Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Gregory on October 23, 2011, 01:46:29 PM
-
In view of the fact that the Court may (?) publish tomorrow their decision in regard to the petion for a Writ of Certiorari, by Bob and Gailon, I thought it might be of interest to post the basic underlying rationale the the Court considers when they decide whether or not to issue a Writ:
PART III. JURISDICTION ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Rule 10. Considerations Governing Review on Certiorari
Review on a writ of certiorari is not a matter of right, but of judicial discretion. A petition for a writ of certiorari will be granted only for compelling reasons. The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court’s discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers:
(a) a United States court of appeals has entered a decision in conflict with the decision of another United States court of appeals on the same important matter; has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision by a state court of last resort; or has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power;
(b) a state court of last resort has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of another state court of last resort or of a United States court of appeals;
(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court.
A petition for a writ of certiorari is rarely granted when the asserted error consists of erroneous factual findings or the misapplication of a properly stated rule of law.
Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals Before Judgment
A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e).
-
In view of the fact that the Court may (?) publish tomorrow their decision in regard to the petion for a Writ of Certiorari, by Bob and Gailon ....
If they were to publish it tomorrow, that would mean that it got distributed already to the justices, and their law clerks have already worked on it for maybe two or three weeks, and they perhaps already considered it in a conference, and yet nothing has been posted on the docket at http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-312.htm about it even being distributed yet.
In comparison, look at http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-310.htm (http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-310.htm). That's two case numbers before ours. On October 5 it was distributed for conference of October 28. Same for http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-309.htm. http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-301.htm says that one was distributed on October 19 for the conference of November 4.
So I don't think anything is going to be published about our petition for at least two or three more weeks.
-
Thanks for updating us, Bob.
We'll be watching what happens when it comes up.
-
Mr pickle,
I find it interesting that Mr Gregory took time to determine the foundations of appeals to SCOTUS.
And just how many of those criteria did you hit in your Writ? Oh, ALL of THEM? How about the First Circuit ruling against it's own prior similar rulings?
Too bad we are not in the Ninth...has a much better chance of being granted!!!! And they overturn the ninth more often than any other circuit.
In any event, what do you think Mr Gregory's purpose is??? Simply a point of interest or does he still have ulterior purposes???
Gailon Arthur joy
AUReporter
-
Well, the Court published nothing today. Why? I do not know.
As to the Writ: I have not read it as I do not know where to find it to read. So, I make no comment about it.
-
Well, the Court published nothing today. Why? I do not know.
They aren't going to publish a decision before the petition gets distributed. They aren't going to decide anything until they've seen the petition first.
Gregory, see http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule2011.pdf for the case distribution schedule for the October 2011 term, which lasts a year.
Paid cases are distributed on Wednesdays, and unpaid cases on Thursdays. Our case is a paid case, so you should check the docket each Wednesday or so to see when our petition is distributed to the justices.
Note that the justices then discuss the cases at a conference which could be 15 to 23 days after the petitions are distributed. An order could be published within several days after that point in time.
As to the Writ: I have not read it as I do not know where to find it to read. So, I make no comment about it.
3ABNvJoy.com (http://www.3ABNvJoy.com/) is now up to date. Minor things have been added to the D.Mass. case (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/). The stuff at the 1st Cir. Case. No. 08-2457 (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/) and Case No. 09-2615 (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-09-2615/) is more important. A new section has been added for the Supreme Court case (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/scotus-11-312/).
If anything doesn't work, let me know.
-
Bob, thank you for the information.
So, where is your Writ on the Case Distribution LIst? I have read the Writ.
Interesting.
My off the cuff analysis: I think that some of your arguements lack merit and will not be sustained by the Court. Others my be found to have merit, if so the quesiton becomes one of whether or not they have sufficient merit to cause the Court to issues the Writ. On other arguements: I have no idea. So, what will the Court do: The odds are clearly aginst you. In baseball parlance, one hit out of the field is a home run. We will wait and see.
-
So, where is your Writ on the Case Distribution LIst? I have read the Writ.
Our petition hasn't been distributed yet, according to the docket available online.
I think technically it should be called a petition, not a writ. The writ would be the order or action by the court to review the lower court's decision, not our request for that order or action, correct?
-
Technically I beleive that you are correct.
-
You are correct, Bob. You have filed a PETITION for a WRIT of CERTIORARI.
And I see that your PETITION has been distributed for review at the Supreme Court for conference on November 10.
-
You are correct, Bob. You have filed a PETITION for a WRIT of CERTIORARI.
And I see that your PETITION has been distributed for review at the Supreme Court for conference on November 10.
Is that good news? Depends who you are?
-
This tells me that nothing else can happen before then, which tells me that Gregory is obviously wrong in what he first posted here in this thread.
You are correct, Bob. You have filed a PETITION for a WRIT of CERTIORARI.
And I see that your PETITION has been distributed for review at the Supreme Court for conference on November 10.
-
Fortunately, Mr. Gregory (and a host of others) were wrong about 3ABN, Danny Lee Shelton the family's intention to sue us. My only regret is the decision not to counterclaim and close the gate to a motion to dismiss before we subpoenaed the Illinois Records. We already had sufficient cause to counterclaim, but Simpson kept asserting that he had no intention to dismiss...day after the Judge in Southern Illinois ordered the production of the auditor records, he filed to dismiss. And it has been a gargantuan effort ever since to reverse that strategic error.
And that error was my fault...had I agreed to file a counterclaim, it would have closed the gate to a Motion to Dismiss and the case would have progressed to a trial on the merits before a jury of our peers in Worcester.
In retrospect, I should have counterclaimed and added Directors and officers individulaly, third party defendants like Linda Sue Shelton, Derrell Mundall, Both Gregory's and the now deceased Cindy into the fray and turned it into a three ring circus, cutting off all retreat; but hindsight is 20-20 and opportunity knocks only once. I cannot express just how badly I feel that we allowed them to escape and not guarantee the opportunity to recovery at the very least, costs, not to mention the wonderful opportunity to expose by testimony of so many,, just what evil really lurks in the world of Danny Lee Shelton. I pray for a second opportunity!!! Maybe, SCOTUS will send us back to October 2008!!!
The only consolation is that this case, 3ABN v Joy, rekindled a latent talent that carefully and meticulously re-trained me for the legal battles of a lifetime, working to preserve the homesteads of virtually hundreds of victims of the overzealous bankers that literally threw out the banking guidelines and hyper-inflated housing to virtual unaffordability; Then sold the trash to idiot investors that trusted the excessively greedy mega bankers, eliminating banker's own liability and exposure, and trying to leave these poor fools to the largest losses of wealth in world history.
And the war is far from over!!! Massachusetts has lead the nation with the Fremont predatory lending case; the Option One Predatory lending and lending discrimination case; The Ibanez/Larace decision invalidating wrongful foreclosures and establishing the clarity of the assignment of title trail; Novastar vs Saffron requiring Housing court to consider the issue of right of possession prior to eviction of a homeowner; The Bailey case requiring the housing court try issues of facts that relate to wrongful foreclosures as a defense to eviction; the Bevilaqua Decision that clarifies that if the foreclosure is invalid, then the foreclosure in VOID and all subsequent sales of the VOID foreclosured property are also void and that includes third party sales. Buyer's recourse for purchasing a void foreclosure is to sue the bank!!! (Unless they purchased their own title insurance).
Now we await the Eaton vs FNMA decision from the SJC that would clearly establish the Note and the Mortgage must be properly assigned and in the possession of the foreclosing party at the time of a Notice of Sale. If this goes the way we expect, this ruling will invalidate tens of thousands of foreclosures all the way back to about 1995!!! When banks take shortcuts and ignore the equitable standards of nearly two hundred fifty years of law in the Commonwealth and elsewhere, they must pay the price and be accountable for their actions and it has been a pleasure working with teams that spend days and nights putting the Mega Banks feet to the fire!!! It will take another decade to deal with this mess and I must say that we are more ready than ever with an ever growing array of legal options for pre-foreclosure and post-foreclosure victims.
Now it is nearly time to direct the effort into other Power of Sale states and apply the progress in the Commonwealth to each of their unique statutes and precedents and coordinate the application of various options to take back what was wrongfully taken. I would suppose I am fortunate not to be tied up in the third world war!!! But it does not resolve the serious regret.
And, yes, I have missed the special skills that Bob could have brought to this battle; but it has been a largely thankless and financially unrewarding project thus far requiring the brute force of time and will-power and thousands of hours of interviews and intakes to pick and choose the winners and the worthy. Shockingly, the bigger the house and mortgage, the less likely it could be saved. The battle has focused on middle and lower income neighborhoods where the unsuspecting and unsophisticated were readily and abjectly taken advantage of.
So, ironically, I have much to thank 3ABN, it's officers and directors, and most importantly, Danny Lee Shelton, for. They gave me the opportunity to hone those dulled skills into a finely sharpened double edged sword seeking equal justice for all against the leviathon's of a banking industry gone awry. And we had the internet presence to demonstrate our ability!!! Yes, after all, you have served me and our Commonwealth Community well as we show people their options to actually knock down goliath!!!
But, give me any open opportunity, I'll be back!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Daryl:
I hae never claimed infability. I only claim to be correct in what I say, sometimes. :)
Due to the instruction of Bob, I have learned.
I am simply one who states opinions before I know that every part of my opinion is 100% correct.
-
I can relate to that, Gregory!! I guess that makes us human!
-
Daryl:
I hae never claimed infability. I only claim to be correct in what I say, sometimes. :)
Due to the instruction of Bob, I have learned.
I am simply one who states opinions before I know that every part of my opinion is 100% correct.
And haven't we all learned from "Bob"??? And I suspect there is much to learn from "Bob" in the future. And I am not talking about "account-temps bob" although we most certainly hold Bob in the same reverence.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Today the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for the Writ of Certiorari.
-
Today the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for the Writ of Certiorari.
How exciting for you to get to share that news!
-
Bob and Gailon,
I just have to say this - GOOD FOR YOU!!!
You stood up for the cause of transparency and accountability in the face of deep pocketed adversaries and a corrupt justice system. While the courts did not bring the fair or desired outcome, your efforts were NOT in vain! You were successful in drawing a great deal of attention to a festering Seventh-day Adventist mess that is soon to blow up in our collective Seventh-day Adventist faces. We have learned that 3ABN's proclaimed affiliation with our church depends on which piece of litigation one is reading at the time. But that will be irrelevant when the lid blows because perception trumps reality in the court of public opinion.
But the most important Court of all is the Heavenly Court, the One who knows all including what happened behind closed doors and in dark places. He is control, and He will see this through on His own terms.
In the meantime, thank you for what you did. And Bob, you could probably teach law school now!! You did a fantastic job!!
-
Bob and Gailon,
I just have to say this - GOOD FOR YOU!!!
You stood up for the cause of transparency and accountability in the face of deep pocketed adversaries and a corrupt justice system. While the courts did not bring the fair or desired outcome, your efforts were NOT in vain! You were successful in drawing a great deal of attention to a festering Seventh-day Adventist mess that is soon to blow up in our collective Seventh-day Adventist faces. We have learned that 3ABN's proclaimed affiliation with our church depends on which piece of litigation one is reading at the time. But that will be irrelevant when the lid blows because perception trumps reality in the court of public opinion.
But the most important Court of all is the Heavenly Court, the One who knows all including what happened behind closed doors and in dark places. He is control, and He will see this through on His own terms.
In the meantime, thank you for what you did. And Bob, you could probably teach law school now!! You did a fantastic job!!
I agree!
--Good work, Bob and Gailon! (Maybe you will be teaching law school some day, Bob!)
I wonder how long it will take for this "festering mess" to blow up in SDA faces.
-
Although, come to think of it, I believe one of Bob's filing's did have an apostrophe in the wrong place. Maybe that's why the supreme court denied the writ... :dunno:
-
Today the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for the Writ of Certiorari.
How exciting for you to get to share that news!
The electronic version of the actual order is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111411zor.pdf (http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/111411zor.pdf). One can note the percentage of petitions denied.
It is also important to note that a denial without more is not a statement regarding the merits of the case.
Denials of petitions for certiorari with nothing more numbered 164. Denials of petitions for certiorari with a little more numbered 7. Denials of other petitions numbered 6. Denials of rehearing numbered 15.
3 cases were summarily reversed, without merits briefs or oral arguments.
Besides those three, 5 other petitions for certiorari were granted. Of those five, it appears that 3 have to do with ObamaCare, two entries being made for case 11-400.
And thus, ObamaCare's foes and/or friends are the real winners in the court's orders of Monday, November 14, 2011.
The first petition of the five that were granted presented this question:
Whether a child who was conceived after the death of a biological parent, but who cannot inherit personal property from that biological parent under applicable state intestacy law, is eligible for child survivor benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.
The second presented this question:
Does a city government violate the Equal Protection Clause when it forgives outstanding payments owed by taxpayers who have been paying a particular tax in installments but refuses to refund taxpayers who have paid the same tax in full?
-
Thanks for the information and analysis, Bob.
-
Guess this means you can go on vacation now, Bob?
-
Does this mean that the Lawsuit against Joy & Pickle is officially over?
-
Let's just say 3ABN v Joy has gone as far as it can go. Is the battle over? I rather doubt it. DLS just lives such an exciting life we cannot help but note there is much to get caught up on in the three years since October 2008 (Motion to Dismiss).
And we are certainly not done with Simpson...he has a career in defending private inurement and malfeasance and then hiding as much as he can. Something tells me we will be busy doing what we do best...disclosing corruption and enlightening the world what goes on in dark places.
Perhaps, Mr Gregory would like to enlighten us on what we have missed the past three years!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Sorry. I have nothing to add. If you have missed something, I am not aware of it.
I think that it is quite probable that the legal bills to fight you and Bob, regardless of who paid them and how much was actually paid, amounted to 1.5 to 2 million dollars. That amount seems reasonable to me.
-
What about all the documents that are supposed to be returned?
Let's just say 3ABN v Joy has gone as far as it can go. Is the battle over? I rather doubt it. DLS just lives such an exciting life we cannot help but note there is much to get caught up on in the three years since October 2008 (Motion to Dismiss).
And we are certainly not done with Simpson...he has a career in defending private inurement and malfeasance and then hiding as much as he can. Something tells me we will be busy doing what we do best...disclosing corruption and enlightening the world what goes on in dark places.
Perhaps, Mr Gregory would like to enlighten us on what we have missed the past three years!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Returned to who, Daryl?
-
I highly doubt that Simpson is going to return the bank statements back to the bank like the judge ordered.
Non-litigants will need to return properly designated confidential documents to the attorney that gave them to them, since they signed an agreement that they would do so.
What about all the documents that are supposed to be returned?
Let's just say 3ABN v Joy has gone as far as it can go. Is the battle over? I rather doubt it. DLS just lives such an exciting life we cannot help but note there is much to get caught up on in the three years since October 2008 (Motion to Dismiss).
And we are certainly not done with Simpson...he has a career in defending private inurement and malfeasance and then hiding as much as he can. Something tells me we will be busy doing what we do best...disclosing corruption and enlightening the world what goes on in dark places.
Perhaps, Mr Gregory would like to enlighten us on what we have missed the past three years!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Bob, did you provide any confidential documents to them? Or is this a one-way deal?
-
Bob, did you provide any confidential documents to them? Or is this a one-way deal?
Certainly by their standards everything we gave them was confidential. But we never designated anything confidential amongst what we gave them.
Gailon did tell Jerrie Hayes that he was designating a third party's information as confidential. Simpson has refused to say whether they have returned that info to that third party.
To the Shelton gang, it seems everything is a one-way deal.
-
Part of the manouvers of the "Shelton Gang"...