Print

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

[Johann]

Sorrry.  I have no intention of giving a reason for my statement. So, accept or reject it as you will.  Take it solely as my opinion if you wish.

It is my personal opinion that in a free discussion like her none of us are obliged to give a reason for statements we make.

[SDAminister]

Sorrry.  I have no intention of giving a reason for my statement. So, accept or reject it as you will.  Take it solely as my opinion if you wish.

It is my personal opinion that in a free discussion like her none of us are obliged to give a reason for statements we make.

It is my understanding that people have gotten sued in federal court for allegedly making statements in a "free discussion" forum that were without reason. Perhaps Gregory was wise to indicate--multiple times, that much of his postings were merely his opinion, instead of stating something as being fact without adequate support or reason. I am in support of the belief that one does not need to give a reason for postings here.

Here is one place we do need a reason:
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and [be] ready always to [give] an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:" 1 Peter 3:15

SDAminister

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Ah, the writ of mandamus as relief.  Yes, it is an order of a court to require that a specific act either be performed or not performed.   For people who do not know its legal history it is a good sound bite.

In general terms, with occasional rare exceptions, it is not issued against an individual.  The ultimate right to issue such resides with the U. S. Supreme Court.  Yet, as an outgrowth of Marbury v. Madison   that court has almost abolished the practice of issuing such writs, while maintaining the right to do so.  The reason for doing such is in that requirement that mandamus only be issued when there is not other legal remedy for a legal right.

Appellate courts do have the right to issue such writs only when there is a compelling reason to do so.

Rule 81(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure  generally prohibit District Courts from issuing such writs as it is generally assumed that in those courts other remedies exist.

My opinion:  Perhaps the context would be right for the news media to obtain such a writ, and that was the context of Gailon’s comment.  However, it probably would be a long shot for others to obtain such.  It is not known if the news media would have any interest in this case in its present state of development.  So, none should hold their breath while waiting for a writ of mandamus.   NOTE: As I am not trained in law the preceding is my personal opinion and should not be construed as an opinion on the law.  Anyone needing legal advice should seek that from a competent legal, licensed, professional.
 

A much closer citation is In Re: Providence Journal -vs- Buddy Chianci, the infamous case the Plaintiffs originally cited as "the law of the First Circuit"
and asserted supported the sealing of this case. Unfortunately, Judge Saylor
was not to be fooled and clearly with appropriate recitation saw the error of
the plaintiffs premise. You will note the Provident Journal has sought several
writs of Mandamus.

Other great cases that included Writs of Mandamus included US -vs- Nixon
(as in President Nixon of the Watergate Scandal) which also has a great ruling
on access to the press for sealed documents.

One other point, there is nothing to peak the curiousity of Court Beat Reporters than "sealed documents" or "sealed cases". I still think it best to not peak their curiosity. Besides, we have time!!!

But, thanks for that excellent explanation and analysis.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

On another aspect:  Negative comments have been made in regard to one of the 3-ABN lawyers....

Agreed. Negativity should have no place here.

While the MN law firm may have some lawyers on their staff who are stronger than others, they are all competent.

Gregory,
Are you stating that they are all competent as your opinion or as a fact? Do you have personal experience working with the lawyers at this firm? How do you know that they are competent? I'm not doubting that they are and have no clue as to the ramifications/importance of all the tactics used by both sides. Your thoughts?

Competence to practice law is determined by ones completion of a course of study in Juris Prudence, successfully "overcoming" the Bar Exam for ones respective state and admission to the bar. Further accomplishment is recognized by ones becoming an associate or partner in a firm. All of the lawyers practicing with the firm in Minnesotta seem to have met all the criteria to establish a right
to be recognized as "competent". To state otherwise is unwise gloating, a manifestation of pride that should be contained and controlled.

The best firm in the world will have problems with cases that foundationally are
"factually challenged" or the prepondernce of the evidence stacks up against you as the case develops. This is a client problem, not a law firm problem and the firm will advocate for its client the best it can in the hopes of developing enough edge to at least negotiate a reasonable final settlement of the case.

Then there occasionally comes along those pig headed and indefatiguable defendants that just will not be reasoned with and see no need to negotiate,
surrender or otherwise be reasonable. It is best summed up as the unstoppable object headed for a collision course with the immovable object!!! There will, and must be, an explosion at some point and both will end up as dust particles spraying 360 degrees three dimentionally into the void of space. Spectators on both sides will view it as a spectacular display and one group will claim the unstoppable object won and the others will claim the immovable object won.
Neither will, in fact, serve any further purpose other than an occasional Leonid Shower as a belated show of glory totally irrelevant to the flow of the universe.

The lawyers will have made their billable hours and tolled the fees as they were required to do by their respective clients. Ultimately, it is irrelevant whether they win, lose or draw, the "competent" lawyers will be further ahead, regardless of the outcome. Do you think they really care about the "TRUTH"? Ney, never, they care about advocasy and providing "competent" counsel to their client. If the client has a "challenged" case, competent counsel will deal with it the best they can. They cannot help it if they have been "factually challenged" and are likely to utilize "factually challenged" information as the basis for working the harder and longer to overcome the adversitites of a case.

The point is, lawyers can only deal with the deck of cards as shuffled, and with the hand they have been dealt. If someone is willing to pay for someone elses clearly "factually challenged" claims, the better for Law Firm and Plaintiff, after all, what does either have to loose, regardless of how the die roll.

As defendants we are somewhat fortunate as we have been able to pick our battles and play the game to our advantage. We have the interior lines and we have the preponderonce of the evidence in our favor. Add to this our having peeked and knowing that there was an IRS Criminal Investigation going on collaterally and it was the equivalent of playing with a loaded deck. Not that we didn't try to share our peek a boo information, but arrogance begats arrogance and no-one listened!!! So, in ignorance, they played against a stacked deck and
ignored all the warning signs, failed to watch and count the cards played and then bet big on a lossing hand, apparently hoping to bluff!!! And they are still bluffing!!!
So, the point is you simply need to recognize that the problem the attorneys face is that they have been dealt a bad hand, apparently were not told the deck was stacked against them and now are stuck with the consequences. They have been and will continue to get paid handsomely to continue the bluff.

Sooner or later the defendants have no choice but to up the ante significantly and will call their bluff. Unfortunately, the Plaintiffs will have paid handsomely regardless of how the chips may fall!!! While Bob and I will have little to claim, others will line up and take the winnings.

Is that "incompetence" Ney, never from counsels perspective. The Directors, officers and Members of 3ABN will be a bit chagrined and will rue the day they opted out of due process at various points, but, they have the money and will simply pay and still have money to play another day. Sadly, in the end, ironically, the client will frequently blame counsel for undesireable outcomes when in reality it was about "factually challenged" inputs. A hard and expensive lesson, probably never really learned...and counsel will "competently" pursue advocacy!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Daryl Fawcett]

All I can really say here is that these posts are very interesting and informative.

[Cindy]

Hey, Bob, isn't it funny how reasonable and pliable they can be when pushing the protective order before the judge? I had to crack up when she was explaining just how reasonable they had been during the Protective Order Stipulation discussions???

She was T'ed off over your production of her "confidential" email discussions with you. Wonder how horrified she would have been if you gave the judge the entire log?

If we win, I guarantee they will not De Nouveau to Judge Saylor!!! He would most probably be not the least bit bemused by the stall and hold tactics. But what else do you have when you do not have the facts on your side???

Gailon Arthur Joy
 

Is this accurate? What was the real problem?



The Court Docket, and documents filed in the Massachusetts lawsuit case reveal that 3ABN filed a Motion for a protective order and request for oral arguments on December 18, 2007. On January 2, 2008 Robert Pickle filed an opposition to that.



Three mos later on March 3, 2008,  and just 4 days before the hearing, the letters/correspondance referred to, dated Jan 23-24, 2008,  were submitted as an attachment to a document that Robert Pickle filed as "Supplemental MEMORANDUM in Opposition re [40] MOTION for Protective Order Notice of Motion and Motion for Protective Order and Request for Oral Argument"

Pickle filed these documents months after the deadline for a response had passed, and without first seeking leave of the court to so so.  3ABN's lawyers filed a Motion to strike or in the alternative be given leave to file a response. Pickle then belatedly sought permission to file. Judge Hillman granted the 3ABN Motion to strike and denied Pickle's request to file.

Local Rule 7.1 of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts governs motion practice. It provides that a party opposing a motion is to file an opposition within 14 days after service of the motion, together with any affidavits or other documents setting forth or evidencing facts on which the opposition is based. See D. Mass. L. R. 7.1(b)(2).

The rule further provides that papers other than a motion and an opposition to the motion, together with any affidavits or other supporting documents filed therewith, may be submitted only with leave of court. See D. Mass. L. R. 7.1(b)(3).

In any case, Here are the emails referred to so that you may judge for yourselves who has been negotiating in good faith and is willing to compromise, and who is, and who is not delaying this case...



(NOTE: the following email discussion submitted by Bob Pickle starts with his response to a proposed confidentiality agreement drafted by 3ABN, but does not include it nor any earlier or background info and emails. I have reversed the order from how they were submitted so that they may be read in consecutive order.)

Source: Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 51- (attachment 4) Filed 03/03/2008 by Bob Pickle, 8 pages uploaded from mailbox:///C|/DOCUMENTS%20AND%20SETTINGS/BOB%20PICK... 3/3/2008 2:50 PM





-----Original Message-----

From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:13 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement

Ms. Hayes:

In discussing the matter of a confidentiality agreement with Mr. Joy, we'd like to get back to you with a response by February 1.



In the meantime, it would be quite helpful to me if you could find out from 3ABN whether redacted donor names with an accompanying confidential list that tied donor codes to donor names, each name not being able to be disclosed without permission from that particular donor or his/her heir(s), would be acceptable. Such a procedure would allow us to verify who stopped giving for what reasons and still respect their privacy.

Thanks for getting back to me on this matter soon enough before February 1 so that I have time to do something regarding it.

Bob Pickle






Jerrie Hayes wrote:

I don't understand your request. Are you saying you have decided to propose an alternative draft confidentiality agreement and are proposing providing it to me by February 1? Or are you saying you haven't decided on the more fundamental question of whether there is a confidentiality agreement to which you could agree or not? If your statement means the former, February 1 is fine with me as a deadline for you to provide me an alternate proposed agreement. If your statement means the latter, I genuinely do not believe you need nine days to decide the issue and would want to know your answer much sooner than your proposed February 1 deadline. If your statement means the latter, I would request an answer on or before Friday, January 25.

In regard to the latter, I will take your proposal to the client, but before I do so, I'd like to clarify a logistic concern I have with the donor names. How would it be determined which donor would be asked to release their identifying information and how would you propose the donors be contacted to determine whether they would agree to such release?

Jerrie Hayes



From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:03 AM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement

Ms. Hayes:

There are confidentiality agreements to which both Gailon and I could agree, and I think we have made that fairly clear, even before I entered my appearance pro se. The question is really whether there are confidentiality agreements that the plaintiffs would agree to which would allow the case to be properly adjudicated under appropriate and traditional public scrutiny, which is why I asked what I did about donor names. Are the plaintiffs willing to allow necessary verification of their claims regarding the decline of donations and the reasons for any actual decline?

As a preliminary answer to your question regarding logistics, once donors going back to perhaps January 1, 2003, have been identified that have ceased giving or declined the amounts they have given, we would then be able to contact them to verify, including but not limited to regarding any declines claimed by the plaintiffs in the last half of 2006, a) whether their "donations" were truly donations or whether they were purchases or shipping charges, b) if true donations, why they chose to stop or decline giving, c) whether they would be willing to produce an affidavit stating those reasons, and d) whether they wished their name to continue to be kept confidential, if it is not already a matter of public record.

As far as names that are already a matter of public record, it could hardly be expected that the sharp decline in giving coming from the Garmar Foundation, declines which are reported on Form 990-PF, should be kept confidential. But of course, just the fact that such a name is a matter of public record does not mean that the decline was due to Danny Shelton or the defendants. There are other valid reasons why true donations could decline.

Bob Pickle



Jerrie Hayes wrote:

I now better understand your question concerning donors and will contact my client and get back to you. As to the February 1 issue, I believe you are saying you and Mr. Joy have agreed to draft a proposed confidentiality agreement and provide it to me by February 1.  Please confirm if my understanding is correct.

Jerrie Hayes


From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 11:30 AM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur JoySubject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement

It seems to me that we need to first hear back from your client before we can say that we will begin working on a proposed agreement by any date. Thus far they have been unwilling to allow us to adequately challenge their claims regarding donation declines and the reasons behind any actual declines. If they will now change their position, then it makes sense to draft an agreement that would enshrine that new position.

Bob Pickle



Jerrie Hayes wrote:

First, I do not agree with your assessment of my client’s position on the donor information. 3ABN moved considerably from its initial proposal of providing no donor information, to a proposal that included

(1) providing all donor information (dates, amounts, etc.) except confidential donor identification information;

(2) providing donor codes that could be linked to letters, e-mails and other information from those donors as to why their donations were discontinued; and

(3) in camera verification of donor accuracy.

If, for whatever reason, that is still not sufficient in your opinion, you need to provide an alternative solution that provides you with the information you believe you need and still protects our donors’ confidentiality. This would need to include specifics about how and by whom donors would be contacted for permission to release their identifying information to you.

We are supposed to be engaged in good faith negotiations, here. I don’t think it makes sense for me to go to my client with one proposed provision at a time. We came to the table with a complete agreement to work from. Our second draft was also a complete agreement. It only makes sense that, if you believe there exists a confidentiality agreement to which you would be willing to agree, you show your good faith by providing it to us in similarly complete form to review and discuss. If you are willing to continue negotiations, please provide a draft complete confidentiality agreement you could live with, that includes your position on donors, financial records, and proprietary business and operational information, by February 1, 2008. If you are not willing to do so, please inform me and we can discontinue our discussions.

Jerrie Hayes 






From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:38 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement

Ms. Hayes:

I believe I already provided you with a proposal, and that you already said you would be contacting your client about it. But you missed part of what I said: The donor names would be kept confidential unless they voluntarily choose to have it be otherwise. I never said one word about getting donor permission before their names would be given to us in a separate, keyed to redacted donor code, confidential list.

It makes total sense for you to test the waters of your client's willingness to allow us to challenge their claims in the manner I have suggested, a manner that protects the confidentiality of the donor information. If you have difficulty explaining to them the importance of allowing such a process, since all communications are to be had with counsel present, why not arrange a conference that would include your client as a participant?

Verifying the donation information is a critical, key component to the plaintiffs' case. We really need to test the waters, especially since we have yet to receive one single document from either plaintiff. If you need another issue to bounce off of them as well, I did not catch where your second proposal incorporated the idea that the public has a right to know what the correct figures should have been on the Form 990's and audited financial statements, since these documents are by statute a matter of public record. This was a point of mine that I made sure in our first conference that you understood I believed needed to be included.

Bob Pickle



Jerrie Hayes wrote:

Mr. Pickle;

If you reread my e-mail, you will see I told you that I could not take a proposal concerning the donors back to my client without you having clarified the terms of any such disclosure. You have not done so to my satisfaction and, as we exchange e-mails, I don’t think you can without putting your suggestions in writing – hence my request. My suggestion concerning disclosure of the donor names was that we provide all information in coded form, and allow verification to be conducted in camera. If there were specific donors you felt you personally needed to contact for verification purposes (a random sampling should be sufficient to serve your purposes), I would propose 3ABN contact the donor to see if they would voluntarily agree to a release of their name and donation information. That’s just one suggestion for a resolution; your draft might contain a different suggestion. But Plaintiffs need a concrete proposal to review and the ball is in your court.

We have provided not one but two versions of a proposed agreement that Plaintiffs could live with, neither of which were met with Defendants’ approval. It is now your turn to suggest an agreement to which Defendants would consent. I don’t know that my client will necessarily accept it without further negotiation, but it’s the fair and logical next step.

I am really not sure how to make this any clearer. To advance these negotiations, you (and Mr. Joy, if he is participating) need to provide to the Plaintiffs a complete, written proposed confidentiality agreement, incorporating all the issues you feel important and drafted in a fashion you could accept, on or before February 1, 2008. If you want to propose a different structure concerning donor information, you should include it. If you want to propose a different definition of "confidential" or "highly confidential" that reflects your views on whether the public is entitled not only to the actual 990’s and audited financial statements, but to the supporting documents underlying those reports, you should include it. I have already told you my client’s general position on these issues, but we cannot hope to agree to a confidentiality agreement operating in a vacuum using hypothetics – Plaintiffs must have a complete, written proposed agreement from Defendants to review and evaluate before any further progress can be made.

So, for the last time I will ask you a simple question with just two possible choices: do you want to provide to me a written, complete proposed confidentiality agreement by February 1, 2008, or do you want to discontinue our efforts to resolve the issue of maintaining confidentiality of donors, financial records, and proprietary business and operational information?

Please advise me of your choice (which I thought I would be getting by the end of the day yesterday), by the end of the day today.

Thank you.



Jerrie Hayes



From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:14 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement

Ms. Hayes:

I was crystal clear in my proposal, and my proposal stands as is. Find out from your client if they are willing to provide to us the donor information with names redacted, with an accompanying confidential list tying the donor names to the donor codes from the redacted documents. We would not disclose the donor names unless those donors explicitly gave us permission.


See if you can get back to me by the end of the day regarding whether your client is willing to allow us to adequately challenge their claims in the manner I have proposed, proposed more than once.

Then I would be able to work on a proposed agreement.

Bob Pickle



Jerrie Hayes wrote:

Mr. Pickle;

What we apparently have here is a failure to communicate. You are assuming my proposal provides you with the donor’s actual names and identifying information. It does not. I was NEVER talking about releasing the information to you and then, if the donor approves, allowing you to disclose that donor’s information to the public. I was talking about you identifying coded donors whose name and information you wanted, and then we would get the donor’s permission to release their identifying information to YOU! The idea of publishing the donor’s information to third parties has NEVER been on the table.

After your arguments concerning authentication, I made a compromise to you by suggesting that, although you have not shown any evidence that would lead a fact-finder to believe the donor information we would provide would be anything but authentic and genuine, my clients would be willing to accommodate your "verification" needs in two possible ways:

(1) allow the court to verify the information in an in camera review; or

(2) allow you to identify a random sampling of coded donors you believed would be sufficient to establish that the information as a whole was accurate and we would secure those donor’s permission to release their identifying information to you.

You would then be responsible for obtaining that donor’s permission to publish their information to third-parties or the public and, accordingly, responsible directly to the donor for any harassment or defamation the donor suffers as a result of your publication of their information.

I have now once again informed you of the manner in which my client is willing to accommodate your (as I see it, yet unfounded) need for verification. This is their most recent and current position. I will not go back to my clients until I have something new from you to present to them. Either of the alternative donor verification solutions could be included by you in a proposed written draft agreement to be provided to us, or your proposed agreement could include a different solution, understanding that my client, concerned about preserving their donor’s confidentiality and concerned about you, Mr. Joy or your investigative cronies badgering and harassing former contributors, does not intend to release identifying information for its donors without some assurance that those donors and their identities will be protected.

I will no longer belabor these points. For the third, and FINAL time, I will ask you a simple question with just two possible choices: do you want to provide to me a written, complete proposed confidentiality agreement by February 1, 2008, or do you want to discontinue our efforts to resolve the issue of maintaining confidentiality of donors, financial records, and proprietary business and operational information?

Jerrie Hayes



From: Bob [mailto:bob@pickle-publishing.com] Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:11 PM To: Jerrie Hayes Cc: G. Arthur Joy Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement

Ms. Hayes:

I never assumed that your proposal provided us with actual donor names, and I would think you would realize that. My proposal did that. Yours never has. Furthermore, if you cannot properly state what I have said, please either refrain from such attempts, or direct me to a different attorney who has an easier time grasping what is being said.

The idea of publishing confidential information, from what I recall, was placed on the table by your clients who used their concerns about that as a way to justify a protective order. My point is that there are some former donors out there who clearly do not mind their names being publicly disclosed, and I cannot agree to keep confidential what the former donors themselves want to be disclosed.

Due to the culture of prevarication that has existed at 3ABN, I do not see any other way to go about things. It would be one thing if it were just Danny who has prevaricated, but it isn't just him.

We have to be able to freely and thoroughly challenge and verify the claims of the plaintiffs regarding donation declines. And that could mean our attempting to verify every last former donor's existence, the amounts they gave in real donations, and why they stopped or decreased giving.

I would suggest that you not rely merely on the word of Mollie Steenson that 3ABN as a whole refuses to allow us to do what needs to be done. Perhaps the board could discuss the issue, or at least the president.

Perhaps the real problem is that 3ABN does not want its donors to know that it is in the midst of litigation.

At any rate, see if my proposal meets with tentative approval, and we would then be able to work on a proposed agreement.

Bob Pickle





Jerrie Hayes wrote:

Mr. Pickle;

Not having been employed by or, to my knowledge, having even visited 3ABN, your charge that 3ABN maintains a culture of Iying is nothing more than a second-hand opinion, not an evidentiary fact that would EVER hold up in court. If your comments constituted an effort to "prove" a need to verify 3ABN’s donor reports, you have failed miserably.

I am done with your efforts to "pass the buck" and lay all the responsibility for the creation of what is supposed to be a MUTUAL confidentiality agreement on the Plaintiffs’ shoulders. I will not go back to my clients without something new. It is Defendants’ turn to make a complete, written proposal for a confidentiality agreement. Period.

If former contributors have come to you, willing to provide you with their donor information, 3ABN cannot ask you to keep that confidential as the donors themselves have waived their confidentiality. But Plaintiffs intend to respect the donors’ confidentiality and will not disclose that information—even to you—without safeguards. I have proposed two options (in camera review or random sampling) in an effort to compromise on the issue and meet with your (as yet not established) need for data verification.

By your email you appear to be rejecting both those ideas, in which case the ball would be in your court to either propose—as part of a complete, written draft confidentiality agreement—a means of obtaining the verification you feel you need, while safeguarding the confidentiality of the donors’ identities, or ending the negotiations here and now, since my client’s position on the sanctity of the donor information is not going to change. But since I have three times asked you to make that choice, and since you have three times refused to do so, I believe our good faith efforts towards resolution have concluded.


Jerrie Hayes





Subject: Re: Response regarding a proposed confidentiality agreement From: Bob bob@pickle-publishing.com Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:21:44 -0600 To: Jerrie Hayes jerriehayes@sbgdf.com CC: "G. Arthur Joy" Gailon@gabbjoy4.com>

Ms. Hayes:

I already gave you something new, unless I missed your telling me that you had already presented my proposal to your client. And unless I missed that, your statement is another mischaracterization of the situation.

I have not passed the buck. I have merely asked if they are willing to consider my proposal before I start drafting an agreement. Another mischaracterization. Is there another attorney I should be conversing with who will refrain from misinterpreting what I have said?

In camera review does not allow us to verify the information we need to verify, and it would be inappropriate to cross examine at trial the judge who did such a review.

The issues at stake are important enough that I would want to reserve the right to verify every donor, not just do a random sampling.

I would not call this dialog "good faith efforts," since I have repeatedly presented you with a proposal that would safeguard the donor's identity, but you refuse to acknowledge that fact. But very well. If you choose to break off negotiations and refuse to verify that your client is willing to consider my proposal, then that's the way it is. I can't force you to negotiate in good faith if both you and your colleagues refuse to do so.

Bob Pickle

The end result of this discussion was that Bob Pickle filed a motion to compel and asked for sanctions against 3ABN.

Sanctions were denied. His motion to compel was granted in part: "The Plaintiffs shall provide all Rule 26 (a)(1) documents that are not privileged or confidential to the Defendants on or before March 28, 2008." SOURCE: PACER- Court Docket

And 3ABN filed a motion for a protective order and asked for oral arguments concerning such. That hearing was granted, and after  oral arguments took place on March 7, 2008,  the Judge ruled on March 10, 2008:

"  the parties are invited to provide this court with a proposed confidentiality order on or before March 20, 2008, which will govern the identification and disclosure of those documents that any party feels are privileged and/or confidential. I will issue a further order regarding the production of privileged and/or confidential documents. Until such time as this court enters a confidentiality order, the plaintiffs may withhold from production those documents referenced in this motion." SOURCE: PACER- Court Docket

[Eduard]

May I ask: Do you have a job? When do you make time to post hundreds of pages on all the forums which deal with 3ABN? How much does Danny Shelton pay you to do his work?

Eduard

[Cindy]

And 3ABN filed a motion for a protective order and asked for oral arguments concerning such. That hearing was granted, and after  oral arguments took place on March 7, 2008,  the Judge ruled on March 10, 2008:

"  the parties are invited to provide this court with a proposed confidentiality order on or before March 20, 2008, which will govern the identification and disclosure of those documents that any party feels are privileged and/or confidential. I will issue a further order regarding the production of privileged and/or confidential documents. Until such time as this court enters a confidentiality order, the plaintiffs may withhold from production those documents referenced in this motion." SOURCE: PACER- Court Docket

The PACER court Docket records:

Document 57 Filed & Entered:  03/20/2008  "Proposed Confidentiality Order" submitted by Robert Pickle

Document 58 Filed & Entered:  03/20/2008 "Plaintiffs' Proposed Confidentiality Order" was submitted by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., Danny Lee Shelton,

Document 59 Filed & Entered:   03/21/2008 "proposed order governing identification and disclosure of privileged and/or confidential documents."
 submitted by Gailon Arthur Joy.

All 3 documents are attached below, for those who want to read what each party proposed.


On 04/17/ 2008 Judge Hillman issued his "Confidentiality and Protection Order" (Document 60) which is also attached below for those who want to read it.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Why, thank-you, Ian for putting the peices together so well. Your legal capabilities and your analysis are improving with time. In fact, improving remarkably. And putting those links together is also masterful. Are you ready to participate in the drafting and submission of briefs as Bob clearly has acheived?

Now, again, I must ask your advise...should we request clarification on the issues in the order which really didn't use any of the three proposed orders? Did you notice it claims to be a stipulation? Was it actually a stipulation? And if we need clarification, would you explain the best form for that?

Thank-you so much for your continued participation. You are apparently a very bright young lady. Brilliant, in fact. With time we will help you to clear the fog, see the light and
move away from the dark side.

I await your response.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[reader]

Has anything taken place in the last few days?  No new posts about 3ABN, kinda outa touch with what is happening?

[Artiste]

No new posts about 3ABN is probably due to the semi-private areas where discussion continues.

However, I think it's good to keep on with information in this public area also.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.

We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.

Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.

Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.

We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.

In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.

I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Artiste]

We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.

We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.

Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.

Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.

We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.

In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.

I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Is that news releases on Advent Talk?

Can't wait!

[Ozzie]

We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.

We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.

Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.

Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.

We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.

In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.

I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Thanks for the update Gailon.    May God go with you as you sail ahead with discovery and trial preparation. You and Bob are in our prayers.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

We now have a "confidentiality order" that covers documents requested that 3ABN feels are covered under some form of confidentiality. We will have documents from discover beginning
this next week relating to what was given by Blue Host. We will receive the "confidential" documents by May six. Then we have to compel the discovery of anything missing and I am
sure there will be plenty.

We will also most likley have to move to challenge the confidentiality of some documents and push to recover some documents that they claim are "privileged" under various premises.

Next hearing will be May 4 Status conference. There will be a lot of issues on the agenda. Will be the focus of next weeks work.

Bob has been busy collecting documents from his recent field excursion and that will lead to news releases next week and well beyond.

We have prepared cases for Illinois to compel the production of the Auditors documents. And we are preparing a motion for the US District Court in Michigan to compel the production of documents
from Remnant Publications. We have several other subpoenas that will be served now that the confidentiality order is in place.

In a nutshell, it is full steam ahead with discovery and trial preparation.

I think that sums up the current status of the USDC Massachusetts, central division case.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Is that news releases on Advent Talk?

Can't wait!

Have to clear that question with Bob. I would guess some of it will get the full Monte.

Gailon Arthur Joy