Court Hearing 7/07/23, Read legal documents associated with this hearing. Options

[Artiste]

My life is pretty open. If they knew what they were doing they could have found my photo on the Internet, along with a lot of stuff about me. I guess that they just do not know how to research.

They could have found out enough information about me to have written a nice biography.

Maybe what they are looking for is not "nice".


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

[mikell]

Concise Factual Summary of Defendant’s claims/defenses.

Plaintiffs have fraudulently relied largely upon the Seventh-day Adventist world-wide congregation for the funds to operate, claiming to proclaim the unique-to-Seventh-day Adventists Three Angels’ Messages,

Amen!

This post has been edited by mikell: Jul 31 2007, 11:39 PM

[Shepherdswife]

Joy and Pickle have disseminated their statements to third persons and to the public at large orally, in print, and on the internet. Moreover, with regard to their internet offensive, Defendants have usurped and infringed upon Plaintiff Three Angel’s federally registered trademark “3ABN,” using it to identif~’ and advertise their own world wide web site, “Save3ABN.com,” in violation of the Lanham Act.

Well, they are not the only ones to do it--look at what some are doing to try and save WGTS, the CUC radio station.

savewgts.org

shepherdswife

This post has been edited by Shepherdswife: Aug 2 2007, 01:48 PM

[Observer]

FYI:

Attornies acting for 3-ABN have formally filed legal documents that list myself as a potential adverse witness that they believe to have information relating to thier lawsuit that they may want me to give to them.

[PeacefulBe]

FYI:

Attornies acting for 3-ABN have formally filed legal documents that list myself as a potential adverse witness that they believe to have information relating to thier lawsuit that they may want me to give to them.

Gregory,

I am sorry to hear that you, with your consistant voice of reason, would be added to such a list, but I suppose it was inevitable. My prayers are with you and your family.

PB

[daylily]

What are the implications of this for you?

[Observer]

What are the implications of this for you?

I am not paranoid. I am not going to get into unfounded speculaltion. It is simply a formal statement to the court that they believe that I have information that would be helpful to them. Therefore, they are putting the court and the other side on notice that they may seek judical orders compelling me to testify under oath either at the trial, or to be deposed at another time. But, I am a hostile witness and therefore this is a formal notice to the court that they wish to be able to question me under the proceedures established for a hostile witness. Those conditions differ from those that apply to a witness who is not considered to be a hostile witness.

If I am deposed, I will have the right to have legal counsel. In addition, the deposition would take place within 100 miles of my home. So that would require 3-ABN to either obtain local lawyers to depose me or to have one of their attornies depose me who is licensed to practice law in the State where I was deposed.

It is unknown at this time whether or not I will either be deposed or be called to testify at the trial. Just because I am on the list does not mean that anything will be required of me.

It should be noted that I am not presently a defendent in the lawsuit. While it is possisble that they could seek the permission of the court to add me as a defendent it should not be assumed that such will happen. If they were to petition the court to add me, it should not be assumed that the court would grant such a request.

This is simply an interesting development. But, we should not speculate beyond the facts, and we should not assign more meaning to it than is reasonable.

Just keeping you informed.

[Rosyroi]

I am not paranoid. I am not going to get into unfounded speculaltion. It is simply a formal statement to the court that they believe that I have information that would be helpful to them. Therefore, they are putting the court and the other side on notice that they may seek judical orders compelling me to testify under oath either at the trial, or to be deposed at another time. But, I am a hostile witness and therefore this is a formal notice to the court that they wish to be able to question me under the proceedures established for a hostile witness. Those conditions differ from those that apply to a witness who is not considered to be a hostile witness.

If I am deposed, I will have the right to have legal counsel. In addition, the deposition would take place within 100 miles of my home. So that would require 3-ABN to either obtain local lawyers to depose me or to have one of their attornies depose me who is licensed to practice law in the State where I was deposed.

It is unknown at this time whether or not I will either be deposed or be called to testify at the trial. Just because I am on the list does not mean that anything will be required of me.

It should be noted that I am not presently a defendent in the lawsuit. While it is possisble that they could seek the permission of the court to add me as a defendent it should not be assumed that such will happen. If they were to petition the court to add me, it should not be assumed that the court would grant such a request.

This is simply an interesting development. But, we should not speculate beyond the facts, and we should not assign more meaning to it than is reasonable.

Just keeping you informed.

Thank you for the information. I am sorry they consider you a hostile witness.

Rosyroi

[Noahswife]

Thank you for the information. I am sorry they consider you a hostile witness.

Rosyroi

Rosyroi~

Observer's use of the term "hostile witness" has a legal meaning. When you google it I think you will find you are glad the plaintiff's see Observer as a hostile witness.

nw

[Rosyroi]

From wikepidia

In United States law, a hostile witness is a witness in a trial who testifies for the opposing party or a witness who offers adverse testimony to the calling party during direct examination.
A witness called by the opposing party is presumed hostile. A witness called by the direct examiner can be declared hostile by a judge, at the request of the examiner, when the witness' testimony is openly antagonistic or clearly prejudiced to the opposing party.
A party examining a hostile witness may question the witness as if in cross-examination, thus permitting the use of leading questions. A hostile witness is sometimes known as an adverse witness.
Although the practice of declaring a witness hostile is very prevalent in television and in movies, it is far rarer in reality.[citation needed]

A witness is someone who has firsthand knowledge about a crime or dramatic event through their senses (e.g. seeing, hearing, smelling, touching) and can help certify important considerations to the crime or event. A witness who has seen the event firsthand is known as an eye-witness. Witnesses are often called before a court of law to testify in trials.
A subpoena commands a person to appear. In many jurisdictions it is compulsory to comply, to take an oath, and tell the truth, under penalty of perjury. It is used to compel the testimony of witnesses in a trial. Usually it can be issued by a judge or by the lawyer representing the plaintiff or the defendant in a civil trial or by the prosecutor or the defense attorney in a criminal proceeding.
Witness testimony is always presumed to be better than circumstantial evidence. Studies have shown that individual, separate witness testimony is often flawed and parts of it can be meaningless. This can occur because of a person's faulty observation and recollection, because of a person's bias, or because the witness is lying. If several witnesses witness a crime it is probative to look for similarities in their collective descriptions to substantiate the facts of an event, keeping in mind the contrasts of individual descriptions. One study involved an experiment in which subjects acted as jurors in a criminal case. Jurors heard a description of a robbery-murder, then a prosecution argument, then an argument for the defense. Some jurors heard only circumstantial evidence, others heard from a clerk who claimed to identify the defendant. In the first case, 18% percent found the defendant guilty, but in the second, 72% found the defendant guilty (Loftus 1988). Lineups, where the eyewitness picks out a suspect from a group of people in the police station, are often grossly suggestive, and give the false impression that the witness remembered the suspect. In another study, students watched a staged crime. An hour later they looked through photos. A week later they were asked to pick the suspect out of lineups. 8% of the people in the lineups were mistakenly identified as criminals. 20% of the innocent people whose photographs were included were mistakenly identified (University of Nebraska 1977). Weapon focus effects in which the presence of a weapon impairs memory for surrounding details is also an issue.
Another study looked at sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." In 45% of the cases, eyewitness mistakes were responsible (Borchard p. 367).
The formal study of eyewitness memory is usually undertaken within the broader category of cognitive processes. Cognitive processes refer to all the different ways in which we make sense of the world around us. We do this by employing the mental skills at our disposal such as thinking, perception, memory, awareness, reasoning and judgment.
Although cognitive processes can only be inferred and cannot be seen directly, they all have very important practical implications within a legal context.
If one were to accept that the way we think, perceive, reason and judge is not always perfect, then it becomes easier to understand why cognitive processes and the factors influencing these processes are studied by psychologists in matters of law; not least because of the grave implications that this imperfection can have within the criminal justice system.
The study of witness memory has dominated this realm of investigation and for a very good reason because as Huff and Rattner note: the single most important factor contributing to wrongful conviction is eyewitness misidentification.

I found it earlier and decided at that time not to post it but changed my mind.

Rosyroi