Print

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

3ABN should respond by September 10.

13 (31%)

3ABN shouldn't respond at all to the demand letter.

0 (0%)

3ABN should settle within 30 days of August 18, well before the Christmas giving season.

11 (26.2%)

3ABN should never settle since 3ABN has never done anything wrong.

1 (2.4%)

3ABN should let it go to trial as soon as possible so that 3ABN can be fully vindicated.

1 (2.4%)

3ABN should try every stall tactic in the books, in the hopes that the case never goes to trial.

0 (0%)

3ABN's directors should foot the bill, since Tommy was rehired 10 years after being let go over similar allegations.

12 (28.6%)

I need to know what Tommy's victim's claims are before I can decide on some of these questions.

4 (9.5%)

Total Members Voted: 19

[Pat Williams]

How will this affect the dismissed lawsuit against you and Joy that you are appealing, or is it were appealing?

We still have two appeals going. One is fully briefed and the other isn't briefed at all. The second appeal got hung up because Attorneys Greg Simpson and John Pucci refuse to return the sealed bank statements that Christine Parizo unlawfully took from the federal courthouse in Worcester, MA.

Pickle's accusations above are false and his and Joy's last arguments about the above issue  were overruled yesterday in the District court. The following information and documents were provided on the other forum:

... It's about time, eh?    The lawsuit filed by 3ABN and DS against Robert Pickle and Gailon Joy in Massachusetts is finally over.

To clarify though, for those who may not understand. All is not over. Only the Massachusetts case is. There is still a related and ongoing appeal case which Pickle and Joy filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, protesting against the dismissal of the lawsuit against them, and asking for the Appeal Court to overrule that decision. (Ummm... yeah, they want to continue being sued, as they don't have any grounds to take 3abn to court otherwise, and as they wish they could...)

Since it's been so long...

To review: 2 yrs ago (October of  2008) 3ABN ( having already received all the meaningful relief they thought could possibly be achieved when filing the lawsuit in April 2007 ) filed a  motion for the dismissal of the  Massachusetts District Court lawsuit against Robert Pickle and Gailon Joy for their slander/libel/defamation. 3ABN's motion for dismissal was granted based on their reasoning, despite the arguments against that raised by and filed by Pickle and Joy.


Quoting the Court docket:

Case called, Counsel and dft's pro-se appear for status conference, Court hears arguments of counsel re: motion to dismiss, Court rules granting 120 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; The Court orders dismissal with conditions stated on the record, Any renewed claims brought by plaintiff shall be brought in this division in the District of MA. as ordered on the record, Court orders all confidential documents returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned, Court orders any motion for costs to be filed by 11/21/08. Order of dismissal to issue

Quoting the Judge on record:

"THE COURT: All right. Here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to grant the motion. I'm going to dismiss it without
prejudice and with some conditions, which include the condition
that any claims brought by the plaintiffs, based on the same
facts and circumstances or -- or -- or nucleus of operative
events may only be brought in the Central Division of
Massachusetts, but let me be more formal about that.

The motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. I
order that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. I make
no finding of any kind as to the merits or lack of merits of
any of the claims or factual defenses set forth in the
pleadings, and I'm dismissing the claim principally based on
the representation by the plaintiff that there is no longer any
purpose for the litigation, because plaintiffs do not believe
that they can accomplish -- or achieve any meaningful relief
based on the facts and circumstances as they now exist,
including, but not limited to, the bankruptcy of one of the
defendants.

I am imposing this dismissal with the condition that
any claim or claims brought by plaintiffs based on the same or
similar facts and circumstances may only be brought in the
Central Division of the District of Massachusetts, so that if
this lawsuit in some ways comes back to life, it will be in
front of me, and I'll have all the facts and circumstances at
my disposal at that point and can make such orders as I think
are just under the circumstances.

I will order that all materials produced in discovery
that were designated as confidential under the confidentiality
and protective order issued in this case on April 17th will be
returned, as set forth in that order.

Destruction of the documents will only be permitted if
consistent with the terms of the order; and similarly, any
photocopying or other copying of any such materials will only
be permitted if permitted under that order.

Any pending third-party subpoenas are deemed moot, and
the party will -- any party having issued such a third-party
subpoena will take reasonable steps to notify the recipient of
the subpoena that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and the
subpoenas are no longer in effect.

*******************************

*******************************

The dismissal of the lawsuit was granted, "without prejudice" way back in  November or 2008. --- pending the motion for costs which Pickle and joy filed and then filed again after that was denied. [all their motions, arguments, protests , and requests for reconsideration, asking for reimbursement and monies were  denied]

Yet, Pickle and Joy belabored the point, and quibbled endlessly about the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing anything and everything, till now when they are out of gas...

So that's  what  this latest decision means. It means that finally, at least in the district court, Pickle and Joy are done. There are no more pending issues and arguments left for that court to decide, and nothing further which can or should be filed there.  Pickle and Joy are finally done wasting that court's and 3ABN's time and money(actually the Donor's donated funding) with their ad hominem attacks, and  their frivolous, petty, unsupported and desperate, unrelated, irrelevant [without legal precedent or standing] arguments, and motions.
[Every one of which -without exception- they have been ruled against and lost during the past 2 years!]

Now they can file their appeal brief, and all can move on, and again I say, "IT"S ABOUT TIME".

***********************************
***********************************

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-40098-RWZ

THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.,
an Illinois Non-Profit Corproation,
and DANNY LEE SHELTON, Individually
v.
GAILON ARTHUR JOY
and ROBERT PICKLE


[size=150]ORDER[/size]
October 19, 2010
ZOBEL, D.J.


This case began as a straight forward trademark infringement action with claims
for defamation and interference with business by a non-profit corporation, Three Angels
Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“Network”), and its founder and president Danny Lee
Shelton. The primary business of Network is to operate and manage a Christian
television and radio broadcast ministry. Although, according to the complaint, plaintiff
Shelton, is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist faith, Network is nondenominational
and is not affiliated with any specific church. Defendants, who are pro
se, are also members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. This straight forward case
rapidly degenerated into a discovery morass accompanied by a series of ad hominem
attacks on plaintiff and his counsel and, eventually, on the district judge initially
assigned to this case.

One issue which has occupied considerable time of the court revolved around
defendants’ efforts to obtain, and keep, plaintiff Shelton’s personal financial records at
MidCountry Bank in Minnesota. Defendants sought these records with a subpoena
issued by the Federal District Court in Minnesota which ordered them to be sent under
seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman who, by reference from the District Judge, was
managing the discovery in the case. Plaintiffs moved for a confidentiality order which
was allowed. (Docket # 60.)

When, on October 23, 2008, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case voluntarily,
they included a request that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to them. The
district judge, after a hearing on October 30, 2008, orally allowed the motion to dismiss
with conditions and ordered all confidential records to be returned to plaintiffs. A
written order was docketed on November 3, 2008. Defendants filed a notice of appeal
on November 13, 2008. Magistrate Judge Hillman returned the records to plaintiffs.
On December 9, 2009, more than a year after defendants’ notice of appeal from
the order of dismissal, defendants moved to designate as part of the record and
forward to the Court of Appeals the MidCountry Bank documents (Docket # 204). On
December 18, 2009, they moved for an order to plaintiffs to return them to this court
(Docket # 210). Magistrate Judge Hillman denied both motions on January 29, 2010,
and defendants filed objections to both rulings on February 3, 2010 (Docket # 229).
Because the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, this court failed to rule on the
objections.

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the objections are overruled.

Magistrate Judge Hillman’s orders, while entered well after dismissal of the case, are
properly considered part of pretrial discovery and, as such, may be reconsidered by the
district judge only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).
The magistrate judge committed no error. Contrary to defendants’ assertion, brevity,
even extreme brevity, does not mean, nor suggest impropriety on the part of the judge.
The fact that defendants paid for the copying of these records does not confer
ownership on them and until a ruling by the magistrate judge that defendants were
entitled to these documents, plaintiff Shelton’s right to this private information trumped
defendants’ right to see and distribute them.

Defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge orders (Docket # 229) are
overruled.


DATE October 19, 2010
/s/Rya W. Zobel
 RYA W. ZOBEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Edited to remove inappropriate content.

[Adam]

Oh, Pat Williams comes out of the hiding!   That was posted here why?

Pat thought you wasn't going to post here anymore? Oh, yeah, that's right, Cindy says the same thing....then you end up making yourselves into liars....be gone foul spirit..


Edited-to correct spelling.-

[Pat Williams]

How will this affect the dismissed lawsuit against you and Joy that you are appealing, or is it were appealing?

---> Pacer Court Docket:

236   Filed & Entered:      02/26/2010
Terminated:     05/10/2010
    Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File under Seal Exhibits A & B for Doc. #234 by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.(Pickle, Robert)


245   Filed & Entered:      04/01/2010
Terminated:     05/10/2010
    Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: MOTION for Leave to File Two Supplemental Exhibits: (a) Warrants for the Arrest of Tommy Shelton, and (b) Press Release Issued by Fairfax County Police Department by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit H, # (2) Exhibit I)(Pickle, Robert)

Filed & Entered:      05/10/2010
    Order on Motion for Leave to File
Docket Text: Judge Rya W. Zobel: ENDORSED ORDER entered denying [236] Motion for Leave to File Document ; denying [245] Motion for Leave to File Document, these documents are irrelevant to the issues on appeal

[Adam]

Does anyone recall this:

Pat Williams-
on: August 09, 2010, 11:24:43 PM

Wow, where is the evidence and proof to acompany the insults and accusations? As usual there is none. Every time I think it can't get worse it does.... and no one here appears to care or object.... it's hateful and pathetic., but you all seem to think the ends justify the means, They don't! It only gets uglier and uglier here, and that'swhy I have to leave here for good. wipe.. wipe... and walking away, sadly-- but in a determined and convicted mode....

What happen Pat, cough cough *Cindy* cough cough, have trouble telling the truth?

[Bob Pickle]

How will this affect the dismissed lawsuit against you and Joy that you are appealing, or is it were appealing?

We still have two appeals going. One is fully briefed and the other isn't briefed at all. The second appeal got hung up because Attorneys Greg Simpson and John Pucci refuse to return the sealed bank statements that Christine Parizo unlawfully took from the federal courthouse in Worcester, MA.

Pickle's accusations above are false and his and Joy's last arguments about the above issue  were overruled yesterday in the District court. The following information and documents were provided on the other forum:

Pat, you are either ignorant of the facts or a bald faced liar. One statement is 100% accurate.

• There are two appeals going.
• One is fully briefed and the other isn't briefed at all.
• Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to the party that produced them, which was MidCountry Bank.
• The MidCountry records have never been returned to MidCountry.
• Christine Parizo therefore unlawfully took the MidCountry records from the courthouse, since they were supposed to be returned to MidCountry.
• The lower court is without authority to eliminate material from the record during an appeal.
• Pucci and Simpson refuse to return them.
• The new order from the lower court did not alter Judge Saylor's original order.

The new judge is legally prohibited from altering Judge Saylor's original order because she lacks jurisdiction to do that since the case is under appeal.