The Lawsuit Continues., This is where we are, and what is happening. Options

[Johann]

I'm sorry if my writing style offends you Eduard but, I would rather tell the truth with incorrect grammar than to write a pack of lies correctly. It is actually immaterial how TRUTH is written, just as long as it's told.

I pray that the Holy Spirit may open your eyes to see, so that some day you may start telling the truth as it is.

This post has been edited by Johann: Feb 13 2008, 10:37 AM

[Pickle]

FHB,

Have you or anyone else posted my objections to their motion for a protective order? They were filed on January 2.

[sister]

[attachment=1050:sheltonmemor020708.pdf]
The memorandum details the reasons for the current actions and cites the relevant case law applicable to the filing. (The main document, if you read only one this is the one to read)

[attachment=1047:hayesaffi020708.pdf]
Attorney Hayes' affidavit in support of the motion identifies the exhibits presented in support of the motion.

[attachment=1049:sheltonaffi020708.pdf]
Mr. Shelton's affidavit establishing reason for the motion

[attachment=1048:exhibits30208708.pdf]
The exhibits used in establishing the reason for the motion and in support of the memorandum.

This information only presents the issues from the perspective of Danny Shelton. Why have you neglected to post opposing documents, FHB? If you have access to this, I am sure you would have access to that as well. Personally, I would like to be fully informed by having all the information available.

Sister

This post has been edited by sister: Feb 13 2008, 01:08 PM

[Noahswife]

This information only presents the issues from the perspective of Danny Shelton. Why have you neglected to post opposing documents, FHB? If you have access to this, I am sure you would have access to that as well. Personally, I would like to be fully informed by having all the information available.

Sister

Sister,

I think the first logical question here should be to ask Bob if he has filed a response with the court to the documents that FHB has posted before accusing FHB of neglect.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Feb 13 2008, 02:11 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

This information only presents the issues from the perspective of Danny Shelton. Why have you neglected to post opposing documents, FHB? If you have access to this, I am sure you would have access to that as well. Personally, I would like to be fully informed by having all the information available.

Sister

The "opposing" documents would be the subpoenas that appear in the exhibits - which are posted (the document referred to by Mr. Pickle (filed 01/02/08) is filed in the Mass. court and isn't part of this particular situation in the Minn. court, one should not confuse the two). These documents (posted today) were filed 02/07/08 and do not address the current issue (the Protective Order) under consideration in the case against Pickle/Joy, though they rely on that issue in making the case for the quashing of the Immediate Subpoena.

It appears to be rather simple. It seems as if there was an effort to circumvent the pending hearing (in regards to the proposed Protective Order in the 3ABN v. Pickle/Joy case) in the Mass. court. Robert Pickle attempted to execute subpoenas to gain information that, if determined relevant by the court, should legally be sought through the regular discovery process. This was apparently an attempt to circumvent the legal protocol to secure information which has been the subject of debate in the case.

With the filing of the memorandum three options are offered:

A. Quash the subpoenas.

B. Place the information sought under the conditions of the proposed Protective Order awaiting hearing in the Mass. court.

C. Place the information sought under the control of the sitting judge in the Mass. case until a ruling on the Protective Order is made.

The pending hearings in Mass., to my understanding, are to review the requested information and determine its relevance and admissibility. This attempt by Mr. Pickle appears to be an "end around" in an effort to gather information before its relevance or admissibility is determined. Why? What would be an individuals motivation for invading the privacy of another via legal means cloaked as part of an ongoing legal case? It would seem to be, as the memorandum states, an abuse of the subpoena power - which of course is simply my opinion.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Feb 13 2008, 04:28 PM

[Pickle]

Sister,

I think the first logical question here should be to ask Bob if he has filed a response with the court to the documents that FHB has posted before accusing FHB of neglect.

nw

Just got them Monday.

But my question to FHB still stands. Why hasn't he posted my January 2 oppostion to their motion for a protective order?

[Ian]

This information only presents the issues from the perspective of Danny Shelton. Why have you neglected to post opposing documents, FHB? If you have access to this, I am sure you would have access to that as well. Personally, I would like to be fully informed by having all the information available.

Sister

But Sister, you must know you already have Mr Pickle's undocumented version and spin on your new forum... he's the one that brought it up first publicly. And it was the actions he took in trying to circumvent the Massachusetts case and pending rulings which brought this about, and made it necessary. That's all there is so far.... So, if anything from Pickle's side is lacking, it is not FHB's fault.

Truly, as far as the documents posted here go, I have personally read them all myself on PACER, and the only thing missing is exhibits A & B, attached to the affidavit of Jerrie Hayes, which consist of a copy of the original complaint filed against Jpy and Pickle and their joint reply to that. (quite lengthy, and available elsewhere)


It's slightly boring, but so you, and anyone else who thinks you know what you are talking about, can compare; this is the entire docket report from the Minnesota court

District of Minnesota

0:08-mc-00007-RHK-AJB Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc et al v. Joy et al
Richard H. Kyle, presiding
Arthur J. Boylan, referral
Date filed: 02/06/2008
Date of last filing: 02/07/2008

HISTORY

Filed & Entered: 02/06/2008 Motion to Quash
1
Docket Text: MOTION to Quash by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc, Danny Lee Shelton. (jdf)


Filed & Entered: 02/07/2008 Memorandum in Support of Motion
2
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [1] MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum or, in the Alternative, for Protective Order, and in Support of Motion to Stay and Remit Enforcement of Subpoena Duces Tecum or, in the Alternative, to Appoint a Special Master filed by all plaintiffs. (Hayes, Jerrie)


Filed & Entered: 02/07/2008 Affidavit in Support of Motion
3
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Danny Shelton in SUPPORT OF [1] MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit(s))(Hayes, Jerrie)


Filed & Entered: 02/07/2008 Affidavit in Support of Motion
4
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Jerrie M. Hayes in SUPPORT OF [1] MOTION to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum filed by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit(s) A-B, # (2) Exhibit(s) C-J)(Hayes, Jerrie)


Filed & Entered: 02/07/2008 Affidavit of Service
5
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Service by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc, Danny Lee Shelton re [2] Memorandum in Support of Motion, [3] Affidavit in Support of Motion, [1] MOTION to Quash, [4] Affidavit in Support of Motion Dated 02/07/08 (Hayes, Jerrie)


Filed & Entered: 02/07/2008 Affidavit of Service
6
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Service by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc, Danny Lee Shelton re [2] Memorandum in Support of Motion, [3] Affidavit in Support of Motion, [1] MOTION to Quash, [4] Affidavit in Support of Motion (Pickle) Dated 02/07/08 (Hayes, Jerrie)


Filed & Entered: 02/07/2008 Affidavit of Service
7
Docket Text: AFFIDAVIT of Service by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc, Danny Lee Shelton re [2] Memorandum in Support of Motion, [3] Affidavit in Support of Motion, [1] MOTION to Quash, [4] Affidavit in Support of Motion Hills Dated 02/07/08 (Hayes, Jerrie)

[fallible humanbe...]

But Sister, you must know you already have Mr Pickle's undocumented version and spin on your new forum... he's the one that brought it up first publicly. And it was the actions he took in trying to circumvent the Massachusetts case and pending rulings which brought this about, and made it necessary. That's all there is so far.... So, if anything from Pickle's side is lacking, it is not FHB's fault.

Truly, as far as the documents posted here go, I have personally read them all myself on PACER, and the only thing missing is exhibits A & B, attached to the affidavit of Jerrie Hayes, which consist of a copy of the original complaint filed against Jpy and Pickle and their joint reply to that. (quite lengthy, and available elsewhere)
It's slightly boring, but so you, and anyone else who thinks you know what you are talking about, can compare; this is the entire docket report from the Minnesota court

Ian,

You are correct, those are the only documents involved in this particular action. The documents that I didn't upload included documentation already available in other threads and the documents that simply indicate that the necessary individuals were served with these papers.

Now, as to the other document that Mr. Pickle is referring to, it has nothing to do with what is happening in the Minn. court, rather it pertains to the case in the Mass. court. Since the document he continues to ask about is of his own creation, it would seem that if he wants it here maybe he should post it - of course it would have nothing to do with the Minn. court actions.

- FHB

[Ian]

Just got them Monday.

But my question to FHB still stands. Why hasn't he posted my January 2 oppostion to their motion for a protective order?

Is it FHB's responsibility to represent you? A better question is why haven't you been posting your own the documents, if you think they should be published, and made known???

IMO This was a new case, so of interest and worth commenting on, but as far as the rest goes, there's alot of mundane details being resolved etc, and I am not planning on posting everything, nor do I think anyone else needs to. Those who disagree can go to PACER themselves and get all if they want, and post what they think important.

On other issues, such as you refer to (In the other case in Massachusetts) I choose to wait, as think it's best to wait till both sides have made their case, or arguments and (or) the Judge rules in order to cut down on all the animosity and arguments and speculation in these forums. That's my choice.

For example someone asked me a question via email yesterday and here was my reply:

That's one thing. Joy asked for the sanctions and contempt of court to be reconsidered..... in it he claims that the sites belong more to Pickle than himself, and based on "information and belief" it is Pickle who recently reregistered them.

Second, there was a hearing on Joy's adversarial proceedings case against the 3abn lawyers and DS, and the Judge took it under advisement on 01/31/08. Then on 02/01/08 he dismissed the adversarial proceedings saying that Joy hadn't proven what he said, but he gave Joy until Feb 11th to amend his motion, which is what Joy did yesterday at the last moment. I don't really see anything new in it, but I'll probably wait to see what happens before posting more, as to do so now would lead to a bunch of useless speculation and arguments on BSDA, I think. ???

The third thing is that Pickle apparently tried to circumvent the Massachusetts court and discussion of discovery and definitions of what should be protected as private info, and only revealed on a need to know basis, by going to his district court in Minnesota, and getting 4 suppenas (sp?) issued to obtain all DS's bank records from 1998 till now. One was issued to Dwight Hall of remenat publications, the others to Banks. So---

A new case is underway in the Minnesota courts now to quash those suppenas, brought by DS and the 3abn attorneys, at the least Pickle did so in ignorance of the law and jurisdiction, at most it was duplicious and deceitful, or so 3abn's attorneys [seem to] say.. [in the documents]

Anyway I got all the latest documents from PACER about this yesterday. So if you want to check any or all out let me know.

Am I planning on posting info from the above? sure, when there's more to tell... but just so you aren't confused, it's not my responsibility to represent you either.

edit- corrected dates

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 14 2008, 06:26 AM

[Ian]

Ian,

You are correct, those are the only documents involved in this particular action. The documents that I didn't upload included documentation already available in other threads and the documents that simply indicate that the necessary individuals were served with these papers.

Now, as to the other document that Mr. Pickle is referring to, it has nothing to do with what is happening in the Minn. court, rather it pertains to the case in the Mass. court. Since the document he continues to ask about is of his own creation, it would seem that if he wants it here maybe he should post it - of course it would have nothing to do with the Minn. court actions.
- FHB

Exactly.

I'm thinking this is one more example of "the end justifies the means" thinking...



This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 13 2008, 08:02 PM

[Pickle]

Greg,

Anytime you have a question, you are more than welcome to pick up the phone and give me a call. Unless I feel like I can't disclose something, I will do my best to answer your questions.

If you follow such a course, you will undoubtedly improve the accuracy of your statements and avoid making defamatory claims. And you might end up being more accurate in your statements than your dad.

It appears to be rather simple. It seems as if there was an effort to circumvent the pending hearing (in regards to the proposed Protective Order in the 3ABN v. Pickle/Joy case) in the Mass. court.

And where did you come up with such an erroneous idea?

• The very documents you cite state that the date the subpoena in question bears is December 12, 2007.
• The first hint I can remember that the opposition was working on a motion for a protective order was during the status conference of December 14.
• They filed their motion on December 18, 6 days after the date they said was on the subpoena.
• In the status conference of December 14, Judge Saylor explicitly stated that discovery was not going to be halted until after such a motion was heard, something Attorney Hayes specifically wanted.

The subpoena thus has nothing to do with circumventing anything, since it was issued prior to the motion, and since Judge Saylor said discovery wasn't going to stop anyway.

Bear in mind that the current time table calls for all such requests for documents to be done by the end of May, if I recollect correctly. Thus, if we were to wait two, three, or four months for a decision to be had on the motion in question, we would jeopardize our case by our carelessness.

Robert Pickle attempted to execute subpoenas to gain information that, if determined relevant by the court, should legally be sought through the regular discovery process.

Again, where did you get such an erroneous idea? Since when are subpoenas not part of the regular discovery process?

This was apparently an attempt to circumvent the legal protocol to secure information which has been the subject of debate in the case.

Huh? What debate? When? When did such a debate occur?

The pending hearings in Mass., to my understanding, are to review the requested information and determine its relevance and admissibility.

Your understanding is incorrect. First of all, information doesn't have to be admissible in court before it can be obtained if it might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Secondly, I believe the pending motion in Massachusetts is regarding a proposed protective order, not the relevance of information.

This attempt by Mr. Pickle appears to be an "end around" in an effort to gather information before its relevance or admissibility is determined.

Not at all.

What would be an individuals motivation for invading the privacy of another via legal means cloaked as part of an ongoing legal case?

Greg, you're not making sense.

When Danny Shelton sued us in federal court he gave up a good bit of his right to privacy. Check out the caselaw on that.

Danny Shelton chose to sue us for defamation per se, for allegedly claiming that he lined his pockets with money from 3ABN in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. If he has now changed his mind about that sort of allegation and doesn't want us to challenge his claims to the contrary, then why doesn't he amend the complaint and take that allegation out?

It's the same sort of thing regarding the proposed protective order wanting to put all donation information off limits. Yet the lawsuit claims that we have caused donations to go down. Now if they don't want us to challenge that claim, why don't they sinply amend their complaint and take out all references to allegations that we caused donations to decline?

Do they want to sue us or not?

I really think you need to post my opposition to their motion for a protective order, as it will give a number of reasons our side believes that their protective order is misguided.

[Fran]

Sister,

I think the first logical question here should be to ask Bob if he has filed a response with the court to the documents that FHB has posted before accusing FHB of neglect.

nw

Some of us are just not as logical as you are. I read the above and gathered the same as Sister. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something vital is missing from these documents. I believe that because of the vast amount of hog wash that has been dumped on us.

Please, Sister did not ask you to give her advice. Your words appear to be high and mighty, like you rule the actions of others. Are you Emily Post? Did you miss the class on "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

[Ian]

Greg,

Anytime you have a question, you are more than welcome to pick up the phone and give me a call. Unless I feel like I can't disclose something, I will do my best to answer your questions.

If you follow such a course, you will undoubtedly improve the accuracy of your statements and avoid making defamatory claims. And you might end up being more accurate in your statements than your dad.
And where did you come up with such an erroneous idea?

• The very documents you cite state that the date the subpoena in question bears is December 12, 2007.
• The first hint I can remember that the opposition was working on a motion for a protective order was during the status conference of December 14.
• They filed their motion on December 18, 6 days after the date they said was on the subpoena.
• In the status conference of December 14, Judge Saylor explicitly stated that discovery was not going to be halted until after such a motion was heard, something Attorney Hayes specifically wanted.

The subpoena thus has nothing to do with circumventing anything, since it was issued prior to the motion, and since Judge Saylor said discovery wasn't going to stop anyway.

Bear in mind that the current time table calls for all such requests for documents to be done by the end of May, if I recollect correctly. Thus, if we were to wait two, three, or four months for a decision to be had on the motion in question, we would jeopardize our case by our carelessness.
Again, where did you get such an erroneous idea? Since when are subpoenas not part of the regular discovery process?
Huh? What debate? When? When did such a debate occur?
Your understanding is incorrect. First of all, information doesn't have to be admissible in court before it can be obtained if it might lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

Secondly, I believe the pending motion in Massachusetts is regarding a proposed protective order, not the relevance of information.
Not at all.
Greg, you're not making sense.

When Danny Shelton sued us in federal court he gave up a good bit of his right to privacy. Check out the caselaw on that.

Danny Shelton chose to sue us for defamation per se, for allegedly claiming that he lined his pockets with money from 3ABN in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. If he has now changed his mind about that sort of allegation and doesn't want us to challenge his claims to the contrary, then why doesn't he amend the complaint and take that allegation out?

It's the same sort of thing regarding the proposed protective order wanting to put all donation information off limits. Yet the lawsuit claims that we have caused donations to go down. Now if they don't want us to challenge that claim, why don't they sinply amend their complaint and take out all references to allegations that we caused donations to decline?

Do they want to sue us or not?

I really think you need to post my opposition to their motion for a protective order, as it will give a number of reasons our side believes that their protective order is misguided.

The continuing insults to Dr Thompson are uncalled for in my opinion.

Unlike you, my first clue about discovery issues and protective orders came with the initial request for the documents to be impounded and under seal, and the judges response to not issue a blanket judgment, but that all could and would be taken under consideration as it came up....


In any case, why don't you file your arguments and justifications regarding your actions and opinions in court Mr Pickle, and we'll just let the courts decide?

Sound reasonable?

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 13 2008, 10:02 PM

[sister]

The continuing insults to Dr Thompson are uncalled for in my opinion.

Why don't you file your arguments and justifications regarding your actions and opinions in court Mr Pickle, and we'll just let the courts decide.

Sound reasonable?

Is that what you and Greg are doing? It appears that the two of you are playing tag team, posting documents and commenting on each others posts. Doesn't Bob Pickle have the same right of having his say here as you and Greg? Does that sound reasonable? It appears that you are in need of a reality check.

[Ian]

Is that what you and Greg are doing? It appears that the two of you are playing tag team, posting documents and commenting on each others posts. Doesn't Bob Pickle have the same right of having his say here as you and Greg? Does that sound reasonable? It appears that you are in need of a reality check.

Sister,

One response each is hardly a tag team affair...

FHB posted documents to the forum. I posted the court docket because of and in reply to what you posted...

Bob is complaining that his documents have not been posted here from an entirely different state and court, but he isn't posting them. Right or wrong, he is making arguments here about what he has done here to this forum, rather than in court. And he and you are complaining because we are posting about what iactually is in evidence in court.

Certainly Bob can post or spin whatever he likes, so can you..

I am merely of the opinion it would be more efficient and credible if Mr Pickle would first make his arguments in court where it counts, and than post them here if he feels that necessary.

In any case, the reality check is it really won't be decided here. Regardless of the personal opinions here, it will be decided in court.

I'm sorry you dislike that.

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 13 2008, 10:29 PM