Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on April 02, 2010, 01:15:21 PM
-
I wrote the lawyers on Monday, conferring with them on a motion we wanted to file. We wanted to file a motion to supplement our reply with two exhibits: the five felony arrest warrants for Tommy Shelton, and the police department press release about Tommy Shelton's arrest.
Here's the reply I got back from Simpson on Tuesday.
Mr. Pickle-
We would oppose such a motion and we would seek sanctions against you for bringing it. The information is not relevant to any issue presently pending before the Court, and the rules of civil procedure do not authorize such a motion anyway.
We filed our motion yesterday morning.
I wonder if Simpson is going to file a motion for sanctions against us because we filed that motion. Can't see any legal basis for it, though.
But I think maybe Simpson is stressed, so maybe he could use our prayers. He always addresses his emails to me as "Bob." This one was "Mr. Pickle." Not as chummy or cordial.
-
The arrest warrants are posted at http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-tommy-shelton-arrested.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/news-releases-tommy-shelton-arrested.htm). They say that Tommy can't leave Virginia or have contact with kids under 15 until trial. Wonder how long it will be before trial.
Preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 6 at 9am. Anyone going?
-
Not going since there are people who will personally testify of the personal knowledge of TS's acts which make the preliminary hearing almost a formality for the judge to see that there is enough evidence to bring charges against TS.
-
Bob, now you know that man is tired of talking to you about a dropped lawsuit. Not stressed just tired of you trying to work his last nerve.
Now, explain why you are trying to file "evidence" in a case that is all but closed? The one and only thing you should concerned about TS and his allegations is that he was allowed to work unchecked at 3ABN, which is huge. However, the rest, including how he is paying for he legal defense is not your(general) concern. I am not sure how long the courts are going to allow you all to continue without some kind of sanctions what what is quickly approach frivilous.
-
How TS is paying for legal fees is relevant if 1. 3ABN was somehow paying for it which I am sure they are not, unless they have legal interests in protecting TS from a guilty verdict and/or a public trial. 2. Did the money come from somebody's slush fund 3. Follow the money you never know what may be turned up. 4.Somebody else that TS may have something on, maybe trying to help TS so that information does not become public injuring that somebody else. Like a type of bribe. 5. Why hide who is paying for the defense? Because somebodys public image could be damaged as well as a snowball effect of bringing in other people who may be liable in a civil court for money and property etc. 6-2000...
There are alot of reasons for wanting to know who is paying for the legal defense. Hiding the information gives the inference that you do not want the information public. duh. Just state how it is being paid and move on. :wave:
-
Bob, now you know that man is tired of talking to you about a dropped lawsuit. Not stressed just tired of you trying to work his last nerve.
Now, explain why you are trying to file "evidence" in a case that is all but closed?
Di, it is very simple.
When the judge dismissed the case, he said we could file a motion for costs. We did that the same day we filed our notice of appeal regarding the dismissal.
When the judge denied our motion for costs, we asked him to reconsider, and also filed a motion for sanctions against Simpson for lying.
When the judge denied those motions, we appealed a second time.
We have a legal right to appeal those decisions. We also have a legal right for the court of appeals to review whatever relevant portions of the court record we request, and the rules are such that it is our responsibility to make sure those portions arrive at the court of appeals.
We therefore requested that the district court forward to the court of appeals the bank statements produced by MidCountry Bank. The magistrate judge denied that request without comment, and we then objected to his orders as we have a legal right to do.
Simpson responded to our objections, and in doing so he injected the issue of the allegations against Tommy into a dispute over forwarding the bank statements to the court of appeals.
Bear in mind that when one files a motion or a response to a motion or a reply to a response, one can file evidence that pertains to that motion or response or reply. And this we have done, as we have a legal right to do. Simpson has done the same.
On February 18, 2010, Simpson admitted that our reporting about Danny's cover up of Tommy was part of the original basis for the lawsuit. In doing so, Simpson tacitly admitted that he lied in the summer of 2008 when he claimed that the Tommy allegations were irrelevant. We have repeatedly accused Danny and 3ABN and their lawyers of obstructing discovery, and Simpson has now tacitly admitted that we are correct, for he asked the court in the summer of 2008 to prohibit discovery into the Tommy allegations on the bogus grounds of irrelevance.
This all has a bearing on the bank statements. Simpson has tried to tell the court that the bank statements are irrelevant to the lawsuit, which he also falsely claimed regarding the Remnant documents. Now we have Simpson tacitly admitting on the record that he lied when he claimed that the Tommy allegations were irrelevant. Therefore, the bank statements must also be relevant.
Moreover, Simpson claimed that our reporting about Danny's cover up of Tommy was "uncorroborated, unfounded." The five felony arrest warrants and the police department press release disprove that assertion.
If Simpson didn't want us to file the arrest warrants and press release, he never should have injected the Tommy issue into the discussion, and never should have lied about our reporting being unfounded and uncorroborated. He raised the issues. We have a right to address the issues he raised.
-
Very well explained and with good understanding except for the justifiers. (laugh) It is not hard to see where the system leans to for their no end in site for the money gifts. Danny's got it!!
-
Not going since there are people who will personally testify of the personal knowledge of TS's acts which make the preliminary hearing almost a formality for the judge to see that there is enough evidence to bring charges against TS.
Not true. In the state of Va as well as many other states, the judge will want a case to go before a grand jury and they decide whether to indict or not. But, guess what? Indictment happens in 98% of cases that go before the grand jury because only the prosecuation is allowed to present their arguments. The defense is not even allowed in the room. So, if you only hear one side of a situation, even with no evidence to present, most people are going to go that way as statistics show.
You probably also thought that for the police to arrest someone, they must have evidence. False. A woman for instance can go to the police and say her husband beat her up. With no evidence or nothing to prove it happened, the police will go arrest the husband, he will be processed and his picture will be in the paper and on the news the next day....all done with no proof.
Did you know that in Va, the detective can swear out a warrant with no evidence..only heresay?
Did you know that it is my understanding that Tommy has never been questioned one time by anyone before or after his arrest?
-
How TS is paying for legal fees is relevant if 1. 3ABN was somehow paying for it which I am sure they are not, unless they have legal interests in protecting TS from a guilty verdict and/or a public trial. 2. Did the money come from somebody's slush fund 3. Follow the money you never know what may be turned up. 4.Somebody else that TS may have something on, maybe trying to help TS so that information does not become public injuring that somebody else. Like a type of bribe. 5. Why hide who is paying for the defense? Because somebodys public image could be damaged as well as a snowball effect of bringing in other people who may be liable in a civil court for money and property etc. 6-2000...
There are alot of reasons for wanting to know who is paying for the legal defense. Hiding the information gives the inference that you do not want the information public. duh. Just state how it is being paid and move on. :wave:
Well Wendell, if it will ease your mind any, I was told that Mr. & Mrs. Shelton have had to put their home up for sale in order to pay legal fees. I believe they both are in their middle 60's and have worked their whole lives to have a nice home but all that will be taken away on heresay. Even if after the trial process Tommy is found innocent, the money is already spent and they will have no place to come home to.
I hope that alleviates all your fears as to where the money is coming from.
-
Not going since there are people who will personally testify of the personal knowledge of TS's acts which make the preliminary hearing almost a formality for the judge to see that there is enough evidence to bring charges against TS.
Not true. In the state of Va as well as many other states, the judge will want a case to go before a grand jury and they decide whether to indict or not. But, guess what? Indictment happens in 98% of cases that go before the grand jury because only the prosecuation is allowed to present their arguments. The defense is not even allowed in the room. So, if you only hear one side of a situation, even with no evidence to present, most people are going to go that way as statistics show.
You probably also thought that for the police to arrest someone, they must have evidence. False. A woman for instance can go to the police and say her husband beat her up. With no evidence or nothing to prove it happened, the police will go arrest the husband, he will be processed and his picture will be in the paper and on the news the next day....all done with no proof.
Did you know that in Va, the detective can swear out a warrant with no evidence..only heresay?
Did you know that it is my understanding that Tommy has never been questioned one time by anyone before or after his arrest?
It's also being told that the detective never questioned either of the victims, and that's not true, either. I knew these warrants were going to be issued about 3 months before they actually were. You're just mad because he finally got caught.
-
Sam, you mean the house of ill reports is lost? Hmmmm
-
Did you know that it is my understanding that Tommy has never been questioned one time by anyone before or after his arrest?
You mean anyone when you say "anyone"? Gailon called him back in I think 2006, so he was questioned by at least one someone.
Well Wendell, if it will ease your mind any, I was told that Mr. & Mrs. Shelton have had to put their home up for sale in order to pay legal fees.
Do you have a link to the real estate listing? It would be nice if your side could document at least one assertion you've made before this is all over.
-
Well Wendell, if it will ease your mind any, I was told that Mr. & Mrs. Shelton have had to put their home up for sale in order to pay legal fees. I believe they both are in their middle 60's and have worked their whole lives to have a nice home but all that will be taken away on heresay. Even if after the trial process Tommy is found innocent, the money is already spent and they will have no place to come home to.
I hope that alleviates all your fears as to where the money is coming from.
Maybe he should defend himself like Bob and Gailon are. In their case, the other side tried to give up when it appeared that the truth would come out. Maybe the same would happen to Tommy--- i.e. the state's attorney would give up as the truth began to be revealed.
I wonder..... could Tommy get the court to impound the case against him so that no one knows what's going on? Maybe Tommy could try and get the judge to have the lead prosecutor's hard drives confiscated and handed over to him to stop the spread of "lies". Hey, maybe Tommy should petition the court to have the state reimburse him for the cost of his defense. I would think that he should at least threaten the state's attorney with sanctions for even thinking of bringing charges against him in a court of law.
But hey, who knows, maybe a third party will walk into the courthouse, ask the clerk for the physical evidence against Tommy, sign for it, and then nonchalantly walk out with it as though nothing happened; possibly to never be seen again.
Or, then again, maybe Tommy should lay blame for all of this where it belongs, at the feet of the real culprit, the same one that made him leave 3ABN --- a ferry!!
-
TS left 3ABN on a ferry boat? Is there a body of water that close to 3ABN?
-
TS left 3ABN on a ferry boat? Is there a body of water that close to 3ABN?
The Ohio River is just north of Tommy's house.
-
TS left 3ABN on a ferry boat? Is there a body of water that close to 3ABN?
Di, are you serious? :help: :ROFL:
-
TS left 3ABN on a ferry boat? Is there a body of water that close to 3ABN?
From http://www.save-3abn.com/tribute-to-tommy-shelton-choice-quotes.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/tribute-to-tommy-shelton-choice-quotes.htm):
"No, Your Stress Isn't Because You're in Trouble Again for Propositioning Men and Abusing Boys"
"... you've been there [in the production department] for the last two and a half years. It is very stressful." (Danny Shelton, 6:38)
"Any position ... can be very stressful. And I realize that that's been very hard on you." (Danny Shelton, 6:44)
"So you have a lot of responsibilities plus weekend traveling." (Danny Shelton, 7:23)
"... pray for you physically too. Because I realize we've put you under a lot of stress. And I know your cholesterol ... Right now I know that your blood pressure has been up again. And, eh, you're under a lot of stress." (Danny Shelton, 7:35)
"And so we decided to go ahead and and do it here tonight and, uh, so that you can, we're trying to get you out of that stress." (Danny Shelton, 8:06)
"Of course ... I think getting you out of a position of so much responsibility ...." (Danny Shelton, 8:23)
"But as far as you know what he's doing with that tremendous schedule working all week plus traveling weekends that's too much for anybody with a good heart let alone somebody that's struggling." (Danny Shelton, 8:55)
"Plus I live an hour and a half away. It's an awful lot of driving." (Tommy Shelton, 9:04)
"It wouldn't be so bad the driving but you got that ferry that you have to deal with." (Danny Shelton, 9:10)
"Probably my most stressful thing of all of it is that ferry. If I didn't have that ferry I could cope." (Tommy Shelton, 9:26)
Really? It's the ferry that is the worst thing of all? Far worse than the new allegations of child molestation in Virginia? But Tommy, one of your alleged victims in Illinois tells us that that particular ferry boat ride is extremely relaxing.
Di, do you think they were making a play on words, that by "ferry" they didn't mean a boat after all? Since on August 10, 2006, when they said Moses and John the Baptist they meant Danny, and when they referred to Herodias they meant Linda, and when they referred to Salome they meant Alyssa, do you think it possible that when they said "ferry" on December 31, 2006, they meant homosexual?
-
No, I was letting somebody know that the word is "fairy"(as is Tinkerbell), not "ferry" as is boat.
I knew exactly what was being implied, though. It was wrong on so many levels, I just didn't bother to address it. We must remember we are to represent Christ always. I dont' believe that God likes name calling amongst His Children, no more than any other parent, right?
-
I wonder who Danny and Tommy were referring to when they used that term.
-
Now Di,,,,,
aaa....huhn
But I also wondered the same question as the above???
-
It doesn't make a difference who they were referring to, they should not have used the term either. Come on people, you have got to do better!
-
Simpson must really be stressed. He moved to strike our status reports in the First Circuit.
-
What does that move signify? (Sorry, I don't understand.)
-
We were ordered around August last year to file status reports every 60 days in the court of appeals to let the court know what was going on in the district court, since Saylor hadn't ruled on our motion to reconsider yet. So we did. We were ordered to do so on penalty of our appeal being dismissed.
Now we have a second appeal going, and things are stuck in the district court since our objections to Hillman's denial of our motion to forward the bank statements to the First Circuit haven't been ruled on yet. So we haven't filed two status reports to keep the First Circuit abreast of what is going on, since they obviously wanted to be kept informed before.
Simpson didn't like our status reports. He particularly didn't like us telling the First Circuit that we had filed the five felony arrest warrants for the arrest of Tommy Shelton on charges of pedophilia. And he certainly didn't like us pointing out that he had tacitly admitted that he had lied and obstructed discovery by falsely claiming that the allegations against Tommy Shelton were irrelevant to the lawsuit.
So Simpson has asked that our two status reports be stricken from the record, kind of like erased, so that the appellate judges can pretend that they don't exist.
Make sense?
-
Yes, that makes sense now. Is he likely to get those things erased that he doesn't care to have on record?
-
I would think he'd need a valid legal basis for requesting such.
One problem is the same we've already seen: He claimed our reply to his response to our objections was unauthorized, when according to his own logic his response was unauthorized too.
He complains that he doesn't have a way to respond to what's in our status reports, when his side did the same kind of thing, and we didn't have any way to respond.
More later.
-
We were ordered around August last year to file status reports every 60 days in the court of appeals to let the court know what was going on in the district court, since Saylor hadn't ruled on our motion to reconsider yet. So we did. We were ordered to do so on penalty of our appeal being dismissed.
Now we have a second appeal going, and things are stuck in the district court since our objections to Hillman's denial of our motion to forward the bank statements to the First Circuit haven't been ruled on yet. So we haven't filed two status reports to keep the First Circuit abreast of what is going on, since they obviously wanted to be kept informed before.
Simpson didn't like our status reports. He particularly didn't like us telling the First Circuit that we had filed the five felony arrest warrants for the arrest of Tommy Shelton on charges of pedophilia. And he certainly didn't like us pointing out that he had tacitly admitted that he had lied and obstructed discovery by falsely claiming that the allegations against Tommy Shelton were irrelevant to the lawsuit.
So Simpson has asked that our two status reports be stricken from the record, kind of like erased, so that the appellate judges can pretend that they don't exist.
Make sense?
To some... the rest are able to think for themselves and so can determine for themselves after hearing Mr Pickle and then reading the following motion what makes more sense. The Court will also make their determination, and will rule fairly regardless of the opinions expressed here...
Topic: MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORTS
Post by Synthian » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:49 am UTC
The following motion was filed yesterday in The United States
Court of Appeals For The First Circuit by Attorneys for Appellees, Three Angels Broadcasting Network and Danny Lee Shelton
__________________________
MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANTS’ STATUS REPORTS
Case: 09-2615 Document: 00116045491 Filed: 04/07/2010 Entry ID: 5434846
Appellees Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton
(“Appellees”) submit this Motion to Strike Defendants’ Status Reports and state in support of the Motion the following:
1. The District Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for voluntary dismissal by an order entered on November 3, 2008. (Doc. 129). The District Court imposed conditions on the dismissal including (1) that if Plaintiffs subsequently desired to bring the same or related claims against Defendants, they would have to do so before the same District Court; and (2) Defendants were granted an opportunity to bring a motion for an award of their costs. (See Electronic Clerk Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor on October 30, 2008).
2. On November 13, 2008, the Defendants below, Appellants here, filed a Notice of Appeal that commenced this appeal. (Doc. 133). This Court assigned the appeal Docket No. 08-2457. On the same day, Defendants filed a motion in the District Court for an award of their costs. (Doc. 130).
3. On April 13, 2009, the District Court denied Defendants’ motion for an award of costs. (Doc. 166).
4. On April 27, 2009, Defendants filed a motion in the District Court for reconsideration and amendment of Judge Saylor’s order denying their motion for costs. (Doc. 169).
5. On August 19, 2009, the United Stated Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an order vacating the submission notice dated May 29, 2009, and holding the appeal in abeyance “pending the disposition of the motion for reconsideration by the district court.” This Court directed that “In the event that defendants are dissatisfied with the district court’s ruling on their motion for reconsideration, they should file a new timely notice of appeal.”
6. The August 19 order of this Court further directed that “Defendants shall file a status report every sixty days and promptly inform this court once the motion for reconsideration has been decided by the district court.”
7. Defendants filed a status report with this Court on October 5, 2009. Instead of a report on the procedural developments in the District Court, as this Court’s order clearly contemplated by the term “status report,” Defendants submitted a 12-page screed that regurgitated the post-judgment arguments they had made to the District Court. Appellees had opposed those arguments in the District Court (and prevailed in every respect), but finding no rule authorizing a reply to a status report, they decided to ignore it even though it amounted to an unauthorized appellate brief.
8. On October 26, 2009, the District Court issued its order denying Defendants’ motion to reconsider and amend the judgment. (Doc. 193). Judge Saylor found that Defendants’ arguments lacked merit.
9. On November 23, 2009, Defendants filed a second Notice of Appeal. (Doc. 196). The new appeal was assigned Docket No. 09-2615.
10. On February 5, 2010, Defendants filed a Second Status Report in this Court, which appears on the dockets of both appeals. The document began “Though not required to do so, Defendants hereby voluntarily present this status report to keep this Court abreast of developments in the district court.” The document then quotes Judge Saylor as stating that “his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” omitting just enough context so that it appears as if Judge Saylor was admitting his prior rulings were issued due to partiality to the Plaintiffs. In context, Judge Saylor merely states that his partiality as to future rulings might be questioned because of the judicial misconduct complaint filed by these Defendants (which Appellees respectfully submit is frivolous). The document attaches as exhibits a highly objectionable and argumentative brief and an equally objectionable and argumentative affidavit. This unauthorized and uninvited “status report” amounted to yet another unauthorized appellate brief.
11. Most recently, on April 6, 2010, Defendants filed a Third Status Report in this Court, which also appears on the dockets of both appeals. The document again begins with the preamble: “Though not required to do so, Defendants hereby voluntarily present this third status report to keep the Court abreast of developments in the district court.” What follows is simply a regurgitated version of a new motion Defendants have recently made before the District Court to try to expand the record there to include criminal charges recently filed against a non-party that Appellees respectfully submit are of no consequence to this appeal or to the motions pending below. Appellees believe the Third Status Report is simply another attempt to enlarge the appellate court record to include extraneous and irrelevant information that Defendants believe advances their cause by smearing their enemies. The Third Status report also includes out-of-context snippets taken from briefs filed by the undersigned, which Defendants characterize as “damaging admissions.” In context, they are nothing of the sort.
12. This appeal will be decided based on the record created in the District Court below. Defendants have become increasingly bold in using the mechanism of a “status report” to engage in argument before this Court and to enlarge the appellate court record. Not only is this argument and information unauthorized and uninvited, there is no procedural mechanism by which Appellees may respond.
13. Appellees therefore ask that this Court strike the so-called status reports filed by the Defendants in both appeals. Appellees are concerned that someone at the Court of Appeals will read the Defendants’ poisonous diatribes and take them seriously. To the extent they are needed to resolve appellate issues, they will be forwarded as part of the District Court record. As there is no continuing need for these so-called status reports, Appellees ask that they be stricken from the record and either physically destroyed or else marked in some manner so that Court staff is made aware that they should not be reviewed or considered in connection with the appeal. Since Appellees have not had an opportunity to rebut them, it would be fundamentally unfair if the Court were to review or consider these materials in connection with the substantive issues on appeal.
14. Appellees also ask that this Court instruct Defendants to cease filing status reports (or extraneous information and argument under any other label) and strongly caution them against filing unauthorized documents.
15. Finally, Appellees ask that this Court order Defendants to pay Appellees $1,000.00 as reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with bringing this motion. The actual cost to Appellees exceeded that sum. This award is justified because the last two status reports were clearly unauthorized and were filed without notice to Appellees or opportunity to object. Defendants acknowledge in both reports that they were not required to file them, and so knew them to be unauthorized. Appellees should not have to bear the cost of this motion.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 7, 2010
...
-
Cindy,
What you posted doesn't make sense to me.
For one thing, Simpson seems to equate being required to do something as being authorized to do something. Was he required to file this motion? If so, who or what required him to file it? If not, does that mean that he was unauthorized to file such a motion? If so, does that mean the court will give me $1000 to respond to Simpson's motion?
And can you find any case in which someone was sanctioned for filing a status report? Or can you find any rule that prohibits someone from filing a status report?
-
Hey Cindy, got a question for you.
13. Appellees therefore ask that this Court strike the so-called status reports filed by the Defendants in both appeals.
The next sentence appears to me to be the main reason why they want our status reports stricken:
Appellees are concerned that someone at the Court of Appeals will read the Defendants’ poisonous diatribes and take them seriously.
Can you find any case law which shows that this is good legal grounds for striking a status report: concern that someone might take those status reports seriously?
"Appellees are concerned that someone at the Court of Appeals will read the Defendants’ poisonous diatribes and take them seriously."
(Attorney M. Gregory Simpson, reputed to have received the highest ratings for ethics and legal ability, writing on behalf of Danny Lee Shelton and 3ABN)
-
Copied here:
How long... will they keep going, and going, and going...
Postby Synthian » Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:38 am UTC
The quoted post below is by Bob Pickle on his Adventtalk forum speaking of his and Joy's latest motion to supplement an earlier reply that they had previously filed in court. He is also speaking of an email he sent, and the reply he received in answer to his inquiry about this from Attorney Simpson. He didn't quote his email, so here that is:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Conferring on a motion
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:53:37 -0500
From:Bob <bob@
To:Greg Simpson....
CC:G. Arthur Joy
Counselors:
We are considering asking the court to grant leave to us to supplement our reply to Plaintiffs' response (Doc. 231) with (a) the five felony arrest warrants for the arrest of Tommy Shelton issued on February 25, 2010, and (b) the March 18, 2010, press release issued by the Fairfax County Police Department.
Would you oppose or not oppose such a motion?
Bob Pickle
For those who don't know what this is all about. The reply Pickle and Joy wanted to supplement and add to was filed as Doc 233 (filed 02/26/2010) and is titled "DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDERS". [caps theirs] To make a very long story short, basically what that is all about is them being upset and arguing about the Courts telling them NO once again in their apparently unending efforts (and also apparently unending list of motions and arguments filed in the dismissed lawsuit) all to get hold of and see Danny Shelton's private and personal bank records. They keep claiming it is their right to both possess DS's private records and to also reveal and even publish private information to others as they see fit. They erroneously call this their 1st amendment right to free speech, and claim that right has been violated, and that they have been unfairly deprived of their property. (ridiculous, I know...)
Anyway, here is what Pickle posted about this:
I wrote the lawyers on Monday, conferring with them on a motion we wanted to file. We wanted to file a motion to supplement our reply with two exhibits: the five felony arrest warrants for Tommy Shelton, and the police department press release about Tommy Shelton's arrest.
Here's the reply I got back from Simpson on Tuesday.
Mr. Pickle-
We would oppose such a motion and we would seek sanctions against you for bringing it. The information is not relevant to any issue presently pending before the Court, and the rules of civil procedure do not authorize such a motion anyway.
We filed our motion yesterday morning.
I wonder if Simpson is going to file a motion for sanctions against us because we filed that motion. Can't see any legal basis for it, though.
But I think maybe Simpson is stressed, so maybe he could use our prayers. He always addresses his emails to me as "Bob." This one was "Mr. Pickle." Not as chummy or cordial.
3ABN filed their objection to Pickle and Joy's latest motion on April 15, 2010, just as they said they would, and here is that memorandum:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
...
________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE TWO SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton (“3ABN”) oppose the motion of the pro se defendants, Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle (“Pickle and Joy”), to file two supplemental exhibits consisting of (A) warrants for the arrest of Tommy Shelton, and (B) press release issued by Fairfax County Policy Department (Doc. 245). Their motion should be denied because the exhibits are irrelevant to any pending issue.
Pickle and Joy should be sanctioned for filing the exhibits as part of their motion, thus depriving this Court of the power to meaningfully decide whether these documents should be part of the district court record. As a Minnesota federal judge recently observed, “This is akin to lighting a cigar and then asking, ‘Is it okay if I smoke?’ It betrays a lack of respect for the rules of this Court ….” Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark, Case No. 03-CV-3190 (PJS/JJG) (Schiltz, J.). The Court should be aware that Pickle and Joy did the same thing in the First Circuit Court of Appeals by attaching these same exhibits to an unauthorized and uninvited “status report.” A motion to strike the exhibits and sanction Pickle and Joy is pending in that Court. The present motion should be denied, and sanctions imposed on Pickle and Joy including an order striking the exhibits, cautioning Pickle and Joy against filing unauthorized exhibits, and awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred to write this brief.
BACKGROUND
The history of this case is easy to explain up to the point when Plaintiffs asked Judge Saylor to dismiss it because they felt they had achieved all of their non-monetary objectives, and it was clear that the defendants’ financial condition made them judgmentproof. But after Judge Saylor granted the motion, the litigation took a bad bounce. Pickle and Joy commenced a campaign to resurrect 3ABN’s claims against them by filing motion upon motion and appeal after appeal seeking to undo Judge Saylor’s order granting dismissal. If they had succeeded, their prize would have been exposure to a claim for damages. Their claim that they hope to use the forum of this litigation to prove the truth of their allegedly defamatory statements “beyond a reasonable doubt” is specious. Their best-case-outcome was a judgment of non-liability, not a finding that their statements were true.
In the 19 months from the inception of this case to its dismissal in November of 2008, there were 129 electronic court filings in this matter. But since then, Pickle and Joy have managed to keep this case alive for an additional 17 months and over 200 electronic court filings in this Court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals. They have literally doubled the size, and nearly doubled the length, of this litigation by their meritless, duplicative and seemingly endless motions, motions to reconsider, motions to supplement, objections to rulings of the Magistrate, and appeals when their motions are denied. Their efforts have achieved exactly nothing, unless the point was to waste an enormous amount of judicial and party resources and smear the reputations of everyone who comes into contact with them and this case.
The convoluted events that lead to the present motion can be summarized as follows. In an early phase of this case, Pickle and Joy had served an out-of-district subpoena on MidCountry Bank, seeking Plaintiff Danny Shelton’s private financial information ostensibly to help them prove the truth of statements that 3ABN claimed were defamatory. The Minnesota court ordered the records be produced for in camera review directly to Magistrate Judge Hillman, in order for him to make the determination on relevancy and conditions of disclosure. Before anything was done with the records, Judge Saylor dismissed the case. Doc. 129). As part of his order, pursuant to a motion by Plaintiffs, Judge Saylor ordered return of Danny Shelton’s bank records. (Electronic Clerk’s Notes dated 10/20/2008). Pickle and Joy did not ask for a stay of the order, so on December 16, 2008, the records were turned over to 3ABN’s counsel and Pickle and Joy were electronically notified of that fact. (Doc. 160). Their contention that they did not realize that the MidCountry records had left the Court’s possession is disingenuous – their brief opposing the motion to dismiss argued that Plaintiffs had no standing to make the request and indicates quite clearly that they understood that Plaintiffs were seeking custody of the documents. (See Doc. 126 at p. 15). They received the electronic notice indicating that the records had been retrieved and signed for by counsel for the Plaintiffs. (Doc. 160).
A full year later, on December 9, 2009, professing surprise that Judge Saylor’s order had been executed and that counsel for Plaintiffs now had the MidCountry records, Pickle and Joy filed a motion demanding that the MidCountry Bank records be forwarded to the First Circuit Court of Appeals as part of the district court record. (Doc. 204). Plaintiffs opposed the motion. (See Doc. 207). The question of what to do with the MidCountry records had been litigated and decided by Judge Saylor 14 months before. Both sides had made their arguments and Judge Saylor had ordered that the records be returned, which in the context of a motion to turn the records over to Plaintiffs meant that the records should be delivered to counsel for the Plaintiffs. Thus, Pickle and Joy collaterally attacked a prior order of Judge Saylor a year after it had been executed.
Judge Saylor referred the motion to Magistrate Judge Hillman on December 18, 2009, and subsequently recused himself because Pickle and Joy had filed a judicial misconduct complaint against him. Judge Hillman denied the motion without comment on January 29, 2010. Clearly, this was within his discretion given that the very same issue had been litigated and decided more than year before.
Pickle and Joy then filed objections to Magistrate Judge Hillman’s order on February 3, 2010. (Doc. 229). Pickle and Joy now seek to file two exhibits in further support of their objections to Magistrate Judge Hillman’s order denying their motion to forward the MidCountry Bank records to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. (See Doc. 245). The exhibits consist of arrest warrants issued in Virginia for Tommy Shelton and a press release from the police agency that issued the warrants. Plaintiffs oppose the motion to file these exhibits because they are not relevant to the pending motion.
LEGAL ARGUMENT
I. The Motion Should be Denied Because the Exhibits are Irrelevant.
The authority to present evidence in connection with motions derives from Fed. R. Civ. P. 43(c) (“When a motion relies on facts outside the record, the court may hear the matter on affidavits….”). But to be admissible, evidence must be relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 402. Evidence is relevant if it makes “the existence of 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. The arrest warrants and related press release involving Tommy Shelton do not meet this requirement because they do not make a fact which is “of consequence” more or less likely to be true.
The issue that the exhibits are supposed to relate to is whether Judge Hillman abused his discretion when he denied Pickle and Joy’s motion to forward the MidCountry Bank records, which contained Danny Shelton’s private financial information, to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Careful analysis of Pickle and Joy’s brief fails to reveal any explanation of why recently-issued arrest warrants for Tommy Shelton would make it more or less likely that the MidCountry Bank records should be made part of the district court record. The MidCountry Bank records were sought on the theory that they would help Pickle and Joy prove the truth of their allegations of financial improprieties, not because they related to Tommy Shelton’s alleged criminal conduct. Tommy Shelton’s conduct was not addressed in the Complaint, and was never part of the litigation as framed by the Plaintiffs.
To the extent that the arrest warrants are offered to prove the truth of the assertions within them, i.e., that Tommy Shelton is guilty of the charges, the warrants are rank hearsay and not admissible for that purpose. Fed. R. Evid. 802. They are non-hearsay evidence only of the fact that warrants were issued on February 25, 2010. So the narrow issue of relevancy comes down to this: Is it relevant to the motion regarding the MidCountry Bank records that Tommy Shelton had warrants issued for his arrest a few weeks ago? Pickle and Joy do not articulate why this fact would make it more or less likely that the MidCountry Bank records should become part of the appeal record.
Instead, Pickle and Joy say the exhibits refute a sentence in a brief submitted by the Plaintiffs which states that Defendants’ allegations against the Plaintiffs was “uncorroborated and unfounded.” (Doc. 246 at p. 2). Pickle and Joy say that the undersigned made this “outrageously fallacious assertion” in bad faith, and should be sanctioned. (Doc. 246 p. 2). This is pretty typical rhetoric for Pickle and Joy, believe it or not.
But setting aside the inflammatory adjectives, the sentence authored by the undersigned that Pickle and Joy say merits this Court’s disapprobation and justifies the introduction of Tommy Shelton’s arrest warrants is simply this: “Pickle and Joy have long made ncorroborated, unfounded allegations against Danny Shelton and 3ABN, including claims that they covered up allegations of child molestation against a 3ABN employee, financial mismanagement, and other misconduct that framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them.” (Doc. 246 at p. 2).
This challenged statement appeared in a section labeled as “Legal Argument,” and accurately states Plaintiffs’ position throughout this litigation, as articulated in the Complaint and elsewhere. The statement is supported by the facts that are of record. First, Pickle and Joy admit in their brief that they have long made allegations of the type described. (Doc. 246 p. 1). As for the rest of the statement, it is a matter of record that Pickle and Joy refused to provide evidence in support of their contentions on the grounds of “journalistic privilege.” (Doc. 9 at ¶ 50). And finally, the fact that Tommy Shelton had arrest warrants issued in February of 2010 does not prove that the statement quoted above, made before the warrants were issued, was false. Even if the warrants were not hearsay and were thus considered corroboration” of Pickle and Joy’s allegations, they do not corroborate Pickle and Joy’s allegations that 3ABN covered up previous accusations against Tommy Shelton. The warrants did not exist at the time Pickle and Joy made their allegations, nor did they exist when Plaintiffs wrote the sentence that Pickle and Joy contend makes the warrants relevant.
The issue before the Court, once again, is whether Tommy Shelton’s recent arrest warrants make it more or less probable that the MidCountry Bank records are part of the appeal record. Merely framing the issue correctly answers it: Of course not.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs request that the Court deny Pickle and Joy’s motion to file supplemental exhibits. Plaintiffs also request that an appropriate sanction be imposed on Pickle and Joy for filing the exhibits prior to obtaining leave of the Court to do so, and for bringing this obviously frivolous motion. Plaintiffs submit that an appropriate sanction would include a strongly-worded caution to the Defendants against filing unauthorized exhibits, an order striking the exhibits, and an order to reimburse Plaintiffs for their attorneys’ fees incurred to draft this memorandum. The fees necessary to draft this memorandum will exceed $1,000.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: April 15, 2010
...
Case 4:07-cv-40098-RWZ Document 249 Filed 04/15/10
-
To make a very long story short, basically what that is all about is them being upset and arguing about the Courts telling them NO once again in their apparently unending efforts (and also apparently unending list of motions and arguments filed in the dismissed lawsuit) all to get hold of and see Danny Shelton's private and personal bank records.
You forget that Hillman essentially said YES, that we could see the bank's records, on September 11, 2008.
You further fail to quote where we have requested the court to possess or see those records in the motions filed since last fall.
3ABN filed their objection to Pickle and Joy's latest motion on April 15, 2010, just as they said they would, and here is that memorandum:
What's this about a cigar? Huh? In the District of Massachusetts, we are REQUIRED to file proposed documents along with motions for leave to file.
-
BEST LAWYER/INSURANCE STORY OF THE YEAR,
DECADE, AND POSSIBLY THE CENTURY.
This took place in Charlotte North Carolina. A lawyer purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against, among other things, fire.
Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars, the lawyer filed a claim against the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost 'in a series of small fires..' The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason, that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion.
The lawyer sued and WON!
Delivering the ruling, the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company, in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be unacceptable 'fire' and was obligated to pay the claim.
Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000 to the lawyer for his loss of the cigars that perished in the 'fires'.
NOW FOR THE BEST PART...
After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON!!!
With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case being used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000 fine. This true story won First Place in last year's Criminal Lawyers Award contest.
ONLY IN AMERICA .... NO WONDER THE REST OF THE WORLD THINKS THEY'RE NUTS.
-
The story above is a false story that has been circling the globe since c. 1997:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/cigars.html
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/lawyer-cigar-arson.shtml
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cigars-fire-ins.htm
-
Those links are bogus too and can't believe them either...haven't you heard that yet? Half the stuff snoops puts on there is either made up or if you follow it down it is bogus too. So don't display them on here for actuall fact they are right.....your wrong agin.
-
I am correct. A simple fifteen minute review of Westlaw evidences that there has been No case with this scenario anywhere in the Federal or State court systems in this country. If there had been, the published or unpublished decision would be available via Westlaw.
-
Thanks for making some close investigation. It makes sense, even if we do need some humor in between!!
The story above is a false story that has been circling the globe since c. 1997:
http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm
http://www.breakthechain.org/exclusives/cigars.html
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/lawyer-cigar-arson.shtml
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/c/cigars-fire-ins.htm
-
Thanks for the story anyway, Johann...very entertaining!
-
Its a funny story anyway.
-
I am correct. A simple fifteen minute review of Westlaw evidences that there has been No case with this scenario anywhere in the Federal or State court systems in this country. If there had been, the published or unpublished decision would be available via Westlaw.
laugh, I wonder if they have our state or federal scenario correct? Better yet --wonder if they have it at all. not all stories are told and total ignorance to believe they are. Snoop consisted of a couple out in California (I believe) just doing their thing and most of it is made up or to the best of what they heard and some follow it hook line and sinker.
-
I'll give it one more try and if that doesn't work will leave you to your own devices.
Westlaw is one of the primary online legal research services for lawyers and legal professionals in the United States and is a part of West, a part of Thomson Reuters. In addition, it provides proprietary database services. Information resources on Westlaw include more than 40,000 databases of case law, state and federal statutes, administrative codes, newspaper and magazine articles, public records, law journals, law reviews, treatises, legal forms and other information resources.
Most legal documents on Westlaw are indexed to the West Key Number System, which is West's master classification system of U.S. law. Westlaw supports natural language and Boolean searches. Other significant Westlaw features include KeyCite, a citation checking service, which allows customers to determine whether cases or statutes are still good law; and a customizable tabbed interface that lets customers bring their most-used resources to the top. Other tabs organize Westlaw content around the specific work needs of litigators, in-house corporate practitioners and lawyers who specialize in any of over 150 legal topics.
Westlaw was originated by West Publishing, a company whose headquarters have been in Eagan, Minnesota since 1992; West was acquired by Thomson Corporation in 1996. Several of Thomson's law-related businesses outside the United States have their own Westlaw sites, and Westlaw's international content is available at www.westlawinternational.com. For instance, Westlaw Canada from Carswell includes the Canadian Abridgment and KeyCite Canada,[1] and Westlaw UK provides information from Sweet & Maxwell and independent law reports, case analysis and case status icons.[2] More recently, Westlaw China was introduced, with laws and regulations, cases, digests, and status icons (similar to KeyCite flags), for the law of the People's Republic of China.[3] In total, Westlaw is used in over 68 countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlaw
http://web2.westlaw.com/signon/default.wl?fn=_top&rs=WLW10.03&ifm=NotSet&vr=2.0&bhcp=1
One more time: A simple fifteen minutes of research on Westlaw revealed that there has never been such a case in any State court system, nor any Federal court. It never happened. Your welcome to try and find the opinion which would have been generated by such a case and if you do, please post it. I won't hold my breath.
laugh, I wonder if they have our state or federal scenario correct? Better yet --wonder if they have it at all. not all stories are told and total ignorance to believe they are. Snoop consisted of a couple out in California (I believe) just doing their thing and most of it is made up or to the best of what they heard and some follow it hook line and sinker.
-
I am correct. A simple fifteen minute review of Westlaw evidences that there has been No case with this scenario anywhere in the Federal or State court systems in this country. If there had been, the published or unpublished decision would be available via Westlaw.
laugh, I wonder if they have our state or federal scenario correct? Better yet --wonder if they have it at all. not all stories are told and total ignorance to believe they are. Snoop consisted of a couple out in California (I believe) just doing their thing and most of it is made up or to the best of what they heard and some follow it hook line and sinker.
tinka,
You know how sometimes you just have to nod and wink and just let somebody be right because you know if you don't they'll blow a gasket?? This might be one of those times!! ;) After all, the legal ego can be so fragile...be it attorney, paralegal, whatever...
-
Snoopy,
I know your right. I have looked at most and even Wikipedia tries to get it right. did you ever read about SDA on there? (laugh)
-
Funny some people get so bent out of shape over a non issue. They have to be right all the time don't they? Just hillarious!
-
Funny some people get so bent out of shape over a non issue. They have to be right all the time don't they? Just hillarious!
And even if they ain't :purr:
-
"They" just just did not realize that this is a very OLD lawyer JOKE ! Thanks for the laugh you guys! :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :wave:
-
Bob, now you know that man is tired of talking to you about a dropped lawsuit. Not stressed just tired of you trying to work his last nerve.
Now, explain why you are trying to file "evidence" in a case that is all but closed? The one and only thing you should concerned about TS and his allegations is that he was allowed to work unchecked at 3ABN, which is huge. However, the rest, including how he is paying for he legal defense is not your(general) concern. I am not sure how long the courts are going to allow you all to continue without some kind of sanctions what what is quickly approach frivilous.
Unfortunately (or is that fortuitous, indeed) for Simpson, he made it an issue by his own response. And then there is the grossly mis-leading summary that really constitutes a serious effort to confuse a new assigned judge. Problem is the summary is so factually devoid of the truth, it crosses the line from "zealous advocacy" to violation of the Rules for Professional Conduct...oh, my, does that mean we have to file another rule 11 request??? C'est la vie!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Not going since there are people who will personally testify of the personal knowledge of TS's acts which make the preliminary hearing almost a formality for the judge to see that there is enough evidence to bring charges against TS.
Not true. In the state of Va as well as many other states, the judge will want a case to go before a grand jury and they decide whether to indict or not. But, guess what? Indictment happens in 98% of cases that go before the grand jury because only the prosecuation is allowed to present their arguments. The defense is not even allowed in the room. So, if you only hear one side of a situation, even with no evidence to present, most people are going to go that way as statistics show.
You probably also thought that for the police to arrest someone, they must have evidence. False. A woman for instance can go to the police and say her husband beat her up. With no evidence or nothing to prove it happened, the police will go arrest the husband, he will be processed and his picture will be in the paper and on the news the next day....all done with no proof.
Did you know that in Va, the detective can swear out a warrant with no evidence..only heresay?
Did you know that it is my understanding that Tommy has never been questioned one time by anyone before or after his arrest?
And why would you question a liar with all the evidence there is against good old Tommy Ray Shelton??? And guess what, the entire board of directors dismissed Linda Sue Shelton without even meeting with her!!! Runs in the family, doesn't it???
What goes around, comes around, Sam..Tommy is likely facing some very serious charges and the Bro does not have an old classmate police chief to get to doctor the record and dismiss the charges this time...guess that means they will have to rely upon other interventionary measures...like Brenda Walsh for instance...we know that she is a great character witness!!!! But, best keep your hands off the states witnesses, Brenda, could come back to bite you!!!
And then there is Brad Walker, the producer that would like to produce a null pros for his purportedly favorite wife and daughter of Tommy...but that could bring up some seriously problematic issues relating to the credibility of the intervenor, given the lack of marital bliss...yes, Brad, those little sidebar relationships can come back to haunt us at the most inconvenient times!!! Sometimes we must let the chips fall where they will fall!!!
And you are right, SAM, it just occurred to me that they have yet to question Tommy's own son and therapists. That should render a treasure trove of information, shouldn't it??? Perhaps an early "plea bargain" would save a lot of those rocks from rolling back on top of Tommy..remember the rock rolling analogy???
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Simpson filed a motion to strike in the First Circuit on April 7, seeking sanctions of $1000 against us. We responded on April 18, including with our response a motion for sanctions. Simpson replied today. These three documents are attached below.
What do you think of Simpson's reply, particularly the fact that he completely and totally failed to even try to show how we took his statements out of context, or how his damaging admissions weren't damaging admissions of any sort?
It also seems to me that Simpson opposes the American judicial system which allows for due process rights.
-
I found this section interesting:
Plaintiffs admitted that Defendants’ reporting about the pedophilia allegations against Tommy Shelton was
part of what “framed the original basis for Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against them,” a clear, tacit admission that Plaintiffs lied and obstructed discovery when they sought to prohibit discovery of those pedophilia allegations on the basis of relevancy. Case: 08-2457 Document: 00116050394 Page: 14 Date Filed: 04/18/2010 Entry ID: 5438472
-
And also the following:
Plaintiffs also outrageously ask that the status reports, with attachments taken from the district court record, be “physically destroyed”! Plaintiffs resort to this outrageous, on-the-record request since their counsel can find no way to send Christine Parizo into the Court of Appeals to secretly remove the sole copy of these filings as Plaintiffs did before. (RA 160; RA
212-3).
-
Notice in the untimely response attached below how Simpson tries to say that the Tommy allegations weren't part of what framed the original basis of the lawsuit.
How can it be both ways? On Feb. 18 he says it was part of what framed the original basis of the lawsuit, and now that Tommy is arrested he says it wasn't part of it.
Is there any possibility that Simpson is being truthful in both statements? Or must one of them be a lie?
-
He is being paid to be the "great spinner", the more confusing the facts, the more abusing to the system that cannot keep up, this is the training of the "vipers" to win. I still think we had the best spinners and lying lawyers in our case. We know exactly what you are going through!! Document after document of lies and that is exactly what they are doing to you.
We even eventiually found how the judges were connected.
-
It will be interesting to see how the judge will eventually respond to all of this.
-
It will be interesting to see how the judge will eventually respond to all of this.
What do you expect will happen?
-
Good question, however, I would like to think that the judge would want to get to the bottom of two contradictory statements.
It will be interesting to see how the judge will eventually respond to all of this.
What do you expect will happen?