3abn World Magazine Logo Change Again Options

[maggiecttr]

Just a quick piece of info...Yesterday, I received the latest copy of 3ABN World magazine (the digest-size publication), and I see its logo is back to normal (3ABN). The prior issue's logo had been redesigned to 3ABN/Amazing Facts. I guess the editors had jumped the gun when putting out that issue?

Maggie C.

[LaurenceD]

You know they so want it to be. The joint image could help them through troubling times.

I remember the night of the great announcement...DS asked DB if this merger didn't deserve one of his famous backward hand-springs. Doug declined Danny's wild and zany invitation. I'll bet it was fun for DB to try and convince the other this shouldn't all be for show.

[Pickle]

Gailon has already told the other side that because of the purported letter of intent to merge, that A-Facts needs to be represented in the Rule 26(f) conference that is coming up, whatever that is.

And he also said that since ASI Missions, Inc. board was invited to be the new constituency, they need to be represented too.

[Grith]

Gailon has already told the other side that because of the purported letter of intent to merge, that A-Facts needs to be represented in the Rule 26(f) conference that is coming up, whatever that is.

And he also said that since ASI Missions, Inc. board was invited to be the new constituency, they need to be represented too.

I'm have little interest in law, know little legalese, but was curious about that conference, so I looked it up. It appears it is quite significant. I copied this from a site about Montana law, but from my search, it appears to be about the same in all states.

Rule 26(f). Discovery conference. At any time after commencement of an action the court may direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it for a conference on the subject of discovery. The court shall do so upon motion by the attorney for any party if the motion includes:

(1) A statement of the issues as they then appear;
(2) A proposed plan and schedule of discovery;
(3) Any limitations proposed to be placed on discovery;
(4) Any other proposed orders with respect to discovery; and
(5) A statement showing that the attorney making the motion has made a reasonable effort to reach agreement with opposing attorneys on the matters set forth in the motion. Each party and each party's attorney are under a duty to participate in good faith in the framing of a discovery plan if a plan is proposed by the attorney for any party. Notice of the motion shall be served on all parties. Objections or additions to matters set forth in the motion shall be served not later than 10 days after service of the motion.

Following the discovery conference, the court shall enter an order tentatively identifying the issues for discovery purposes, establishing a plan and schedule for discovery, setting limitations on discovery, if any; and determining such other matters, including the allocation of expenses, as are necessary for the proper management of discovery in the action. An order may be altered or amended whenever justice so requires.

Subject to the right of a party who properly moves for a discovery conference to prompt convening of the conference, the court may combine the discovery conference with a pretrial conference authorized by Rule 16.

What is discovery? Well, I had to look that up to.

Formal Discovery

Formal discovery has several aspects, including asking and responding to questions known as interrogatories, seeking and turning over documents related to the action, asking the other side to admit to certain facts, and taking depositions. Depositions are formal question-and-answer proceedings that are taken down by a court reporter, and often a videographer, for use later at trial. Toward the middle portion of formal discovery, depositions are taken of percipient witnesses—those witnesses who have knowledge or have perceived something related to the incident. Toward the end of formal discovery, depositions of experts occur. These are witnesses hired by one side or another to provide opinion testimony on subjects like medicine, accident reconstruction, safety, design, and other areas.

The formal discovery process in a case can last quite some time. Depending upon the complexity of a case, formal discovery can last from three months to several years. Once the parties have completed discovery and gathered the evidence they need to prepare their prosecution and defense, the case proceeds towards trial.

The formal discovery period is also the time where parties can make certain types of motions—formal requests that the court take a specific action. These motions include requests that one side or the other respond to specific questions, such as a motion to compel, or they can be motions that seek an end to the lawsuit without trial, such as a motion for summary judgment. While rare, sometimes a court will grant a motion for summary judgment for a defendant, which will functionally end the case against that particular defendant.

I am guessing this will be the phase coming up next in the lawsuit, the conference and then the discovery. It looks like, from what Bob has posted, that AF and ASI are going to be drawn into it.

This post has been edited by Grith: Jun 26 2007, 03:39 PM

[lurker]

I found some interesting references to e discovery on pages 2, 3 and 4 of the following in regard to the Rule 26(f) conference . http://tinyurl.com/32rcka One of the references refered to an Illinois case.

This post has been edited by lurker: Jun 26 2007, 05:00 PM

[mikell]

What is discovery? Well, I had to look that up to. I am guessing this will be the phase coming up next in the lawsuit, the conference and then the discovery. It looks like, from what Bob has posted, that AF and ASI are going to be drawn into it.

Can that really be true? AF being drawn into it? What does the, "Intent to merge, that A-Facts needs to be represented in the Rule 26(f)" has to do with the original lawsuit? Something with discovery? I don't see the bridge. If that is true, one would think db for sure will back away from 3ABN and to forget the merge. Why get muddy up with this?
PS. Grith, love your Bible verse,

This post has been edited by mikell: Jun 26 2007, 05:26 PM

[Observer]

Can that really be true? AF being drawn into it? What does the, "Intent to merge, that A-Facts needs to be represented in the Rule 26(f)" has to do with the original lawsuit? Something with discovery? I don't see the bridge. If that is true, one would think db for sure will back away from 3ABN and to forget the merge. Why get muddy up with this?
PS. Grith, love your Bible verse,

The original complaint that began this litigation has been described by competent individuals as a so-called shot-gun blast, the is all over the map. It branches out from trademark and copy right isseus to issues of sexual misconduct with at least one named person, and from there it brings Molly into the picture with charges of financial misconduct. Mind you the complaint was filed by lawyers representing 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. This complaint reminds me of mile long fish nets that ocean fishermen use to catch fish sweeping the bottom clean.

The complexities that have been introduced here are such that it is quite possible that ASI and AF will need to be part of the discovery process.

My My! And if the complaint had only related to trademark and copyright issues, it would have been a narrowly focused trial.

Now it is all over the map.

Well, that is exactly where it needs to be. So, thank you 3-ABN lawyers for putting it there.

[roxe]

"Now it is all over the map."

yes, praise God! we've prayed long enuf for this to happen...

the darkness will be changed to light.

[mikell]

The original complaint that began this litigation has been described by competent individuals as a so-called shot-gun blast, the is all over the map. It branches out from trademark and copy right isseus to issues of sexual misconduct with at least one named person, and from there it brings Molly into the picture with charges of financial misconduct. Mind you the complaint was filed by lawyers representing 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. This complaint reminds me of mile long fish nets that ocean fishermen use to catch fish sweeping the bottom clean.

The complexities that have been introduced here are such that it is quite possible that ASI and AF will need to be part of the discovery process.

My My! And if the complaint had only related to trademark and copyright issues, it would have been a narrowly focused trial.

Now it is all over the map.

Well, that is exactly where it needs to be. So, thank you 3-ABN lawyers for putting it there.

Thank you for explaining it, and I concur, yes thank you 3ABN lawyers. If someone sues me, I will make sure that they HIRE YOU GUYS !

This post has been edited by mikell: Jun 27 2007, 12:55 PM