Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on January 15, 2010, 11:55:33 AM
-
At 12:35 pm ET the following order was issued in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts:
Defendants Robert Pickle and Gailon Arthur Joy have filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against me in connection with this matter. An order of dismissal was entered on November 3, 2008, but the litigation has continued thereafter and certain matters remain pending. Under the circumstances, and because my impartiality might reasonably be questioned by an objective observer, I hereby recuse myself from presiding over this matter.
So Ordered.
/s/ F. Dennis Saylor
F. Dennis Saylor IV
United States District Judge
Dated: January 15, 2010
At 12:18 pm the following was entered into the record:
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Reassignment. Judge Rya W. Zobel added. Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV no longer assigned to case.
-
Does that help your case?
-
Time will tell.
But we do not believe that Judge Saylor's rulings since Oct. 30, 2008, have been correct or fair. So probably it will help.
-
Is he admitting to not being impartial or is that just legal talk or is he covering his posterior?
-
Is it a routine thing for a judge to do this, or is this an exceptional case?
-
Is he admitting to not being impartial or is that just legal talk or is he covering his posterior?
I don't think his statement is admitting that he has not been impartial. Rather, he is admitting that it looks like he might not be impartial.
Is it a routine thing for a judge to do this, or is this an exceptional case?
Fortunately, I don't have enough experience to say whether it is routine or not. Gailon said that this would likely happen once we filed our complaint.
The judicial system likes to keep investigations into judicial misconduct somewhat confidential. Thus, we haven't posted that we filed a complaint. But Judge Saylor has made it a matter of public record that we have.
Recusal long after a case has started doesn't happen everyday. I have read that recusal is common in the Supreme Court up front since you aren't allowed to hear a case that could affect you financially, or something like that. There is a federal law that spells it all out.
See http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse (http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/recuse) and http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000455----000-.html (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000455----000-.html) and http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000144----000-.html (http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00000144----000-.html).
-
Is it a routine thing for a judge to do this, or is this an exceptional case?
Recusal is a common occurrence that happens at various points in cases all the time. It's not new or exceptional in this case.
The motion by RJP and GAJ was a premeditated move they were reasonably assured would force Judge Saylor to remove himself from the bench. They knew they were not likely to get rulings they wanted, so they attempted to remove what they saw as the impediment.
What it effectively does is slow the case significantly. The new appointment will have to bring themselves up to speed before they make a ruling. RJP and GAJ have made a habit of attacking the integrity of lawyers and judges throughout the length of this case and will likely attempt to find ways to continuing doing so in the hope they can judge shop retroactively in an effort to create a more favorable climate for their claims.
-
anyman,
What motion of ours are you suggesting was a premeditated move? You aren't clear. And Saylor didn't refer to any motion in his statement.
Could you be specific as to when in the case we questioned the integrity of judges?
As far as the lawyers go, they have been caught red handed a number of times making statements that were less than truthful, similar to Walt Thompson and Danny Shelton, and have stooped so low as to try to cover up child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. Lawyers that would do such things don't have as much integrity in my book as lawyers who refuse to do such things.
-
What motion of ours are you suggesting was a premeditated move? You aren't clear. And Saylor didn't refer to any motion in his statement.
Are you serious? A ten year old could make the connections here. Stop playing your games. If you want to engage in an adult discussion than handle yourself as such. The complaint you filed is referenced in your initial post (Defendants Robert Pickle and Gailon Arthur Joy have filed a complaint of judicial misconduct against me). You can play your games and say, "You said motion, but it was a complaint and you said motion." The fact of the matter is you knew EXACTLY what was being referenced and this is your MO, nitpick when it is another's words, but when it is your own - someone is twisting them or misrepresenting them or they have been taken out of context. Start handling yourself with some dignity and integrity.
Could you be specific as to when in the case we questioned the integrity of judges?
Again, are you serious? If it is that murky to you, I would suggest it is your own actions that are causing you to see through the glass dimly. You have another thread going where you reference the fact that you are potentially being sued for disparaging and defamatory remarks. You have also not provided the remarks that are the subject of this situation. You have claimed that judges didn't read your filings (and you have NO proof of such, only your speculative insinuations) which is a backhanded insinuation of judicial misconduct (this being your most recent defamatory remarks http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1784.msg22472.html#msg22472). At this point, you are lucky you have only one legal professional who has taken you to task.
As far as the lawyers go, they have been caught red handed a number of times making statements that were less than truthful, similar to Walt Thompson and Danny Shelton, and have stooped so low as to try to cover up child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. Lawyers that would do such things don't have as much integrity in my book as lawyers who refuse to do such things.
No, you are wrong. You have insinuated, and expect everyone to accept your words as authority, but you have no proof, no judgments, nothing. None of your accusations are anything more than your amateurish insinuations or speculation. Your constant focus on "allegations of child molestation" evidence that there is something more to your motives, as you constantly return to this, especially in your archived YouTube videos.
You lack credibility. You lack authority. You are not to be believed. You have quickly learned to play the legal game of extension. Your filing against Judge Saylor was a calculated exercise. You weighed the cost against the possible ROI and decided that it was worth effort. It paid off. However, you have shortened your own lease in the legal arena tremendously, and you are unaware of this fact. You consider "your book" too definitive. It is sad that you seem to have forgotten that the only "books" that matter are not the earthly ones, not yours. Enjoy the paycheck while it lasts.
-
Again, are you serious? If it is that murky to you, I would suggest it is your own actions that are causing you to see through the glass dimly. You have another thread going where you reference the fact that you are potentially being sued for disparaging and defamatory remarks. You have also not provided the remarks that are the subject of this situation.
anyman, why would Bob want to post remarks that he is potentially being sued for? Please explain.
-
anyman, why would Bob want to post remarks that he is potentially being sued for? Please explain.
They're all part of the public record as they appear in the filings of RJP and GAJ. He wouldn't be "making public" anything that already isn't.
-
anyman, why would Bob want to post remarks that he is potentially being sued for? Please explain.
They're all part of the public record as they appear in the filings of RJP and GAJ. He wouldn't be "making public" anything that already isn't.
OK, so if they're part of the public record, you should already have access to them. Correct?
-
OK, so if they're part of the public record, you should already have access to them. Correct?
RJP whines or crows (select your verb of choice) about a communication between Atty. Simpson and himself involving consideration of a law suit over defamation. If he is going to finger point, he owes you and the readership a more definitive explanation . . . either that or you can go on accepting him at his word (which might not be a wise decision).
-
RJP whines or crows (select your verb of choice) about a communication between Atty. Simpson and himself involving consideration of a law suit over defamation. If he is going to finger point, he owes you and the readership a more definitive explanation . . . either that or you can go on accepting him at his word (which might not be a wise decision).
Well, I wouldn't think that Bob "owes" me an explanation of anything. I have the choice to read or not read anything on the forum. Just because I make the decision to read doesn't entitle me to all the details.
-
If he is going to finger point, he owes you and the readership a more definitive explanation . . . .
Said the spider to the fly.
-
anyman,
Sounds like you're the one whining here.
The fact of the matter is you knew EXACTLY what was being referenced and this is your MO, nitpick when it is another's words, but when it is your own - someone is twisting them or misrepresenting them or they have been taken out of context.
No I did not. My best guess as to what you were talking about was one of our recent replies to a response to one of our motions. It may not have crossed my mind that you were talking about our complaint.
I do not believe that it was my purpose in filing that complaint to see Judge Saylor removed from the case, though I can appreciate whatever precedents exist that tend to require that. The American judicial system depends upon honesty by lawyers and impartiality by judges. We do not believe that Judge Saylor was being impartial, and that's inappropriate.
You have claimed that judges didn't read your filings (and you have NO proof of such, only your speculative insinuations) which is a backhanded insinuation of judicial misconduct (this being your most recent defamatory remarks http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1784.msg22472.html#msg22472).
Your statement was that we had questioned the integrity of judges throughout the case. I believe your statement to be false. The question of reading our briefs only was raised after the status conference of October 30, 2008, which was after the case was 1 1/2 years old.
We have three lines of evidence in support of the assertion that he wasn't reading our briefs, and we have referred to those multiple times in the records of the case.
At this point, you are lucky you have only one legal professional who has taken you to task.
You sound as if I should be worried. I'm not. If Simpson wants to sue me, that's his choice. But I am disinclined at this point to file a motion to dismiss to start with, and would probably instead file a motion for summary judgment. If he's looking for embarrassment, he can go right ahead and sue me.
No, you are wrong.
No, you are wrong.
Your constant focus on "allegations of child molestation" evidence that there is something more to your motives, as you constantly return to this, especially in your archived YouTube videos.
Ask Simpson why he insisted on trying yet again to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. Why would he do that?
-
Ask Simpson why he insisted on trying yet again to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. Why would he do that?
Bob?
I am so sorry, but "**********.."
Please don't demand an apology until after you provide the evidence of Simpson saying that exact thing. Please provide the quote where he says he will ever cover up anything at all, or even references child molestation allegations-- or even in your twisted mind implies or hints at anything close to your unsupported claim here.
Post the quote of Simpson's EXACT words instead of your unsupported and false accusations about what he said. YOU, due to your track record, are not a faithful witness in my book, and I am sure I am not alone in not believing you for even one tiny micro second. I am also quite sure that the email you refer to will show up in a court filing with your name attached to it anyway, so don't waste our time here by posting a reply which is either evasive or diversive here, please. Just provide the exact and unedited quote and allow ALL here to see for themselves what Simpson said, please.
Thank you
Edited to remove name calling.
-
Bob?
I am so sorry, but "***********.."
Please don't demand an apology until after you provide the evidence of Simpson saying that exact thing. Please provide the quote where he says he will ever cover up anything at all, or even references child molestation allegations-- or even in your twisted mind implies or hints at anything close to your unsupported claim here.
Post the quote of Simpson's EXACT words instead of your unsupported and false accusations about what he said. YOU, due to your track record, are not a faithful witness in my book, and I am sure I am not alone in not believing you for even one tiny micro second. I am also quite sure that the email you refer to will show up in a court filing with your name attached to it anyway, so don't waste our time here by posting a reply which is either evasive or diversive here, please. Just provide the exact and unedited quote and allow ALL here to see for themselves what Simpson said, please.
Thank you
Just wondering, Ian. How do you know it's a false accusation?
Edited original post only to remove name calling.
-
Twice Simpson has tried to bring under the protection of the confidentiality order the material we got from Dunn Loring regarding the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.
What qualifies for protection is material that contains trade secrets or confidential business information.
Simpson is not Glenn Dryden's lawyer.
Simpson is Danny Shelton and 3ABN's lawyer.
For Simpson to try to classify material pertaining to the allegations against Tommy Shelton as confidential is essentially saying that those allegations are a trade secret or business information pertaining to Danny or 3ABN.
Of course Simpson must know that such a position is utterly ludicrous, and has no legal basis. Thus, his attempts to so classify such material is an attempt to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.
And I consider such attempts by Simpson to be utterly repulsive, reprehensible, disgusting, wrong, and unethical.
Simpson's latest attempt to cover up the child molestation allegations can be read at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-11.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-11.pdf). My letter to him to which he was responding can be also read at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-10.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-10.pdf).
Simpson's first attempt to cover up the child molestation allegations can be read at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-8.pdf). He tries to call confidential everything we got via subpoena, which included the material from Dunn Loring, after the case is already over, even though we have no record of him doing so earlier.