THE LAWSUIT CASE HAS BEEN UNIMPOUNDED Options

[Observer]

One lawyer described Pro Se this way, "He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client."
Even if it is in concert with Defendant Pickle's counsel, it is worth remembering that two
experienced lawyers will be representing the Plaintiffs.

Wrong!

Read the documents opened by the court.

Six (6) highly qualified lawyers represented 3-ABN and Danny Shelton.

Also, one non-lawyer wrote the brief that persuaded the judge to release the legal documents to the public, and post them on the website. One non-lawyer, G. A. Joy, won the first round against six (6) well qualified lawyers!

For those who want to know, get the documents that the six presented to the court as to why the documents should remaing sealed.

Then read Gailon's response.

For your interest:

The brief of the six: 26 initial pages, plus 55 pages of attachments, statements, etc.

Gailon's brief: 24 pages

Those documents are interesting reading.

Even more interesting is the one-page ruling of the judge as to why the documents should be made available to the public. The bottom line is that it blasts the plaintiff's attempt to impound the documents.

Here is part of the closing paragraph in the document:

Simply put. Plaintiffs Motion and proposed order seeks insidious violation of the Local Rule . . .that is designed to be oppresive and restictive of the Plaintiff's rights (sic.) the rights of other jurisdictions and abuses the clear Local Rule 7.2 of this Honorable Court.

In the beginning paragraph of this order to open the records, the judge says:

Impoundment of this case . . . is unconstitutional as a violation of the First Ammendment right of Freedom of the Press, violates the common law of public access, and is unsupported by caselaw, particularly in the First Circuit.

In the second paragraph the judge calls the wishes of the plaintiff's to be "outrageous proposals."

Folks, this order simply, in my mind, destroys just about everything that the Plaintiff's asked for in their requst to impound.

In round one, the Pro Se did not have a fool for a client.

However, this is only round one. We expected to win this one. There will be other rounds, before the main battle. The war has not yet been won.


This post has been edited by Observer: Jun 23 2007, 04:33 PM

[Panama_Pete]

Six (6) highly qualified lawyers represented 3-ABN and Danny Shelton.

Meanwhile, some little orphan goes to bed hungry while money is lavished on a team a lawyers.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Jun 23 2007, 07:46 PM

[Fran]

.

In round one, the Pro Se did not have a fool for a client.

I totally agree! Joy is no fool! Neither is Pickle. I believe God is using both of them in a mighty ways!

It reminds me of Gideon. He won the war with God as his leader! You can't go wrong with God beside you! Even if the war is lost!

To me, a non-legal thinker, the lawsuit was a big joke. I read page after page and couldn't believe what those six (6) lawyers prepared. By the way, thanks for telling us how many lawyers were available for viewing!

It makes me wonder when they are going to sue because they have keys in their pocket.

I realize this is a very serious suit; that is why it is so funny to me, I guess. Danny had those six lawyers open several really big cans of worms! I couldn't help but think those lawyers were on Joy and Pickles side as hidden allies. I say that because they are not "stupid" by any means!

[Rosyroi]

[quote][quote name='Fran' date='Jun 23 2007, 03:00 AM' post='201009']
[b]

[color=#000099]Bob!

This entirely my opinion.[/quote]
.......................................................

Fran.....

Thank you SO much for continuing shouting even when you thought no one was listening!!!!!





I would have used more emoticons but I was limited.

This display shows just a small portion of how I feel now that you kept on shouting.

My opinion.

Rosyroi

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Jun 23 2007, 06:20 PM

[Artiste]

Pickle, what other surprises are in the legal papers?










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

[steffan]

Folks, this order simply, in my mind, destroys just about everything that the Plaintiff's asked for in their requst to impound.

In round one, the Pro Se did not have a fool for a client.

However, this is only round one. We expected to win this one. There will be other rounds, before the main battle. The war has not yet been won.

Greg, for someone who tries to appear so knowledgable of the law (while of course playing it safe by then saying you are not an expert) I would think that you would assume that 3abn was told in advance that the judge would not grant a blanket impoundment. That is almost unheard of but it was procedure to request it. Then I notice that even though you say "the war is not won" you fail to mention the specifics concerning the lifting of the impoundment. The truth is that this specific "lifting" is only on this small portion of the case. It does not mean that there will not be future impoundments as each portion of the case is litigated. In other words, contrary to the reaction here, this was a totally expected judgement and not at all some huge victory. It certainly does not mean that this whole case will be open to the public. There will be motions made all down the long road. Some will be denied and some granted. The judge may very well impound some portions and not others.
As far as the credit you give Joy saying it was his brief that caused the judge to lift the impoundment....you have to be joking. I repeat, a blanket impoundment is almost never granted no matter who writes the brief refuting it. To even insinuate that "wannabe" Joy "pulled one over" on a highly qualified, respected and established lawfirm is quite ludicrous on your part.
As for Laird's part in the whole scenerio, well if his first appearance for Linda was without an actived license and the next court date he was a no show, I wouldn't hold my breath for any brilliant legal strategy from him. By the way, his request for yet another continuance on the marital property case arrived approx 15 minutes after the Judge ruled against Linda. The judge stated that contrary to what she said, she knew what she was signing when she signed the marital property agreement and the contract is valid. The judge sanctioned her and she will be responsible for paying Danny's attorney's fees for this part of the case, in which, she had no case (forgive the pun.)

[Richard Sherwin]

Steffan why would 3abn want to impound anything? If they are as transparent as they claim why not ask that all the documents and everything be made public? It appears they have things to hide when they ask for impoundments, contrary to their claims.

Richard

Greg, for someone who tries to appear so knowledgable of the law (while of course playing it safe by then saying you are not an expert) I would think that you would assume that 3abn was told in advance that the judge would not grant a blanket impoundment. That is almost unheard of but it was procedure to request it. Then I notice that even though you say "the war is not won" you fail to mention the specifics concerning the lifting of the impoundment. The truth is that this specific "lifting" is only on this small portion of the case. It does not mean that there will not be future impoundments as each portion of the case is litigated. In other words, contrary to the reaction here, this was a totally expected judgement and not at all some huge victory. It certainly does not mean that this whole case will be open to the public. There will be motions made all down the long road. Some will be denied and some granted. The judge may very well impound some portions and not others.
As far as the credit you give Joy saying it was his brief that caused the judge to lift the impoundment....you have to be joking. I repeat, a blanket impoundment is almost never granted no matter who writes the brief refuting it. To even insinuate that "wannabe" Joy "pulled one over" on a highly qualified, respected and established lawfirm is quite ludicrous on your part.
As for Laird's part in the whole scenerio, well if his first appearance for Linda was without an actived license and the next court date he was a no show, I wouldn't hold my breath for any brilliant legal strategy from him. By the way, his request for yet another continuance on the marital property case arrived approx 15 minutes after the Judge ruled against Linda. The judge stated that contrary to what she said, she knew what she was signing when she signed the marital property agreement and the contract is valid. The judge sanctioned her and she will be responsible for paying Danny's attorney's fees for this part of the case, in which, she had no case (forgive the pun.)

[mikell]

Steffan, I seem to miss your reply to PeacefullBewildered's question, remember what she wrote questioning you being in the "know" of 3ABN:

"I am curious to know how it is you know what the attorneys advised 3abn months ago. What is your source for this information? I know you profess to be in a unique position of knowledge, but how are we to give your statement much credibility when 3abn Board Chairman Walt Thompson said this about you:"

From: Walt Thompson [wrote this about Steffan]....

"No, Steffan does not represent 3abn or Danny. He is not in a position of authority to know what is going on..."

PeacefullyBewildered asked a very good questions, and Steffan, I am sure you have for us a good answers to PeacefullBewildered's question, , don't you???

This post has been edited by mikell: Jun 23 2007, 11:16 PM

[ex3ABNemployee]

Greg, for someone who tries to appear so knowledgable of the law (while of course playing it safe by then saying you are not an expert) I would think that you would assume that 3abn was told in advance that the judge would not grant a blanket impoundment. That is almost unheard of but it was procedure to request it. Then I notice that even though you say "the war is not won" you fail to mention the specifics concerning the lifting of the impoundment. The truth is that this specific "lifting" is only on this small portion of the case. It does not mean that there will not be future impoundments as each portion of the case is litigated. In other words, contrary to the reaction here, this was a totally expected judgement and not at all some huge victory. It certainly does not mean that this whole case will be open to the public. There will be motions made all down the long road. Some will be denied and some granted. The judge may very well impound some portions and not others.
As far as the credit you give Joy saying it was his brief that caused the judge to lift the impoundment....you have to be joking. I repeat, a blanket impoundment is almost never granted no matter who writes the brief refuting it. To even insinuate that "wannabe" Joy "pulled one over" on a highly qualified, respected and established lawfirm is quite ludicrous on your part.
As for Laird's part in the whole scenerio, well if his first appearance for Linda was without an actived license and the next court date he was a no show, I wouldn't hold my breath for any brilliant legal strategy from him. By the way, his request for yet another continuance on the marital property case arrived approx 15 minutes after the Judge ruled against Linda. The judge stated that contrary to what she said, she knew what she was signing when she signed the marital property agreement and the contract is valid. The judge sanctioned her and she will be responsible for paying Danny's attorney's fees for this part of the case, in which, she had no case (forgive the pun.)

Translation:

"Oh, yeah, well....ummm.....we knew that would happen."

[Skyhook]

Steffan, I seem to miss your reply to PeacefullBewildered's question, remember what she wrote to you in questioning you being in the "know" of 3ABN:

PeacefullyBewildered asked a very good questions, and Steffan, I am sure you have for us a good answer to PeacefullBewildered's question, , don't you???

Maybe Walt just had his fingers crossed when he made those statements.

Or maybe he and the others adhere to something like the Jesuit code that gives them license to do or say anything as long as it is in the service of protecting "The Ministry."

Or perhaps Walt said "Steffan does not represent 3abn" meaning "nobody whose real name is Steffan represents 3abn." Just like Mollie said "3abn owns no plane."

There are lots was to dissemble.

Or maybe Walt was telling the truth.

[PeacefulBe]

The lawsuit needs to be considered independently of everything else, since only those things submitted to the court will be considered. So, if you look at the lawsuit, by itself, it says:

"Although many of 3ABN's employees and volunteers, including Plaintiff Shelton, are members of the Seventh-Day Adventist faith, 3ABN is a non-denominational Christian ministry which is not owned by, affiliated with, or financed by any specific church, denomination, or organization."

The following is what that above statement says to me in my own opinionated paraphrase:

"Despite the fact that we have Adventist employees here, we are not affiliated or controlled by their "specific" denomination. We're non-denominational and totally independent - no strings attached whatsoever to those Adventists.

Failing to recognize this fact, and through no fault of our own, those Seventh-day Adventists have developed an unhealthy interest in our totally independent, non-denominational ministry and seem to have a fixation upon us for no reason that we can understand, Your Honor. Where the Adventists got 3ABN's name and address we do not know." .

My two cents.

And furthermore, Your Honor, please disregard the fact that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (who for some reason have concluded that we are a supporting ministy of their denomination) have, heretofore, allowed us free access to hold rallies in their churches in order to raise funds from Seventh-day Adventists to run our non-denominational and totally independent - no strings attached ministry, although we can't understand why they would continue to shower us with money at these rallies but extrapolate that it is probably because of this same unhealthy fixation they, for no reason that we can understand, seem to have upon us.

[Snoopy]

Greg, for someone who tries to appear so knowledgable of the law (while of course playing it safe by then saying you are not an expert) I would think that you would assume that 3abn was told in advance that the judge would not grant a blanket impoundment. That is almost unheard of but it was procedure to request it. Then I notice that even though you say "the war is not won" you fail to mention the specifics concerning the lifting of the impoundment. The truth is that this specific "lifting" is only on this small portion of the case. It does not mean that there will not be future impoundments as each portion of the case is litigated. In other words, contrary to the reaction here, this was a totally expected judgement and not at all some huge victory. It certainly does not mean that this whole case will be open to the public. There will be motions made all down the long road. Some will be denied and some granted. The judge may very well impound some portions and not others.
As far as the credit you give Joy saying it was his brief that caused the judge to lift the impoundment....you have to be joking. I repeat, a blanket impoundment is almost never granted no matter who writes the brief refuting it. To even insinuate that "wannabe" Joy "pulled one over" on a highly qualified, respected and established lawfirm is quite ludicrous on your part.
As for Laird's part in the whole scenerio, well if his first appearance for Linda was without an actived license and the next court date he was a no show, I wouldn't hold my breath for any brilliant legal strategy from him. By the way, his request for yet another continuance on the marital property case arrived approx 15 minutes after the Judge ruled against Linda. The judge stated that contrary to what she said, she knew what she was signing when she signed the marital property agreement and the contract is valid. The judge sanctioned her and she will be responsible for paying Danny's attorney's fees for this part of the case, in which, she had no case (forgive the pun.)

Very interesting Steffan. There are probably not too many folks who would know the activity in the courtroom down to the minute. I guess it is safe to assume you were there....

Since you are so close to Danny that you even attend his court appearances, maybe you could remind him that since he personally is a co-plaintiff in the copyright/slander suit and "someone" is allegedly paying for his legal expenses, he will need to claim that as taxable income on his personal income tax return... But then again, I'm sure one of his 6 lawyers has already advised him of that...

This post has been edited by Snoopy: Jun 24 2007, 12:54 AM

[Panama_Pete]

And furthermore, Your Honor, please disregard the fact that the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists (who for some reason have concluded that we are a supporting ministy of their denomination) have, heretofore, allowed us free access to hold rallies in their churches in order to raise funds from Seventh-day Adventists to run our non-denominational and totally independent - no strings attached ministry, although we can't understand why they would continue to shower us with money at these rallies but extrapolate that it is probably because of this same unhealthy fixation they, for no reason that we can understand, seem to have upon us.

[PeacefulBe]

Did you read my post in the other thread? Yes... 3abn started out stating that they were an independent but supporting ministry of the SDA church. Throughout the year 1997 they engaged in a lengthy series of discussions... see the documents elsewhere here on BSDA.... in which the GC tried to get them to sign a contract with them. 3abn refused... and the letters stating that are here also... and then, inexplicably, in the fall of 1997, the GC signed that agreement with them, in which the GC gave everything to 3abn... with none of the safeguards of a contract... no time limits, no conditions, no ways of breaking away from the agreement.

3abn almost immediately put it on their website, and those who have "sold" for 3abn since that time say that they have pulled it out and used it whenever there was any resistance to their entering a territory.

So now.... the agreement is supposedly "still in force"... yet within 4 years of the signing of it, 3abn themselves were not claiming to be a supporting ministry... even on their own website.

So yes... it makes it look very strange... and gives them the ability... or they take the opportunity... to claim to be a supporting ministry or an independent ministry or completely unaffiliated with the church... whichever suits their purpose in any given environment at any given moment.

The "journey of exploration" over whether GC has removed their "supporting minsitry" status has nothing to do with the facts of life (and the doublespeak) of the past 10 years that they have had a web site. The question of what 3abn considers itself is quite apart from any action of the GC... and my point is that for 3abn to (at the present moment) declare that it is a non-denominational entity is nothing new... and since that has been publicly proclaimed on their website for all these years... should come as no surprise to anyone....or at least to none who have access to a computer.

Yes, WB, I did read your other thread. I understand what you are saying and you are, undoubtedly, correct for all of the reasons you stated. As one who has watched 3abn for several years, perhaps I assumed from some of the programming that I watched that they were at least purporting to represent the Seventh-day Adventist beliefs so it did come as a surprise to me when I read the non-denominational disclaimer in the lawsuit (even thought I actually do have a computer). I guess my undoing was in not reading what they had publically proclaimed on their website.

I do appreciate your perspective as well as the information you have provided on the history of the 1997 GC/3abn agreement and the maneuvering 3abn has done to distance themselves ever since. And yet, I believe there are going to be a quite a few semi-intelligent folks like me who are going to be just as surprised when they read the lawsuit.

[Observer]

Steffan:

Thank you for responding. I wanted to hear from someone on 3-ABN's side who would comment in some way on this, and someone who was knowledgeable. I credit you with being knowlegeable, so thank you for sharing with us.

You will note in my responses that I agree with much of what you have said.

Greg, for someone who tries to appear so knowledgable of the law (while of course playing it safe by then saying you are not an expert) I would think that you would assume that 3abn was told in advance that the judge would not grant a blanket impoundment. That is almost unheard of but it was procedure to request it.

I agree with you in the above. I did not suggest such as I did not want to be accused of speculating. While I do speculate at times, I do make some attempts to minimize such, and to keep such to some of the more important or interesting issues (interesting to me, I suppose).

Now that you have raised the subject, I will speculate some, and beyond the information that you have given us. I suspect that the MA lawyers probably expected the judge to lift the impoundment. One of the reasons that they were probably retained, and there were others, was that they were expected to understand the judicial temperment of the judge. As such they would be expected to know what arguements would be accepted by the judge, and how the judge would likely rule on motions submitted to him.

The bottom line is that I will suggest that the MA lawyers expected the judge to lift the impoundment. I also agree that it would be typical proceedure to request such. However, I am surprised by the manner in which the judge ruled against the motion to permantly impound. While I may be wrong, it suggsts to me that the lawyers who submitted it were, so to speak, caught with their pants down. It essentially, in my mind, destroyed every arguement that they raised. I cannot immagine any lawyer submitting a motion to a court if that lawyer expected it to be as totally rejected as that motion was rejected. There is a bite to the judges ruling that I did not expect, and I suspect the lawyers who subitted it did not expect such.

Then I notice that even though you say "the war is not won" you fail to mention the specifics concerning the lifting of the impoundment. The truth is that this specific "lifting" is only on this small portion of the case. It does not mean that there will not be future impoundments as each portion of the case is litigated. In other words, contrary to the reaction here, this was a totally expected judgement and not at all some huge victory. It certainly does not mean that this whole case will be open to the public. There will be motions made all down the long road. Some will be denied and some granted. The judge may very well impound some portions and not others.

Of course you are corect. I think that you will acknowedge that any future orders to impound will not be granted on the basis of the motion which was soundly rejected. Yes, I agree that individual motions to impound may be granted. But, read the judges order. I will suggst that it clearly tells us that the judge is unlikely to impound in the future on any kind of a wide basis.

By saying that the war was not won, I wanted peple to know that this was just a skirmish, and not the final battle. There is much more. I expect that the Plaintiff's may win some battles. But, if they do it will still remain to be seen whether or not they will win the war.

As far as the credit you give Joy saying it was his brief that caused the judge to lift the impoundment....you have to be joking. I repeat, a blanket impoundment is almost never granted no matter who writes the brief refuting it. To even insinuate that "wannabe" Joy "pulled one over" on a highly qualified, respected and established lawfirm is quite ludicrous on your part.

I do not think that this is 100 per-cent accurate.

NOTE: I have not reviewed the documents, this morning, that I have printed off before writing this. So, please correct me if my memory is inaccurate in any way.

The plaintiff asked the court to impound on a number of issues. One of the issues was that there was no 4th Ammendment, Freedom of the Press right in regard to Mr. Joy being a member of the press.

We expected that the court would rule that there was a 4th ammendemtn Freedom of the Press right, and that is what the court did.

I wll say again: I am dumbfounded by the tone of the judges ruling against impoundment. In my opinion, it essentially cut the legs off,s so to speak, of the plaintiff's arguement. I will acknowledge that lawyers may submitt motions'which they think may be rejected. I am not aquainted with them typically submitting motions that in my opinion are so soundly rejected. Perhaps they expected such. I do not think so.

As for Laird's part in the whole scenerio, well if his first appearance for Linda was without an actived license and the next court date he was a no show, I wouldn't hold my breath for any brilliant legal strategy from him. By the way, his request for yet another continuance on the marital property case arrived approx 15 minutes after the Judge ruled against Linda. The judge stated that contrary to what she said, she knew what she was signing when she signed the marital property agreement and the contract is valid. The judge sanctioned her and she will be responsible for paying Danny's attorney's fees for this part of the case, in which, she had no case (forgive the pun.)

As to the activated license: So much has been said on this, and the facts are well known, that I see no reason to further comment.

As to the marital property lawsuit. I am not up on what is happening on this. I have no information on it. So, I cannot make any comment.

Again, thanks for commenting on my post. I had hoped that someone would respond.