification that he considered the status conference or his attendance to be violative of the stay.

15. In response to the Motion for Status Conference, this Court issued an Order on November 2, 2007 granting the Motion, scheduling the requested status conference for November 13, 2007, and ordering Joy to provide the Court, 3ABN, and Shelton with a listing of all of his electronic equipment and to make that equipment available for mirror imaging at 3ABN and Shelton’s expense, with the mirror images to be placed under seal and not made available to 3ABN and Shelton absent further order of the Court. See November 2, 2007 Order (Civil Action Docket, ECF Doc. No. 30-2).

16. On November 5, 2007, Attorney Hayes faxed and mailed a letter to Attorney Heal, in his capacity as counsel for Pickle in the Civil Action, enclosing and serving upon him the Court’s November 2, 2007 Order. See Amended Adversarial Complaint, at Ex. 4 (Nov. 5,2007 letter) (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 2-12). In the letter, Hayes indicated that she would be contacting Joy “separately to arrange for the date and time for the data imaging.” See id.

17. On November 6 and November 9, 2007, Hayes faxed and mailed two letters to Joy in connection with setting up the mirror imaging ordered by this Court on November 2. See Amended Adversarial Complaint, at Ex. 3 (Nov. 6, 2007 letter) and Ex. 5 (Nov. 9, 2007 letter) (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. Nos. 2-11 and 2-13).

18. On November 13, 2007, 3ABN and Shelton filed a Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay in the Bankruptcy Case, along with a Motion for Expedited Determination. See Ex. 3 submitted herewith (Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay) and Ex. 4 submitted herewith (Motion for Expedited Determination). In the Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay, 3ABN and Shelton advised the Bankruptcy Court of the status conference that was
scheduled to occur that day in the Civil Action. See Ex. 3, at ¶19.
19. Later that same day, this Court held the scheduled status conference at the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts sitting in Boston. See November 13, 2007 Electronic Clerk’s Notes (Civil Action Docket).

20. Attorneys Duffy and Pucci appeared at that conference on behalf of 3ABN and Shelton. See Duffy Aff., at ¶7. Joy also attended the status conference. See November 13, 2007
Electronic Clerk’s Notes (Civil Action Docket). The conference addressed the issues raised by 3ABN and Shelton in the Motion for Status Conference, namely the preservation of electronic evidence and the potential conflict of interest in Heal’s continued representation of Pickle in the Civil Action. See id. During the conference, Attorneys Duffy and Pucci advised the Court that 3ABN and Shelton had filed their Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay in the Bankruptcy Case earlier that day. See id.

21. On November 14, 2007, Joy filed his initial Complaint in this adversarial proceeding. See Ex. 1 submitted herewith (Bankruptcy Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 20). 22. Thereafter, on November 16, 2007, 3ABN and Shelton, through their attorneys,filed an emergency Motion for Status Conference in the Civil Action. See November 16, 2007 Emergency Motion (Civil Action Docket, ECF Doc. No. 32). In the Emergency Motion, 3ABN, Shelton, and their attorneys advised this Court that Joy had initiated an adversarial proceeding and asked this Honorable Court to address the stay issue rather than proceed with the mirrorimaging protocol as ordered by the Court on November 2. See id.23. In response, this Court issued an Order reserving ruling on the Emergency Motion for a Status Conference and staying its November 2 Order regarding mirror-imaging Joy’s electronic equipment pending further Order of the Court. See November 16, 2007 Electronic Order (Civil Action Docket). The copying of Joy’s hard drive, therefore, did not take place. On November 19, 2007, this Court issued a further Order denying the Emergency Motion for a Status Conference without prejudice to 3ABN’s and Shelton’s right to renew the motion after obtaining relief from the automatic stay. See November 19, 2007 Electronic Order (Civil Action Docket). 24. On November 20, 2007, Joy filed an Opposition to 3ABN’s and Shelton’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay. See Ex. 5 submitted herewith (Opposition to Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay).

25. On November 21, 2007, the Bankruptcy Court issued an Order lifting the Automatic Stay so as to allow 3ABN and Shelton to continue to prosecute the Civil Action against Joy as to injunctive relief, provided that neither 3ABN nor Shelton sought damages on
account of any prepetition claim against Joy. See Ex. 6 submitted herewith (November 21, 2007 Order).

26. On February 11, 2008, Joy filed his Amended Adversarial Complaint, which is currently pending before this Court. See Amended Adversarial Complaint (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 2-8). (Joy filed his Amended Complaint after his original complaint was dismissed by the Bankruptcy Court because he had failed to allege any damages he supposedly suffered as a result of any alleged violations of the automatic stay. See Ex. 7 submitted herewith (February 1, 2008 Order)).

27. In his Amended Adversarial Complaint, Joy alleges that he spent “at least” 10 hours “answering the messages of the Defendants in violation of the Automatic Stay, preparing to meet the orders of the district court during the pendency of the Automatic Stay, and attending the status conference hearing . . ..” See Amended Adversarial Complaint, at ¶28. Joy further alleges that he “cannot quantify his lost profits [in connection with the at least 10 hours of time, but that] he has in the past done paralegal work and been compensated at twenty-five dollars per hour, making a calculation of his personal loss of earnings some 250.00.” See id. Joy also alleges that the Court’s November 2 Order made “it impossible for [him] to conduct his normal business operations.” See id., at ¶¶34, 42.

28. Joy further alleges that he “incurred legal costs and fees in the sum of one thousand five hundred ninety-three dollars and sixty cents ($1,593.60) at 7.85 hours plus costs, prior to the filing of this Adversary Proceeding . . ..” See Amended Adversarial Complaint, at
¶29.

29. Joy thereafter requests a Judgment in his favor for damages in the amount of $250, plus attorneys’ fees and costs of $1,593.60, as well as punitive damages in the amount of $35,000. See Amended Adversarial Complaint, at last two (unnumbered) pages “Wherefore”
section).

30. On February 21, 2008, defendants 3ABN and Shelton filed a Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative, to Treat Adversary Proceeding as a Contested Matter Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014. See February 21, 2008 Motion to Dismiss (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 3). On February 22, 2008, Defendants Pucci and Fierst Pucci filed their own Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint, adopting 3ABN and Shelton’s
motion in its entirety. See February 22, 2008 Motion to Dismiss (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 4). Also on February 22, 2008, Defendants Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A., Duffy and Hayes filed an answer incorporating by reference the Motion to Dismiss. (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 2-15). Joy filed his opposition to these motions on April 25, 2008. See April 25, 2008 Opposition (Adversarial Case Docket, ECF Doc. No. 5).

31. On September 9, 2008, 3ABN and Shelton took Joy’s examination under oath pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See Ex. 8 submitted herewith (Portions of Transcript of Examination, hereinafter “Transcript”), at p. 1
.
32. In the examination, Joy was asked about specific employment or income opportunities he lost in connection with attending the status conference that allegedly took place in violation of the stay. He testified as follows:

Q: How many conferences did you attend in the District Court or
hearings did you attend in the District Court personally in
connection with ---

A: I’ve attended all hearings, so whatever was during that period
of time, I attended them.

Q: I believe that the only hearing that took place prior to the lifting
of the stay that is at question was the November 13, 2007 status
conference.

A: That’s not true. We had a whole hearing on the production of
the—we had a—let me think. We had a---I’m trying to remember
the date on that. We had a full hearing before the judge magistrate.

Q: In connection with your attendance at those hearings, did you
have to reschedule any appointments or anything that would have
otherwise led to income opportunities.
. . .

A: I don’t recall the dates of the hearings or what the
circumstances were. If it’s a question of whether or not there was
a huge income opportunity, I seriously doubt it given the fact that
we were in bankruptcy. I can’t imagine anybody in bankruptcy—
but I guess there’s some people that don’t really have bankruptcies
that file for bankruptcy—but mine was a real bankruptcy.

Q: So it’s your testimony then that you were not deprived of any
real income producing opportunities as a result of your having to
attend the hearings?

A: How would I know? I wouldn’t know. If I was attending
hearings, how would I know if I missed something?

Q: Were there any messages?

A: Let’s put it this way. If I would have earned it, I probably
wouldn’t have gotten paid anyway, so what difference does it
make? See Transcript, at pp. 70-72.

33. Joy also testified about his valuation in his Amended Adversarial Complaint of $250 for his time in responding to the alleged violations of the automatic stay based on prior
work as a paralegal:

Q: And you say that you had in the past done paralegal work in
attempting to affix a dollar value to the time that you say you
spent. Have you ever worked as a paralegal?

A: Yes.

Q: When?

A: Oh, I have worked—I worked for—I worked three days a week
working with a firm in Vermont from probably around ’84
through—I think the last case I did up there was ’93, ’94
somewhere in there. . . .. . . It was a part-time thing.

Q: Part-time thing, at the same time as you were working other
jobs?

A: Oh, sure, yeah. Since then I have on occasion worked with
attorneys on other cases. See Transcript, at pp. 81-82.

34. As to other supposed sources of income or “normal business operations” during the time period in which Joy allegedly spent 10 hours in dealing with the alleged stay violations in October and November 2007, Joy testified as follows:

Q: So your testimony just now is that you were the branch
manager for New England Merchants Corporation. When did it
close? When did it go out of business, as you say?

A: Let’s see. I guess it was probably in July. I don’t remember
the date. Sometime in July.

Q: Of last year?

A: Yeah.

Q: 2007?

A: Something like that, yeah. But it actually—we ended up—it
took us a while to finish up, cleaning out the records, and we didn’t
finish that until sometime in probably September, October, because
we had several years’ worth of records there. See Transcript, at p. 21.

Q: What, sir, have you done for gainful employment, for income,
since the closing of NEMCO, which you said took place in roughly
July or August 2007?

A: Well, actually we didn’t finish up until probably September or
October, something like that. I can’t remember when it was.

Q: When you say you didn’t finish up, are you saying that you
continued to be paid for a little while longer?

A: We didn’t get paid. As you can see, we didn’t get paid. We
were supposed to get paid. We didn’t get paid. As a matter of
fact, we didn’t get credit for any of our work that was done in July
or August.

Q: Okay. So your last income then was when?

A: You mean with NEMCO?

Q: From NEMCO, yes.

A: Apparently July. I didn’t get paid beyond that.

Q: What have you done—what do you do now for income?

A: Well, if the question is a post-petition question, when I left
NEMCO, I went to work with First American Mortgage Trust
again.See Transcript, at pp. 63-64.

Q: When did you go back to work for First American Mortgage
Trust?

A: In November maybe, late November.

Q: Late November?

A: Sometime in November. I don’t remember when. You know
what? I may have been putting in accounts in October. I don’t
recall. I’d have to look and see. I have no clue, to be honest with
you. . . .

Q: Were you an employee from November to January of First
American Mortgage Trust?

A: Well, I was an account exec for them, but didn’t get paid
during that period.

Q: You never got paid anything from them.

A: No. The company collapsed. They took the money with them.

Q: So you worked for two months or so and never received any
compensation.

A: Well, I received about $3,000 in December, I think, if I recall.

Q: Subsequent to First American Mortgage Trust’s failure, have
you worked for somebody else or something else?

A: I tried several things. Nothing seems to have gained traction
yet significantly.

Q: My specific question is have you worked for somebody else?
Have you been an employee with another firm or another company
since January of 2008?

A: I haven’t—not really, no. I have talked to several, but we’ve
never consummated a deal. See Transcript, at pp. 65-66.

35. Joy also testified at his deposition as to his expectation of what would happen with the Civil Action based upon his filing his Bankruptcy Case:

Q: What I want to understand is whether you had an expectation
that the District Court litigation would stop as a result of the
bankruptcy filing?

A: No. I did not.

Q: You did not have an expectation that the District Court
litigation would stop?

A: Why would I? I had produced documentation --

Q: Did you expect it to continue in fact --

A: I did not consider 3ABN to be a creditor.

Q: So therefore did you expect the District Court litigation to
continue notwithstanding your bankruptcy filing?

A: Once they put a notice of bankruptcy on the record, they put
themselves in a position where they should have stopped, and they
didn’t do it. I didn’t put it on the record; they did. And they
utilized that petition maliciously.

Q: If 3ABN and Danny Shelton had not put on the record that you
were in bankruptcy, and they proceeded with the litigation in the
normal course, would you have done anything to stop it?


A: Can’t imagine. There was --

Q: The question is would you have done anything to stop the
litigation?

A: I can’t imagine that I would have done anything to stop the
litigation at that point other than exactly what--the thing that
precipitated the entire issue was they put it on record, and then
they abused it and used it maliciously to do something that they
should never have done. See Transcript, at pp. 161-63.

Q: So would you have been all right if they simply proceeded with
what they were --

A: I would have been, except what they did was they used it as the
basis to try to come after hard drives. That’s what they did. They
were malicious.

Q: But you have no problem with the fact that they proceeded
against you in the District Court litigation, notwithstanding your
bankruptcy filing? You had a problem because they were going
after the hard drive?

A: You know what? I wouldn’t have had a problem with that if
they had come to us in the right circumstances. But to do it in a
malicious way that they did made it absolutely unacceptable, and
that’s been classic for them, malicious activity. See Transcript, at pp. 158-59.

Q: So you didn’t consider that the automatic stay was in place
because you didn’t consider 3ABN and Shelton creditors?

A: You were not creditors and you’re not to this date.

Q: Who’s not? You’re saying “you,” but for clarity on the record,
who’s “you”?

A: The plaintiffs, Shelton and 3ABN, were not creditors at the
time I filed [for bankruptcy] and they are still not creditors to this
date.

Q: So to be clear, you do not consider that evidentiary hearing to
have taken place in violation of the automatic stay?

A: As I said, we did not consider you creditors.

Q: So is your answer no, it wasn’t in violation of the automatic
stay because 3ABN and Shelton were not creditors?

A: We had not invoked the automatic stay, and proceeded to
defend the case.

Q: Is it your belief that you did invoke the automatic stay at some
point?

A: We did not. You did.
. . .
A: Absolutely. They invoked the automatic stay. We did not
invoke the automatic stay. We did not consider you creditors.
You made yourselves creditors artificially.See Transcript, at pp. 178-181.

Q: Is it your position that the bankruptcy filing did not affect or shouldn’t affect the District Court action?

A: Didn’t think about it one way or the other.

Q: Didn’t think about it one way or the other?

A: Nope. 3ABN was not on my mind when I filed bankruptcy believe me. It is the last thing on my mind when I filed bankruptcy.
See Transcript, at p. 125.

36. According to Joy, once this Court learned of the Bankruptcy Case, “something happened, and suddenly the judge magistrate realized that he had a little problem; that there was a bankruptcy hearing and he had to deal with that issue first, so he reversed his order.” See Transcript, at p. 80.

Respectfully Submitted,
SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER,
Dated: May 15, 2009 DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A.
/s/ M. Gregory Simpson
Gerald S. Duffy (MN #24703)
M. Gregory Simpson (MN # 204560)
Kristin L. Kingsbury (MN #0346664)
100 Washington Avenue South
Suite 1300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: 612-337-6100
Facsimile: 612-339-6591

and
HENDEL & COLLINS, P.C.
George I. Roumeliotis (BBO #564943)
101 State Street
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: 413-734-6411
Facsimile: 413-734-8069

and
FIERST, PUCCI & KANE, LLP
John P. Pucci, Esq., BBO #407560
J. Lizette Richards, BBO #649413
64 Gothic Street
Northampton, MA 01060
Telephone: 413-584-8067
Facsimile: 413-585-078
Attorneys for Defendants Three Angels
Broadcasting Network, Inc., Danny Lee Shelton,
John P. Pucci, Jerrie M. Hayes, Gerald S. Duffy,
Fierst, Pucci & Kane LLP, and Siegel Brill
Gruepner Duffy & Foster, P.A.

  

Filed & Entered: 12/08/2009Judgment
Docket Text: Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: ORDER entered. JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants[DS, 3ABN ATTYs] against Plaintiff.[G.A.Joy]

So, that part is very clear, and a proper analysis done now, eh?

...ian

edits- to correct format of quoted material.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Ian, thank-you for the posting that clearly supports my prior statement. You can be so useful, sometimes.

I have often wondered how someone of your vigor and intellect could pretend to be so deluded by the
opposition and came to the conclusion it is about "partisan politics". You apparently are so partison you
would never consider the opposing views, regardless of the weight of the evidence. Guess that would
eliminate you from the jury, but partisans can prove quite useful, to both sides.

 I would suppose you are as committed to your political views as well. Partisan is the best description
and a partisan you will always be. So be it and we look forward to the inevitable VIGOROUS debate as
we proceed on our mission and you defend your partisan views.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter