 THE LAWSUIT CASE HAS BEEN UNIMPOUNDED |
  |
 Jun 25 2007, 02:12 PM
Post
#76
|
|
|
Advanced Member  Group: Financial Donor Posts: 334 Joined: 7-January 07 Member No.: 2,782 Gender: m  |
QUOTE(Ralph @ Jun 22 2007, 08:16 PM) [snapback]201000[/snapback] 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. One can be Pro Se, and still have counsel that is not sitting next two you in the court room, are you all forgetting some of mr. joy's friends??? ERik |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 25 2007, 04:41 PM
Post
#77
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 274 Joined: 4-April 06 Member No.: 1,655 Gender: f |
QUOTE(steffan @ Jun 23 2007, 09:13 PM) [snapback]201099[/snapback] 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.) Did W. Thompson say that Steffan had no way of knowing what was going on? How can we believe anything that Dr. Thompson says? His word is unbelievable. That is, unless Steffan is dreaming. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 25 2007, 06:23 PM
Post
#78
|
|
 1,000 + posts  Group: Members Posts: 2,255 Joined: 25-August 06 Member No.: 2,169 Gender: f |
QUOTE(summertime @ Jun 25 2007, 03:41 PM) [snapback]201428[/snapback] Did W. Thompson say that Steffan had no way of knowing what was going on? How can we believe anything that Dr. Thompson says? His word is unbelievable. That is, unless Steffan is dreaming. summertime, The way I read his email, Walt Thompson was speaking specifically to the comments that steffan made about Doug trying to distance himself from Jim P. and, therefore, the GC, and that steffan is not a representative of Danny or 3abn or in a position of authority to know what is going on. I don't think we can read more into it than that and I certainly don't think we can claim that Dr. Thompson's words are unbelieveable. Perhaps steffan was at the hearing or was told what transpired. IMO, I don't see how steffan's post about the hearing could be considered to reflect in a negative way on Walt Thompson. Walt Thompson said: "No, Steffan does not represent 3abn or Danny. He is not in a position of authority to know what is going on. While I do not know a lot about the relationship between Doug and the President of the conference, this is certainly not the reason 3abn and AF are negotiating." Read complete post here. -------------------- Got Peace?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid. "Truth welcomes examination and doesn't need to defend itself, while deception hides in darkness and blames everyone else." Aunt B, 2007 |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 05:24 AM
Post
#79
|
|
 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 264 Joined: 23-April 07 Member No.: 3,427 Gender: f |
Steffan wrote.......
QUOTE 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 would like some clarification...this is for you steffan.....you seem to know quite a bit although W.T. says you do not....I just want to know if you knew what the order to impound was about? Do you think it was something that the attorneys wanted to do and not 3abn? I think you said it was doomed to fail because it was unconstitutional or something like that so it must have been a lost cause taking up the judge's time? Thanks for answering. r4Him |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 01:42 PM
Post
#80
|
|
|
1,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 1,483 Joined: 29-July 06 Member No.: 1,960 Gender: m |
QUOTE(LaurenceD @ Jun 25 2007, 02:18 PM) [snapback]201398[/snapback] Pickle, while working this morning, I remembered that Thrusday night live broadcast when DS and the group got together to announce enough was enough and that it had come to the point where something had to be done with folks on the internet who were trying to destroy the ministry. They ridiculed one party (Joy) who they termed an "embezzler" and the other party (AT) they ridiculed saying they were not even part of the church organization. This was to say these folks are not even credible so don't pay any attention to them. But now guess who's not any part of the church organization. See how it works however you need it to work? Is it the other face? I suppose we shouldn't pay any attention since they're not part of the church organization. Don't forget their disparagement of that fellow who allegedly poses as a doctor to gain credibility. Me. Absurdity. I really appreciated PinkPanther007 over on ChristianForums.com telling off Tomatoe for bringing that one up: "So, tomatoe, are you a liar if it is found out that you aren't really a tomatoe?" (paraphrase). |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 01:48 PM
Post
#81
|
|
 1,000 + posts Group: Charter Member Posts: 3,467 Joined: 21-July 03 From: Florida (Bona Fide Transplanted New Yorker) Member No.: 51 Gender: f |
QUOTE(erik @ Jun 25 2007, 03:12 PM) [snapback]201405[/snapback] One can be Pro Se, and still have counsel that is not sitting next two you in the court room, are you all forgetting some of mr. joy's friends??? ERik Good point. I will also add that one can be pro se and have counsel sitting next to them in the courtroom regardless...although this is more prevalent in criminal cases....and the case in question is civil..... -------------------- Visit my blog--"Musings of a Black Scrapbooker"
Talia's MySpace Page He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me. And he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will reveal Myself to him." --John 14:21 Any comments on blacksda.com made by Talia A. Dickson, J.D. with respect to the law are purely academic in nature and should NOT be construed as legal advice. Mrs. Dickson is not yet authorized to practice law in any jurisdiction. Should you need legal advice for a specific issue, you are encouraged to seek out the advice of an attorney of your own choosing. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 01:51 PM
Post
#82
|
|
|
500 + posts  Group: Members Posts: 719 Joined: 6-August 04 Member No.: 522 |
QUOTE(Pickle @ Jun 27 2007, 02:42 PM) [snapback]201746[/snapback] Don't forget their disparagement of that fellow who allegedly poses as a doctor to gain credibility. Me. Absurdity. I really appreciated PinkPanther007 over on ChristianForums.com telling off Tomatoe for bringing that one up: "So, tomatoe, are you a liar if it is found out that you aren't really a tomatoe?" (paraphrase).     |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 02:04 PM
Post
#83
|
|
|
1,000 + posts Group: Members Posts: 1,483 Joined: 29-July 06 Member No.: 1,960 Gender: m |
QUOTE(Ralph @ Jun 24 2007, 11:04 AM) [snapback]201169[/snapback] It is interesting to compare (word for word) the CONCLUSION: in Attachment #1 "Final Draft Deft Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion Impound" with Attachment #2 Proposed Order Denying Permanent Impoundment" A question: Why is this named, "Proposed Order..."? Not sure if this got answered: Both sides can write up what they want the judge to sign. It saves him time, I guess. Anyone have what the judge actually signed?
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 10:18 PM
Post
#84
|
|
 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 425 Joined: 17-March 07 Member No.: 3,207 Gender: m |
embezzle
Definition To fraudulently appropriate an asset for one's own use. (now what was that about a real estate deal and a piano????)  QUOTE(LaurenceD @ Jun 25 2007, 01:18 PM) [snapback]201398[/snapback] Pickle, while working this morning, I remembered that Thrusday night live broadcast when DS and the group got together to announce enough was enough and that it had come to the point where something had to be done with folks on the internet who were trying to destroy the ministry. They ridiculed one party (Joy) who they termed an "embezzler" and the other party (AT) they ridiculed saying they were not even part of the church organization. This was to say these folks are not even credible so don't pay any attention to them. But now guess who's not any part of the church organization. See how it works however you need it to work? Is it the other face? I suppose we shouldn't pay any attention since they're not part of the church organization. This post has been edited by mozart: Jun 27 2007, 10:19 PM -------------------- Thess. 2:16-17 - Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and our God and Father, who has loved us and given us everlasting consolation and good hope by grace, comfort your hearts and establish you in every good word and work."
[quote: fine art] "Instead we seem to be using sensationalism, emotionalism, moving lights and motivational speakers that are prepared to manipulate, by well chosen words, the minds of the listeners. It used to be, messages that were given by our pioneers were wrenched from the depths of the heart by the Holy Spirit. Humor was not added to get that laugh of entertainment. Drama was not introduced behind the sacred desk to glue your attention. Man's Rationale has replaced a cry for God's wisdom." "How To Be Free From Bitterness" ( booklet written by Jim Wilson of Community Christian Ministries, Moscow, Idaho - E-mail: ccm@moscow.com ) |
|
|
|
|
Jun 27 2007, 10:20 PM
Post
#85
|
|
|
Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 264 Joined: 23-April 07 Member No.: 3,427 Gender: f |
QUOTE(runner4him @ Jun 27 2007, 06:24 AM) [snapback]201670[/snapback] Steffan wrote....... I would like some clarification...this is for you steffan.....you seem to know quite a bit although W.T. says you do not....I just want to know if you knew what the order to impound was about? Do you think it was something that the attorneys wanted to do and not 3abn? I think you said it was doomed to fail because it was unconstitutional or something like that so it must have been a lost cause taking up the judge's time? Thanks for answering. r4Him Steffan...I bumped this up so maybe you would see it and answer me. Thanks for responding! r4Him |
|
|
|
|
Jun 29 2007, 08:47 PM
Post
#86
|
|
 Advanced Member Group: Members Posts: 356 Joined: 25-December 06 From: West Frankfort, IL Member No.: 2,722 Gender: m |
QUOTE(PeacefullyBewildered @ Jun 25 2007, 07:23 PM) [snapback]201442[/snapback] Walt Thompson said: "No, Steffan does not represent 3abn or Danny. He is not in a position of authority to know what is going on. While I do not know a lot about the relationship between Doug and the President of the conference, this is certainly not the reason 3abn and AF are negotiating." Read complete post here. Steffan has been irrelevant to me for quite some time. I'm glad to see that Walt Thompson and I can agree on one thing, at least. -------------------- Duane Clem
It's not about religion, it's about a relationship. Gems of Wisdom "Lisa and Ronda are not Danny's biological father." -- wwjd, 2/8/07 "Watchbird, The facts prove the above lie." -- wwjd, 2/13/07 "Another lie that can be proven..." -- Bystander, 3/18/07 "The thing about lies is they can be proven." -- Aletheia, 3/22/07 "I am not here to argue" -- Aletheia, 4/24/07 "She didn't move to 3ABN, she moved to Illinois" -- Aletheia, 4/25/07 "Hope is liberal. 3abn is not." -- steffan, 6/9/07 "Danny Shelton does not decide what goes on the air, period." -- appletree, 8/22/07 http://www.save-3abn.com/ http://www.investigating3abn.info/ http://rescue3abn.blog.com/ http://www.abundantrest.org/?p=74 http://abundantrest.org/2007/02/18/3abn-sa...ons-retirement/ http://anewsabbathschool.blogspot.com/2006...ain-wrecks.html http://cafesda.blogspot.com/2006/08/atoday...bn-news_21.html http://www.atoday.com/email/2007/02/12/ http://spectrummagazine.typepad.com/the_sp...eans_and_e.html |
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th March 2008 - 12:31 PM |
