Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on February 20, 2009, 10:48:56 AM
-
It was a lot of work, but we got it done and filed on Wednesday.
Sabbath will be such a blessed rest.
-
Good for you, Bob!! It is quite an interesting read!!
I am quite certain you will enjoy the Sabbath hours!
-
It was a lot of work, but we got it done and filed on Wednesday.
Sabbath will be such a blessed rest.
Can you PLEASE quote it for the rest of us as you shared it with Snoopy and she claims it is so interesting? and the docket entry also, Bob? Surely you want all to be able to read your case? (or is there some reason it is not open and available to all as you claim to prefer?)
I'm asking because as you know from our previous conversation today (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1598.msg18625.html#new) there is no docket entry on PACER regarding any appellant brief.
When I called because of that this morning, the court clerk told me after checking and then double checking that as of then nothing had been filed by either you or Gailon. And in fact nothing had been filed by you since 1/20/09 (and that was just about a motion you filed to amend the case caption which you lost.)
???
I was also told that even though documents from the pro se would not be available via Pacer and I would have to send a certified check or money order to get them, that they would still always be noted in the court docket when filed, BUT nothing is there, even now... I just checked.
I already asked you to please explain and help me ( and others) to understand and you started posting about "No need for me to call the 1st Cir. clerk. They know the rules. Even though I'm pro se, I wouldn't want to look stupid." and "income tax" and rules I should check and understand. (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1598.msg18625.html#new) What is going on, Bob?
-
It was a lot of work, but we got it done and filed on Wednesday.
Sabbath will be such a blessed rest.
Can you PLEASE quote it for the rest of us as you shared it with Snoopy and she claims it is so interesting? and the docket entry also, Bob? Surely you want all to be able to read your case? (or is there some reason it is not open and available to all as you claim to prefer?)
I'm asking because as you know from our previous conversation today (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1598.msg18625.html#new) there is no docket entry on PACER regarding any appellant brief.
When I called because of that this morning, the court clerk told me after checking and then double checking that as of then nothing had been filed by either you or Gailon. And in fact nothing had been filed by you since 1/20/09 (and that was just about a motion you filed to amend the case caption which you lost.)
???
I was also told that even though documents from the pro se would not be available via Pacer and I would have to send a certified check or money order to get them, that they would still always be noted in the court docket when filed, BUT nothing is there, even now... I just checked.
I already asked you to please explain and help me ( and others) to understand and you started posting about "No need for me to call the 1st Cir. clerk. They know the rules. Even though I'm pro se, I wouldn't want to look stupid." and "income tax" and rules I should check and understand. (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1598.msg18625.html#new) What is going on, Bob?
"Much to learn, you still have."
-
"Much to learn, you still have."
Yes. Many of us (myself included) will admit to that... and thus we ask questions.
I will also admit that I personally have never liked these kind of games, and most likely never will.
Is there some legit reason why answers aren't forthcoming, and are withheld, Snoopy?
-
Read the rules, Cindy, and it will all become clear.
I think my answer on the other thread was clear enough: What date do you have to file income tax returns by? What do you have to do in order to file them?
-
"Much to learn, you still have."
Yes. Many of us (myself included) will admit to that... and thus we ask questions.
I will also admit that I personally have never liked these kind of games, and most likely never will.
Is there some legit reason why answers aren't forthcoming, and are withheld, Snoopy?
Sorry. It's not up to me to share it. And nothing is being "withheld" Ian. Just because it is not available to you doesn't make it "withheld". Guess you'll just have to wait and see it when it becomes available to the public. Maybe you could get Cindi Randall to explain the process to you.
-
"Much to learn, you still have."
Yes. Many of us (myself included) will admit to that... and thus we ask questions.
I will also admit that I personally have never liked these kind of games, and most likely never will.
Is there some legit reason why answers aren't forthcoming, and are withheld, Snoopy?
Sorry. It's not up to me to share it. And nothing is being "withheld" Ian. Just because it is not available to you doesn't make it "withheld". Guess you'll just have to wait and see it when it becomes available to the public. Maybe you could get Cindi Randall to explain the process to you.
I wasn't asking you to share the brief. I was asking why Bob ( and yes, yourself also) just can't answer questions in a straightforward manner instead of playing games.
And, I'm sorry too Snoopy but commendable as your stalwart defense of and attempts to help and support Bob are, you really don't know what you are talking about here...
I already talked to the first circuit appeals court clerk. I was told the brief will become available to me after it becomes available to the court. IOW --> They plainly said they don't have it. They plainly said it is NOT filed. I was told I can check the Pacer docket to find out when it is filed, (when and if they do receive it) and then call them back to get the cost after they know how many pages there are. ok?
BTW, Does it seem somewhat redundant and confusing to you to have 2 different threads both started within a minute of each other and both talking about the same topic? It does to me. Is it possible to combine them? Just an idea... ;)
laters.. and have a good day...
-
They don't have to have it yet in order for it to be timely filed.
-
Danny and 3ABN have till March 23 to get their appellee brief in.
The next session for the court of appeals at which oral arguments may be presented or the case may be submitted appears to be June. That's the next session at which everything may be ready for that step.
Basically, if Danny really meant what he said and wanted to drop the suit, he should have dropped it with prejudice, and quit threatening us. He continuing threats after the suit was dismissed was evidence that he never was serious about dropping everything.
-
Danny and 3ABN have till March 23 to get their appellee brief in.
The next session for the court of appeals at which oral arguments may be presented or the case may be submitted appears to be June. That's the next session at which everything may be ready for that step.
Yes, barring no more delays, as your appellant brief was filed on Feb 23, and they have 30 days from that time, and then you have another 14 days to reply.
From the court docket:
"02/23/2009 Open Document BRIEF filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Length: 62 pages, 13,995 words..."
"12/09/2008 BRIEFING schedule set. Brief due 01/19/2009 for Appellant Gailon Arthur Joy and Appellant Robert Pickle. Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 31(a), appellee's brief will be due 30 days following service of appellant's brief and appellant's reply brief will be due 14 days following service of appellee's brief. [08-2457] "
Basically, if Danny really meant what he said and wanted to drop the suit, he should have dropped it with prejudice,
???
Just like your continued efforts and appeal means you never meant it when you called it the "stupid lawsuit", and begged for them to dismiss it? IOW you want to be sued?
:ROFL:
The above statement by you above is equally ignorant and absurd, Bob. The claim's legal rights weren't determined and lost... why should Danny and 3abn lie and give you permission to sue them??
The dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice simply means the claim has been brought to an end(whether permanently or temporarily) but no legal rights have been determined.
On the other hand dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice means a claim's legal rights have been determined and lost.
That never happened!
and quit threatening us. He continuing threats after the suit was dismissed was evidence that he never was serious about dropping everything.
Is that really true, or are you again putting your words in someone else's mouth, Bob? Please prove what you claim, kindly quote even one threat from Danny Shelton.
Waiting... but not holding my breath.
toodles :wave:
-
Danny and 3ABN have till March 23 to get their appellee brief in.
The next session for the court of appeals at which oral arguments may be presented or the case may be submitted appears to be June. That's the next session at which everything may be ready for that step.
Yes, barring no more delays, as your appellant brief was filed on Feb 23, and they have 30 days from that time, and then you have another 14 days to reply.
From the court docket:
"02/23/2009 Open Document BRIEF filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Length: 62 pages, 13,995 words..."
"12/09/2008 BRIEFING schedule set. Brief due 01/19/2009 for Appellant Gailon Arthur Joy and Appellant Robert Pickle. Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 31(a), appellee's brief will be due 30 days following service of appellant's brief and appellant's reply brief will be due 14 days following service of appellee's brief. [08-2457] "
Basically, if Danny really meant what he said and wanted to drop the suit, he should have dropped it with prejudice,
???
Just like your continued efforts and appeal means you never meant it when you called it the "stupid lawsuit", and begged for them to dismiss it? IOW you want to be sued?
:ROFL:
The above statement by you above is equally ignorant and absurd, Bob. The claim's legal rights weren't determined and lost... why should Danny and 3abn lie and give you permission to sue them??
The dismissal of the lawsuit without prejudice simply means the claim has been brought to an end(whether permanently or temporarily) but no legal rights have been determined.
On the other hand dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice means a claim's legal rights have been determined and lost.
That never happened!
and quit threatening us. He continuing threats after the suit was dismissed was evidence that he never was serious about dropping everything.
Is that really true, or are you again putting your words in someone else's mouth, Bob? Please prove what you claim, kindly quote even one threat from Danny Shelton.
Waiting... but not holding my breath.
toodles :wave:
Cindy, bullying and threats are standard practice for Danny. Those of us who have known him for years are fully aware of that. He's mad because he finally met up with a couple of guys who won't back down. This has never happened to him before and he doesn't know how to handle it.
-
and quit threatening us. He continuing threats after the suit was dismissed was evidence that he never was serious about dropping everything.
Is that really true, or are you again putting your words in someone else's mouth, Bob? Please prove what you claim, kindly quote even one threat from Danny Shelton.
Waiting... but not holding my breath.
toodles :wave:
Cindy, bullying and threats are standard practice for Danny.
If it is indeed "standard practice" as you claim Duane, and Mr Pickle is telling the truth, then there shouldn't be a problem with him supplying an example and quote, right?
Those of us who have known him for years are fully aware of that. He's mad because he finally met up with a couple of guys who won't back down. This has never happened to him before and he doesn't know how to handle it.
"Those of us who have known him for years"? Those who won't back down??
I am very aware from reading all your posts that you have also been very outspoken against Danny Shelton, Duane. I am also aware that you DON'T KNOW DS, and that you have also had very limited contact with him despite being employed briefly at 3abn over 24 years ago..
You won't even talk to him, remember? You wouldn't even meet me for lunch during 10 commandment weekend at 3abn, remember?
So, until now I was not aware that he had said anything at all about you, to you, or anything at all in response to your public attacks, much less bullied or threatened you... so if that is your claim then my question to Bob now extends to you also.
Quote? Example?
If that is not your claim, and you have no personal experience of bullying or threatening from him then I am sure you will clarify that as well, as you don't want to give a false impression.
-
Cindy, bullying and threats are standard practice for Danny.
If it is indeed "standard practice" as you claim Duane, and Mr Pickle is telling the truth, then there shouldn't be a problem with him supplying an example and quote, right?
You'll have to ask Bob. I don't speak for him.
Those of us who have known him for years are fully aware of that. He's mad because he finally met up with a couple of guys who won't back down. This has never happened to him before and he doesn't know how to handle it.
"Those of us who have known him for years"? Those who won't back down??
I am very aware from reading all your posts that you have also been very outspoken against Danny Shelton, Duane. I am also aware that you DON'T KNOW DS, and that you have also had very limited contact with him despite being employed briefly at 3abn over 24 years ago..
You don't have a clue what you're talking about, Cindy. I knew Danny long before 3ABN was ever even on the drawing board. Your argument is laughable.
You won't even talk to him, remember? You wouldn't even meet me for lunch during 10 commandment weekend at 3abn, remember?
I'm sorry I couldn't meet with you for lunch, but as you may remember I am an over-the-road truck driver. I usually get in late Friday or Saturday, and then I have to prepare for the teen Sunday School class I teach at my church. Plus, I have to catch up on mail, laundry, bills and other things that are waiting on me when I get home. I wasn't trying to slight you, it was simply a matter of time constraints. I was also under the impression that you wanted me to meet you at 3ABN, and that's NOT gonna happen under ANY circumstances.
So, until now I was not aware that he had said anything at all about you, to you, or anything at all in response to your public attacks, much less bullied or threatened you... so if that is your claim then my question to Bob now extends to you also.
Quote? Example?
If that is not your claim, and you have no personal experience of bullying or threatening from him then I am sure you will clarify that as well, as you don't want to give a false impression.
Ummm.....where did I say that Danny had threatened me over what I have said recently? I don't know where you got that.
-
I'm sorry I couldn't meet with you for lunch, but as you may remember I am an over-the-road truck driver. I usually get in late Friday or Saturday, and then I have to prepare for the teen Sunday School class I teach at my church. Plus, I have to catch up on mail, laundry, bills and other things that are waiting on me when I get home. I wasn't trying to slight you, it was simply a matter of time constraints. I was also under the impression that you wanted me to meet you at 3ABN, and that's NOT gonna happen under ANY circumstances.
No problem. I understand. I would still like to do that, depending on your schedule of course. I am planning on being in Tville again at the end of May, and it doesn't have to be at 3abn. I had a really good chicken salad at the Cafe there and their fish was lookin' real good also. ;)
Ummm.....where did I say that Danny had threatened me over what I have said recently? I don't know where you got that.
I am sorry if I misunderstood. TY for answering.
laters...
-
The above statement by you above is equally ignorant and absurd, Bob. The claim's legal rights weren't determined and lost... why should Danny and 3abn lie and give you permission to sue them??
They should do the mature and Christian thing, and apologize for filing a frivolous suit with baseless claims.
Their wish to dismiss without prejudice could be taken to mean that they still dishonestly maintain that the suit wasn't frivolous.
On the other hand dismissing a lawsuit with prejudice means a claim's legal rights have been determined and lost.
Not necessarily. Claims can be dismissed with prejudice even if there hasn't been a normal determination of the merits of those claims.
Is that really true, or are you again putting your words in someone else's mouth, Bob? Please prove what you claim, kindly quote even one threat from Danny Shelton.
I already proved it when I filed the correspondence of Oct. 30 and 31 with the court.
-
And once again, IAN demonstrates she has compass issues...also seems to have issues with interpretive analysis, not that this would be surprising given the perpetual and illogical effort to undermine the most elementary evidence demonstrating that her sainted one, Danny Lee Shelton, is perpetually "factually challenged", has committed perjury and deceitfully planned the demise of his wife's career, their marriage and even refused to share the fruits of the marriage...just what sort of being is this alleged saint?
And Ian's compass is fixated on this polar position that has clearly shifted into the "devils triangle"? May God Save your soul...but only if you consider a new compass.!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUREPORTER
-
I already proved it when I filed the correspondence of Oct. 30 and 31 with the court.
Possibly you did.
I have looked and I can not find any correspondence from Danny Shelton.
Do you have a more specific reference to where Danny Shelton threatened you so that we may read it for ourselves?
-
I already proved it when I filed the correspondence of Oct. 30 and 31 with the court.
Possibly you did.
I have looked and I can not find any correspondence from Danny Shelton.
Do you have a more specific reference to where Danny Shelton threatened you so that we may read it for ourselves?
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf) where Simpson said, "If I become aware of any evidence that Confidential material has been retained by you or released to others by you, or if I become aware of internet postings that reflect or imply the contents of Confidential materials, my instructions are to immediately seek relief from the Court."
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf) where Simpson made it fairly clear that he would construe comments based on Nick Miller's 2006 statements to be derived from confidential documents.
See page 9 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf) for an explanation of how the Remnant documents could not possibly support a figure of $300,000 in "royalties," and that the plaintiffs have known since the beginning of the lawsuit that we have been floating around a figure of $300,000 based on what our source told us, our source being Nick Miller.
Thus, Simpson's efforts to tie Gailon's royalty figure to the Remnant documents was abusive.
-
I have looked and I can not find any correspondence from Danny Shelton.
If you are tempted to quibble over whether letters from Danny's lawyer containing threats constitutes threats from Danny, don't.
-
Bob, has there been a response to your appeal filing?
-
Bob, has there been a response to your appeal filing?
Response, delayed has been.
snip...
YODA
Edite Note: Nice try "YODA". References to the smut site are not allowed here whether direct or indirect. If people need to read there, they can find it on their own.
-
Bob, has there been a response to your appeal filing?
Response, delayed has been.
snip...
YODA
Edite Note: Nice try "YODA". References to the smut site are not allowed here whether direct or indirect. If people need to read there, they can find it on their own.
Last Edit: Yesterday at 02:34:30 PM by Snoopy »
Refer to smut sites I do not!
Tried to answer your question I did.
Snip...
YODA
Edit note: Dense you appear to be. There is nothing on the smut site that answers my question. If you can't abide by the rules here then why not stop posting? Maybe a couple of days to think about it will help...
-
I already proved it when I filed the correspondence of Oct. 30 and 31 with the court.
Possibly you did.
I have looked and I can not find any correspondence from Danny Shelton.
Do you have a more specific reference to where Danny Shelton threatened you so that we may read it for ourselves?
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf) where Simpson said, "If I become aware of any evidence that Confidential material has been retained by you or released to others by you, or if I become aware of internet postings that reflect or imply the contents of Confidential materials, my instructions are to immediately seek relief from the Court."
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf) where Simpson made it fairly clear that he would construe comments based on Nick Miller's 2006 statements to be derived from confidential documents.
See page 9 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf) for an explanation of how the Remnant documents could not possibly support a figure of $300,000 in "royalties," and that the plaintiffs have known since the beginning of the lawsuit that we have been floating around a figure of $300,000 based on what our source told us, our source being Nick Miller.
Thus, Simpson's efforts to tie Gailon's royalty figure to the Remnant documents was abusive.
I see. You were talking of legal ramifications and sanctions. I was under the impression from your posts that you were talking about Danny Shelton making personal threats.
Given your explanation above, in your opinion would any efforts to tie the post below to the Remnant documents also be abusive?
Yeah. OK. Right.
Ian, this might come as a surprise to you, but I was not provided with any relevant documents to review from 3ABN in spite of Bob and Gailon's REPEATED efforts to compel their production. Apparently you don't have a real good understanding of how the legal system works. Maybe you should check with your friend Cindi Randall. No, on second thought, better not!! The way it is supposed to work is that the documents produced during discovery are provided to the relevant expert for review. But in the case of Danny Shelton, he apparently likes to make up the rules as he goes along. Ever played with a kid like that when you were little? Anyway, since Danny is above the law and doesn't play by the rules, he didn't produce anything!! And 3ABN went out of their way to provide a fairly comprehensive collection of their purchase orders for office supplies but completely ignored our requests for RELEVANT documents. Now. The Remnant documents? There is another story. Talk about relevant!! Actually they went beyond relevant to downright damaging! Any competent judge will be able to see that, and I'll bet the State of Illinois will too. It's just a matter of time.
So you might get your pointy little finger out of my face and make some demands of your friend Danny Shelton instead!!!!!!
-
I was under the impression from your posts that you were talking about Danny Shelton making personal threats.
In my opinion, Simpson's efforts to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton as well as everything else constitute Danny Shelton making personal threats. Whether Danny wrote the letters or his lawyer wrote the letters makes no difference.
Don't you find it disgusting that a lawyer like Simpson who prides himself on being so ethical would stoop so low as to lie and to try to cover up the child molestation allegations?
I think any lawyer caught lying should be placed under discipline and possibly lose their license. And every Seventh-day Adventist should think twice before hiring a lawyer who would rather lie than lose a case.
Given your explanation above, in your opinion would any efforts to tie the post below to the Remnant documents also be abusive?
What's your point?
Simpson took a figure derived from Nick Miller's 2006 email and tied it to the Remnant documents, when the Remnant documents can't possibly support Gailon's $300,000 figure. Instead, the Remnant documents must or should support figures of between $90,378 and $110,014 for 2005, between $482,589 and $502,225 for 2006, and between $176,739 and $196,375 for 2007.
So what do these facts have to do with your question above? What is your point?
-
Bob, has there been a response to your appeal filing?
I have obtained my answer. Thank you.
-
I already proved it when I filed the correspondence of Oct. 30 and 31 with the court.
Possibly you did.
I have looked and I can not find any correspondence from Danny Shelton.
Do you have a more specific reference to where Danny Shelton threatened you so that we may read it for ourselves?
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf) where Simpson said, "If I become aware of any evidence that Confidential material has been retained by you or released to others by you, or if I become aware of internet postings that reflect or imply the contents of Confidential materials, my instructions are to immediately seek relief from the Court."
See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-9.pdf) where Simpson made it fairly clear that he would construe comments based on Nick Miller's 2006 statements to be derived from confidential documents.
See page 9 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-161.pdf) for an explanation of how the Remnant documents could not possibly support a figure of $300,000 in "royalties," and that the plaintiffs have known since the beginning of the lawsuit that we have been floating around a figure of $300,000 based on what our source told us, our source being Nick Miller.
Thus, Simpson's efforts to tie Gailon's royalty figure to the Remnant documents was abusive.
I see. You were talking of legal ramifications and sanctions. I was under the impression from your posts that you were talking about Danny Shelton making personal threats.
Given your explanation above, in your opinion would any efforts to tie the post below to the Remnant documents also be abusive?
Yeah. OK. Right.
Ian, this might come as a surprise to you, but I was not provided with any relevant documents to review from 3ABN in spite of Bob and Gailon's REPEATED efforts to compel their production. Apparently you don't have a real good understanding of how the legal system works. Maybe you should check with your friend Cindi Randall. No, on second thought, better not!! The way it is supposed to work is that the documents produced during discovery are provided to the relevant expert for review. But in the case of Danny Shelton, he apparently likes to make up the rules as he goes along. Ever played with a kid like that when you were little? Anyway, since Danny is above the law and doesn't play by the rules, he didn't produce anything!! And 3ABN went out of their way to provide a fairly comprehensive collection of their purchase orders for office supplies but completely ignored our requests for RELEVANT documents. Now. The Remnant documents? There is another story. Talk about relevant!! Actually they went beyond relevant to downright damaging! Any competent judge will be able to see that, and I'll bet the State of Illinois will too. It's just a matter of time.
So you might get your pointy little finger out of my face and make some demands of your friend Danny Shelton instead!!!!!!
Sorry Mr. Myzing (or should I say Cindy or a Cindy clone), but I see what you are trying to do! I was merely agreeing with what Mr. Simpson has already put into the public record. So let me just help you out with a couple of quotes from recent filings. In Mr. Simpson’s very own Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, page 7, he admits that the Remnant documents were damaging:
************************
Per Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, page 7:
Since receiving information designated as “Confidential” under the Order issued in this case, Defendant Joy has published several
statements on internet blogs that appear to refer to material he has received under the confidentiality order, which state or at least imply
that the material proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs. An example is the following statement published shortly after Mr. Joy
received material pursuant to a third party subpoena issued to Remnant Publications, which produced records clearly marked as
“confidential” under the order issued in this case:
The message was carefully considered and designed to get a very specific Response. It has fulfilled it's (sic) purpose,
but, with the evidence we now Have, not simply sources, but real, hard, supportive evidence that demonstrates the
sources were woefully underreporting the scope of the abuses, I MUST STAND FIRMLY ON THAT STATEMENT.
(Simpson Aff. Ex. 3A) (italics supplied). On another occasion, also shortly after receipt of the Remnant documents, Mr. Joy wrote:
Those documents, and all other documents, are not subject to any “seal” per order of the court. YUP, old boy, they
came right to my desk and are still at my right hand until they are prepared for the “experts”. Those and the bank
statements and now the audit of the auditor will all be in the hands of experts in time!!!
(Id. Ex. 3B) Thus, the threat that the Defendants may reveal the contents of confidential information is not merely an idle possibility.
Mr. Joy is doing it already.
************************
As you can clearly see, Mr. Simpson refers to the Remnant documents and then cites two postings from Mr. Joy who is referring to the Remnant evidence, the scope of abuses, and that the evidence will soon be in the hands of the experts. Mr. Joy makes no mention of the content of the Remnant documents. Mr. Simpson is the one who makes the connection between “material that proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs” and the Remnant documents in asserting that Mr. Joy was revealing confidential information. Mr. Pickle points this out eloquently on page 9 of his Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal:
************************
Per Defendants' Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to File Under Seal, page 9:
F. “... Defendants began talking freely about them on the internet ....” (Doc. 158 p. 2).
The Plaintiffs contend:
Instead of complying with this Court’s order to return the Remnant
documents, Defendants began talking freely about them on the internet,
stating falsely that they prove wrongdoing by the Plaintiffs.
(Doc. 158 p. 2). Yet Plaintiffs’ counsel knows this is not the case, since the Defendants already pointed out in their reply memorandum
in support of their motion to impose costs that the $300,000 figure Defendant Joy gave in the post in question came from Nicholas Miller’s
email of September 19, 2006. (Doc. 149 pp. 8–9). That date is more than two years before Remnant produced any documents, and even
before the instant case was filed.
Further, the Defendants demonstrated in that same filing from public documents that the Remnant documents must substantiate
sums of roughly $90,378, $482,589, and $176,739 in 2005, 2006, and 2007 respectively, not $300,000. (Doc. 149 p. 9). Table 1 of Docket
Entry # 154 gave even more detailed estimates of the sums the Remnant documents must substantiate, using publicly available
documents. (Doc. 154 p. 3).3
The Plaintiffs are well aware that the Defendants have been talking on the internet before this action was filed about Shelton
receiving several hundred thousand dollars in royalties, since the Plaintiffs filed the Defendants’ article to this effect as pages 8–10 of
Docket Entry # 3-2. As far as whether Remnant’s documents really do prove wrongdoing, Plaintiffs counsel himself asserted in his
memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss that to say that those documents prove wrongdoing is to reveal the information those
documents contain. (Doc. 121 pp. 7–8). However, Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to retract that position as well, now maintaining that the
Remnant documents do not prove wrongdoing after all.
************************
-
Readers,
This was all looked into during the IRS investigation of Danny Shelton and 3ABN which covered all from 2000-2006 and involved questioning many who had knowledge of or input into their financial doings such as accountants, publishers, auditors, ex wives, etc..
If any "wrongdoing" had been going on concerning Remnant publishing ( or even Bob's horse deal), rest assured the IRS would have found it. They are very thorough.
Snoopy does as Bob does, cites his opinions and arguments as facts. His arguments may be based on some facts, but his opinions and conclusions about those things are not facts.
That's all I have to say about this.
..ian
-
duplicate post removed
-
Bob, has there been a response to your appeal filing?
I have obtained my answer. Thank you.
Other's may be interested also.
Quoting a post I made Monday:
As I quoted in "........" topic:
Bob Pickle - Reply #15 on: March 06, 2009, 08:15:58 PM Re: 3ABNvJOY wrote:
ian wrote:Will you be adding your appeal brief on your website soon, or are you waiting on me to post it first? Just wondering...
Feel free to post it if you want. Happy Sabbath.
I don't really know what is going on... I still do not have the appeal brief, but noticed today that the court docket has been updated:
03/10/2009 MOTION filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle To Take Leave To Correct The Record. Certificate of service dated 03/06/2009. [08-2457]
( the document referred to is not available via Pacer)
03/13/2009 OPEN DOCUMENT
ORDER granting motion for leave to correct brief filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. [08-2457]
This is all that open document, which is available via Pacer, says:
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________________
No. 08-2457
THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., an Illinois Non-Profit Corporation;
DANNY LEE SHELTON,
Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
GAILON ARTHUR JOY; ROBERT PICKLE,
Defendants - Appellants
____________________________
ORDER OF COURT
Entered: March 13, 2009
Pursuant to 1st Cir. R. 27.0(d)
The defendants’ motion to correct their brief is allowed.
By the Court:
/s/ Richard Cushing Donovan, Clerk
cc:
Gerald Duffy
Jerrie Hayes
Kristen L. Kingsbury
William Christopher Penwell
John P. Pucci
J. Lizzette Richards
M. Gregory Simpson
Gailon Arthur Joy
Robert Pickle
And earlier today:
In answer to some emailed questions ... ( it occurred to me that others might have them as well):
I don't know what date the correction to the appeal brief is due by, or if Pickle and Joy have already changed or corrected it. If so.. PACER doesn't give that information or reflect that they have.
It seems safe to presume though that after waiting till the last possible moment to file the appeal brief, this further delay by them puts the 30 days which 3abn has to respond to the Pickle and Joy appeal brief even further into the future...
..ian
-
Readers,
This was all looked into during the IRS investigation of Danny Shelton and 3ABN which covered all from 2000-2006 and involved questioning many who had knowledge of or input into their financial doings such as accountants, publishers, auditors, ex wives, etc..
If any "wrongdoing" had been going on concerning Remnant publishing ( or even Bob's horse deal), rest assured the IRS would have found it. They are very thorough.
Snoopy does as Bob does, cites his opinions and arguments as facts. His arguments may be based on some facts, but his opinions and conclusions about those things are not facts.
Ian - do you read well? I cited SIMPSON first.
That's all I have to say about this.
Promise?? Somehow, I just don't believe you!!
-
I don't really know what is going on... I still do not have the appeal brief, but noticed today that the court docket has been updated:
Now, for once we agree...
-
Well Snoopy, it looks like you have learned your craft from Robert very well.
Since receiving information designated as “Confidential” under the Order issued in this case, Defendant Joy has published several statements on internet blogs that appear to refer to material he has received under the confidentiality order, which state or at least imply that the material proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs. An example is the following statement published shortly after Mr. Joy received material pursuant to a third party subpoena issued to Remnant Publications, which produced records clearly marked as “confidential” under the order issued in this case:
As you can clearly see, Mr. Simpson refers to the Remnant documents and then cites two postings from Mr. Joy [removed] who is referring to the Remnant evidence, the scope of abuses, and that the evidence will soon be in the hands of the experts. Mr. Joy makes no mention of the content of the Remnant documents. Mr. Simpson is the one who makes the connection between “material that proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs” and the Remnant documents in asserting that Mr. Joy was revealing confidential information. Mr. Pickle points this out eloquently on page 9 of his Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal:
In regards to the emphasized portion of your quote: You have taken an edit out of Atty. Simpson’s document and placed it within a context to insinuate that he “admitted” the Remnant documents were damaging, by doing so you author a blatant lie. Atty. Simpson clearly states that Gailon Joy uses the material to make accusations and imply wrong doing. He clearly is referencing the actions of Gailon Joy and is in no way indicating a belief on his part that the documents prove wrong doing or in any way are damaging. Atty. Simpson has contended all along that the information is private and that is the motive for the confidentiality classification. Your little Frankenstein maneuver is completely transparent. You edit out the phrase with the words “wrong doing” and marry it with Remnant and place the words in the mouth of Atty. Simpson so it appears as if he said the Remnant documents, in his opinion, implicate Danny Shelton. That idea is monster of your invention.
The correct, plain word, reading of the paragraph from the motion clearly shows that Atty. Simpson implicating Gailon Joy as divulging information from confidential documents. Atty. Simpson points out that the presentation of Gailon Joy was one where he attempted to “state or at least imply” that the documents prove wrong doing. One more time, Atty. Simpson makes it clear that Gailon Joy is the one who is claiming “wrong doing” and not Simpson himself.
The Plaintiffs are well aware that the Defendants have been talking on the internet before this action was filed about Shelton receiving several hundred thousand dollars in royalties, since the Plaintiffs filed the Defendants’ article to this effect as pages 8–10 of Docket Entry # 3-2. As far as whether Remnant’s documents really do prove wrongdoing, Plaintiffs counsel himself asserted in his memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss that to say that those documents prove wrongdoing is to reveal the information those documents contain. (Doc. 121 pp. 7–8). However, Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to retract that position as well, now maintaining that the Remnant documents do not prove wrongdoing after all.
This is another one of Robert’s classic operations. He seems to be unaware that a judge will not read into a document anything that isn’t there. A judge would not read Atty. Simpson’s motion as anything more than a statement that Gailon Joy had used Remnant documents to “state or at least imply” wrong doing. So, what did Simpson say?
1. That Gailon Joy was potentially reveling information from classified documents.
2. That the way in which he presented the information was an attempt to “state or at least imply” wrong doing.
Both points are directed at Gailon Joy and are in no way an “admission” as you and Robert have attempt to reinterpret them.
Robert’s editorial gymnastics are not reasonable, nor convincing in the eyes of a judge. He can continually attempt to convince judges of his point through lies such as these, but a judge will not read anything into the document that isn’t there in the plain language – the same way they approach statutory interpretation.
anyman
-
And earlier today:
In answer to some emailed questions ... ( it occurred to me that others might have them as well):
I don't know what date the correction to the appeal brief is due by, or if Pickle and Joy have already changed or corrected it. If so.. PACER doesn't give that information or reflect that they have.
It seems safe to presume though that after waiting till the last possible moment to file the appeal brief, this further delay by them puts the 30 days which 3abn has to respond to the Pickle and Joy appeal brief even further into the future...
..ian
Any delay that is caused by motions on the part of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle will move 3ABN's reply accordingly. It would, of course, be difficult for 3ABN to reply to a filling by Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle that - by their own admission - was incorrect. They will be allowed to wait for the corrected filing until their clock begins ticking.
anyman
-
Well Snoopy, it looks like you have learned your craft from Robert very well.
Since receiving information designated as “Confidential” under the Order issued in this case, Defendant Joy has published several statements on internet blogs that appear to refer to material he has received under the confidentiality order, which state or at least imply that the material proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs. An example is the following statement published shortly after Mr. Joy received material pursuant to a third party subpoena issued to Remnant Publications, which produced records clearly marked as “confidential” under the order issued in this case:
As you can clearly see, Mr. Simpson refers to the Remnant documents and then cites two postings from Mr. Joy [removed] who is referring to the Remnant evidence, the scope of abuses, and that the evidence will soon be in the hands of the experts. Mr. Joy makes no mention of the content of the Remnant documents. Mr. Simpson is the one who makes the connection between “material that proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs” and the Remnant documents in asserting that Mr. Joy was revealing confidential information. Mr. Pickle points this out eloquently on page 9 of his Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal:
In regards to the emphasized portion of your quote: You have taken an edit out of Atty. Simpson’s document and placed it within a context to insinuate that he “admitted” the Remnant documents were damaging, by doing so you author a blatant lie. Atty. Simpson clearly states that Gailon Joy uses the material to make accusations and imply wrong doing. He clearly is referencing the actions of Gailon Joy and is in no way indicating a belief on his part that the documents prove wrong doing or in any way are damaging. Atty. Simpson has contended all along that the information is private and that is the motive for the confidentiality classification. Your little Frankenstein maneuver is completely transparent. You edit out the phrase with the words “wrong doing” and marry it with Remnant and place the words in the mouth of Atty. Simpson so it appears as if he said the Remnant documents, in his opinion, implicate Danny Shelton. That idea is monster of your invention.
The correct, plain word, reading of the paragraph from the motion clearly shows that Atty. Simpson implicating Gailon Joy as divulging information from confidential documents. Atty. Simpson points out that the presentation of Gailon Joy was one where he attempted to “state or at least imply” that the documents prove wrong doing. One more time, Atty. Simpson makes it clear that Gailon Joy is the one who is claiming “wrong doing” and not Simpson himself.
The Plaintiffs are well aware that the Defendants have been talking on the internet before this action was filed about Shelton receiving several hundred thousand dollars in royalties, since the Plaintiffs filed the Defendants’ article to this effect as pages 8–10 of Docket Entry # 3-2. As far as whether Remnant’s documents really do prove wrongdoing, Plaintiffs counsel himself asserted in his memorandum in support of his motion to dismiss that to say that those documents prove wrongdoing is to reveal the information those documents contain. (Doc. 121 pp. 7–8). However, Plaintiffs’ counsel wishes to retract that position as well, now maintaining that the Remnant documents do not prove wrongdoing after all.
This is another one of Robert’s classic operations. He seems to be unaware that a judge will not read into a document anything that isn’t there. A judge would not read Atty. Simpson’s motion as anything more than a statement that Gailon Joy had used Remnant documents to “state or at least imply” wrong doing. So, what did Simpson say?
1. That Gailon Joy was potentially reveling information from classified documents.
2. That the way in which he presented the information was an attempt to “state or at least imply” wrong doing.
Both points are directed at Gailon Joy and are in no way an “admission” as you and Robert have attempt to reinterpret them.
Robert’s editorial gymnastics are not reasonable, nor convincing in the eyes of a judge. He can continually attempt to convince judges of his point through lies such as these, but a judge will not read anything into the document that isn’t there in the plain language – the same way they approach statutory interpretation.
anyman
Nope - sorry "any(wo)man", or should I call you Lucinda??
I didn't "edit out" anything Mr. Simpson said. Did you actually read what he said or just rush to attack me?? I simply read the filings and made my own interpretation.
-
Well Snoopy, it looks like you have learned your craft from Robert very well.
In regards to the emphasized portion of your quote: You have taken an edit out of Atty. Simpson’s document and placed it within a context to insinuate that he “admitted” the Remnant documents were damaging, by doing so you author a blatant lie. Atty. Simpson clearly states that Gailon Joy uses the material to make accusations and imply wrong doing. He clearly is referencing the actions of Gailon Joy and is in no way indicating a belief on his part that the documents prove wrong doing or in any way are damaging. Atty. Simpson has contended all along that the information is private and that is the motive for the confidentiality classification. Your little Frankenstein maneuver is completely transparent. You edit out the phrase with the words “wrong doing” and marry it with Remnant and place the words in the mouth of Atty. Simpson so it appears as if he said the Remnant documents, in his opinion, implicate Danny Shelton. That idea is monster of your invention.
The correct, plain word, reading of the paragraph from the motion clearly shows that Atty. Simpson implicating Gailon Joy as divulging information from confidential documents. Atty. Simpson points out that the presentation of Gailon Joy was one where he attempted to “state or at least imply” that the documents prove wrong doing. One more time, Atty. Simpson makes it clear that Gailon Joy is the one who is claiming “wrong doing” and not Simpson himself.
This is true. Snoopy asked if you read what Simpson said, but her interpretation has me wondering if she did.
His reply to Pickle and Joy's motion was quoted on the other forum in it's entirety. His meaning is perfectly clear.
Unedited:
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
This constitutes the Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to File Under Seal (Doc. 153). Over the relevancy objections of Remnant Publications, Inc. and the Plaintiffs, Defendants convinced the District Court for the Western District of Michigan to allow them access to records regarding dealings between Remnant and the Plaintiffs. However, the Michigan court expressly ordered that the Remnant documents were being produced “subject to the Protective Order already entered in the underlying case.” (Simpson Aff. Ex. 1).
On October 30, 2008, as part of its order dismissing the case, this Court ordered Defendants to return all confidential documents. (Electronic Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV – Affidavit of M. Gregory Simpson Ex. 2). Defendants refused to comply with this Court’s order, both with respect to the Remnant documents at issue in this motion and with respect to all other documents designated as confidential under Judge Hillman’s Protective Order entered on April 17, 2008 (Doc. 60). (See Simpson Aff. Exs. 3 & 4). Judge Hillman’s order had permitted the designation of documents as “confidential” whether they were produced by a party or a third party. (Doc. 60 at pp. 1-2). The Remnant documents were designated as confidential by both Remnant and Plaintiffs. They were ordered produced with that express understanding.
Instead of complying with this Court’s order to return the Remnant documents, Defendants began talking freely about them on the internet, stating falsely that they prove wrongdoing by the Plaintiffs. (See Simpson Aff. Exs. 5 and 6). At the same time, Defendant Joy began making veiled death threats against the Plaintiffs, suggesting that Plaintiff Shelton was like a conquered king and “you know what they do with conquered kings? Ask the czar and his entire family!!!” (Simpson Aff. Ex. 6), and referring to his actions against Shelton and supporters of the Plaintiffs as “ethnic cleansing.” (Simpson Aff. Ex. 7).
Now, in a rather transparent effort to publicize documents that had no relevance to the underlying lawsuit and even less relevance to the motion at hand, Defendants move to file Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Robert Pickle (Doc. 152), under seal. The benefit of filing the document under seal is somewhat diminished, however, by Defendants’ description of Exhibit A as “a selection of the documents from Remnant [Publications, Inc.] pertaining to kickbacks and/or royalties from Remnant to DLS Publishing, Inc….” The point of filing these documents under seal is obviously undermined by Defendants’ characterization of what they represent. (In point of fact, the Remnant documents reflect perfectly legal transactions that have been fully vetted by certified public accountants and evidence no wrongdoing by anybody).
Quite frankly, Defendants have been talking about these documents on the internet for some time now. The only apparent purpose of this motion is to provide Defendants a forum to publicly characterize confidential documents that they have been ordered to return to Defendants. By calling these documents evidence of “kickbacks and/or royalties” in a public filing, the Defendants can now quote themselves endlessly on the internet, as they tend to do, with citation to a public filing for support. They have abused the judicial process hopefully for the last time.
The motion should be denied because Exhibit A does not contain admissible
evidence. Evidence is admissible if and only if it is relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402.
Evidence is relevant if it tends to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Fed. R. Evid. 401.
This case is over. It has been dismissed. The only remaining issue is the pending motion by Defendants for reimbursement of “costs,” which to them means every expense they incurred that is metaphysically related to this case, including Mr. Pickle’s cost ofshowering at a camp site while supposedly traveling to investigate allegations related to the lawsuit. The Court is well-advised of the parties’ positions with respect to that motion, and has no need of Mr. Pickle’s laughably twisted take on the royalty payments reflected in the Remnant documents.
Pickle’s affidavit indicates that the Remnant documents somehow show that the lawsuit itself was frivolous. This contention is itself frivolous. The lawsuit mentions royalties in just two allegations: Complaint ¶ 46(h) and 46(i) – alleging that Defendants defamed Plaintiffs by stating that Shelton refused to disclose royalties in divorce proceedings. There was never any dispute that Remnant paid royalties. The issue was whether these were properly disclosed. Defendants have never produced even an iota of evidence that the Remnant royalty payments were improperly characterized in any court proceeding or in IRS reporting. All the evidence has been to the contrary.
Defendants’ motion for costs should not become a backdoor means of arguing the merits of the case. The point of dismissing the lawsuit was to stop the lawsuit prior to reaching a determination on the merits, to spare the resources of the Court and the parties. Defendants did not see fit to offer Exhibit A in connection with that motion, and should not be allowed to add new arguments and evidence in support of their position now. If the merits of a dismissed lawsuit are to be addressed in the context of a motion for costs, there is no opportunity for Plaintiffs to respond adequately. Further, the benefit of dismissing the case would be lost if Plaintiffs were now forced to produce all the evidence that supported the case in what would be an endless procession of affidavits from the many witnesses who would have proven Plaintiffs claims had the case proceeded to a resolution on the merits.
If the Court is inclined to consider Exhibit A, then Plaintiffs agree that it should be filed under seal. The best course of action would be to deny Defendants permission to file it at all.
-
anyman above cites Simpson's capitulation of his former position.
Simpson in his motion to dismiss claimed that Gailon's mere suggestion that the Remnant documents were evidence of wrongdoing was to disclose their contents. But Simpson's argument requires that those documents actually be evidence of wrongdoing. If they aren't, then it can't be argued that Gailon was disclosing anything they contain.
Later, Simpson denied that there was any evidence of wrongdoing in those documents, and I subsequently pointed out that he had reversed his position.
-
anyman above cites Simpson's capitulation of his former position. Simpson in his motion to dismiss claimed that Gailon's mere suggestion that the Remnant documents were evidence of wrongdoing was to disclose their contents. But Simpson's argument requires that those documents actually be evidence of wrongdoing. If they aren't, then it can't be argued that Gailon was disclosing anything they contain.Later, Simpson denied that there was any evidence of wrongdoing in those documents, and I subsequently pointed out that he had reversed his position.
Mr Bob,
I do not see Attorney Simpson saying anything close to that in his motion to dismiss.
To be perfectly frank your renditions and interpretations of what others say and mean have throughout this entire saga bordered on the fantastical. Those things may be your opinion but your opinions are not facts and others such as myself do not have your understanding or come to the same conclusions when looking at the facts and documents entered into these dialogs.
I find myself in complete agreement with Attorney Simpson's words to the Judge after hearing you tell the Judge what he had said to you.
How many times have you claimed this very thing in dialogs here. It was most interesting to me to read in the transcript from the motion to dismiss hearing that Simpson regards your reciting of his oral words the same way that many others do your written words conveying what others said or meant after looking at what was really said.
MR. PICKLE: And, your Honor, this is Bob Pickle
again.
Attorney Simpson told me on Friday, the 17th -- well,
he called me up and made a settlement proposal, and one thing
he said was that if we didn't agree, you know, to settle, that
one thing that the plaintiffs could do is to file a motion to
dismiss, and it would be just kind of automatic, and there
wouldn't be anything further we could do about it. So, I point
blank asked him, Are you going to file a -- a motion to
dismiss? And he told me no. And then six days later, he went
ahead and filed it, and it just took us by surprise.
In our opinion, he didn't follow -- and he never
talked to Mr. Joy about it at all. In our opinion, he did not
comply with local Rule 7.1.
MR. SIMPSON: May I address that, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very -- very briefly, yes.
MR. SIMPSON: Just, it's a certain Alice in Wonderland
quality to this whole litigation and hearing my conversations
with Mr. Pickle translated back to you, your Honor, that's not
at all what the conversation was like.
I read the rule to Mr. Pickle, Rule 41, including the
terms and conditions, and we discussed whether there was any
possible -- possible basis on which they would agree to the
dismissal of the lawsuit. He said that he would speak with Mr.
Joy over the weekend, get back to me on Monday, if there was an
interest; and he didn't get back to me and continued to move
forward with the lawsuit.
THE COURT: All right. All right.
MR. SIMPSON: So that's -- that's all I want to say.
THE COURT: Okay. I've heard enough. My order will
issue.
-
Nosir,
Does it matter if the appellate brief is denied in the long run? If it is then maybe the former defendants will become the future plaintiffs and the former plaintiffs will become the future defendants. :wave: Alot of the motions of the existing plaintiffs appear to be covering incriminating evidence. :oops: There are just to many holes in the plaintiffs case. :wave: :wave: Do you think the existing defendants are going away? Please!
I wonder if the plaintiff's counsel will ever let this case or cases get to the point of depositions. :ROFL: :wave: :ROFL:
-
1. Yes it does matter. They must actually have a cause of action - without they don't even get on the playground.
2. Your comment, “[] the motions of the existing plaintiffs appear to be covering incriminating evidence” is nothing more than mere opinion, based on the questionable commentary of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle. The plaintiff motions were only standard legal strategy and not intended to hide anything. The motions were intended to keep information out of the hands of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle. Why? Because they have displayed a propensity to take straight forward communication, edit them, reinterpret the edited portions, and present them to the public as the "truth," via duplicitous manufacturing. Evidence throughout has proven this to be the fact. Case in point, the document currently under discussion is a perfect example. Atty. Simpson did not change his position. His position remained consistent throughout. It is clear when one reads the documents that Atty. Simpson indicated to the court, not that the Remnant documents indicated wrong-doing, but that in the hands of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle they would be manipulated and misrepresented in an effort to suggest or imply that they evidenced wrong-doing. Therefore Robert’s claim that Atty. Simpson changed his position is achingly unfounded. That example along with the Robert Pickle representation of the Friday 17th conversation is enough (let alone the fact there are a myriad of other instances) to lead Atty. Simpson to make his Alice in Wonderland reference. It is clear, in the record, that the conversation on the 17th put the ball in the court of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle and they chose not to return it.
3. It would appear that your question about “going away” makes one wonder how you feel about the court apparently encouraging just that.
THE COURT: Well, my concern, obviously, is I – I strongly encourage both sides to, if that's what they want to do, to walk away from this dispute in whole or in part.
Summary judgment may give the current defendants no choice.
4. The defendants were the ones who delayed depositions, rendering your last musing misdirected.
Nosir,
Does it matter if the appellate brief is denied in the long run? If it is then maybe the former defendants will become the future plaintiffs and the former plaintiffs will become the future defendants. Alot of the motions of the existing plaintiffs appear to be covering incriminating evidence. There are just to many holes in the plaintiffs case. Do you think the existing defendants are going away? Please!
I wonder if the plaintiff's counsel will ever let this case or cases get to the point of depositions.
-
anyman above cites Simpson's capitulation of his former position. Simpson in his motion to dismiss claimed that Gailon's mere suggestion that the Remnant documents were evidence of wrongdoing was to disclose their contents. But Simpson's argument requires that those documents actually be evidence of wrongdoing. If they aren't, then it can't be argued that Gailon was disclosing anything they contain.Later, Simpson denied that there was any evidence of wrongdoing in those documents, and I subsequently pointed out that he had reversed his position.
Mr Bob,
I do not see Attorney Simpson saying anything close to that in his motion to dismiss.
It's right there:
Since receiving information designated as “Confidential” under the Order issued in this case, Defendant Joy has published several statements on internet blogs that appear to refer to material he has received under the confidentiality order, which state or at least imply that the material proves wrongdoing on the part of the Plaintiffs. ...
Thus, the threat that the Defendants may reveal the contents of confidential information is not merely an idle possibility. Mr. Joy is doing it already.
Thus Simpson, on pages 7 and 8 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-121.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-121.pdf) said that to state that these documents prove wrongdoing is to reveal their contents. That can only be true if the documents do indeed prove wrongdoing.
I find myself in complete agreement with Attorney Simpson's words to the Judge after hearing you tell the Judge what he had said to you.
Did you notice that Simpson never explicitly denied that he had told me that he wouldn't file a motion to dismiss?
MR. SIMPSON: May I address that, your Honor?
THE COURT: Very -- very briefly, yes.
MR. SIMPSON: Just, it's a certain Alice in Wonderland
quality to this whole litigation and hearing my conversations
with Mr. Pickle translated back to you, your Honor, that's not
at all what the conversation was like.
I read the rule to Mr. Pickle, Rule 41, including the
terms and conditions, and we discussed whether there was any
possible -- possible basis on which they would agree to the
dismissal of the lawsuit. He said that he would speak with Mr.
Joy over the weekend, get back to me on Monday, if there was an
interest; and he didn't get back to me and continued to move
forward with the lawsuit.
THE COURT: All right. All right.
MR. SIMPSON: So that's -- that's all I want to say.
THE COURT: Okay. I've heard enough. My order will
issue.
See. He never explicitly denied saying he wouldn't file such a motion. Furthermore, the day before he filed his motion, October 22, he told the court in southern Illinois something about their next production of documents. Those were due on October 27. But before the day was out on October 23, he wrote me and said he wouldn't be producing anything on Oct. 27 because of his motion to dismiss.
In other words, on October 22, he acted as if he would not be filing his motion to dismiss. That's not above board.
-
The plaintiff motions were only standard legal strategy and not intended to hide anything.
Danny and 3ABN have no business using the ungodly strategies of the ungodly. And you are lying when you say that those strategies were not intended to hide anything.
Because they have displayed a propensity to take straight forward communication, edit them, reinterpret the edited portions, and present them to the public as the "truth," via duplicitous manufacturing. Evidence throughout has proven this to be the fact.
No such evidence was ever filed with the court.
That example along with the Robert Pickle representation of the Friday 17th conversation is enough (let alone the fact there are a myriad of other instances) to lead Atty. Simpson to make his Alice in Wonderland reference. It is clear, in the record, that the conversation on the 17th put the ball in the court of Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle and they chose not to return it.
On what basis have you chosen to believe Simpson instead of me? What proof do you have that Simpson didn't say what I said he said? Simpson never even filed an affidavit about it, and I did. Further, I fled an email that was written days before Simpson filed his motion, and email which said that Simpson said he wouldn't file such a motion.
Now how do you explain that one? Clearly, one could falsely insinuate that I made that up in order to combat Simpson's motion, EXCEPT that the email is dated prior to the filing of the motion.
4. The defendants were the ones who delayed depositions, rendering your last musing misdirected.
When did we ever delay depositions? Where did you get this from? From Simpson?
-
After reading the brief filed by 3ABN, I can understand why you are so angry.
-
Angry? Why should I be angry?
Again, on what objective basis are you taking their word for things? You read their brief and not ours, and then conclude that we're wrong and they're right? On what basis?
And why have you avoided the questions I asked above?
-
You assume I haven't read your brief (which is a misnomer).
Angry? Why should I be angry?
Again, on what objective basis are you taking their word for things? You read their brief and not ours, and then conclude that we're wrong and they're right? On what basis?
And why have you avoided the questions I asked above?
-
Correct. I did assume.
Now want to try answering my questions?
-
Well, it wouldn't be a "try," as my answers would be factual and based on the truth and not your speculative efforts. However, I don't think I will indulge you until you are willing to answer the 75+ questions that have been put to you over the course of time on various discussion boards.
You usually just ignore them and attempt to quickly send the discussion in a direction that suits you. Now, if you are ready to cease evading the significant and relevant questions put to you, we might begin an open exchange. But as long as you continue to make demands of unilateral response I imagine you won't find many willing to engage in an exchange with you.
There is a parochial arrogance about your demands and "requests" that leads many to weigh your assertions in the balance and find them sorely lacking veracity.
anyman
Correct. I did assume.
Now want to try answering my questions?
-
Sounds as if a mediator maybe a good idea. :pals: One person gets to ask questions and the other answers and then vice versus. A problem though is anyman is not a party (I am making that assumption) and to make the field even Bob's opponet should be a party to the suit. :hamster:I think this might be called a deposition of a party. Then the questions and answers can become sworn testimony and then the truth can possibly be ascertained by others. ;D :cool: ;D :wave: :beagle: :usa: :pals:
-
anyman,
If you don't want to discuss the very points you raise, then don't bring them up. Don't start accusing me of being angry, and don't treat Simpson's statements as fact if you don't want to discuss your objective basis for doing so.
If you have a question to ask me that directly addresses a point I raised that you think I have ignored, then feel free to ask it again.