Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

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?

[Cindy]

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.

[ex3abnemployee]

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.

[Bob Pickle]

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. 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.

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. 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.