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

[Observer]

I intend to post here several of the legal documents associated with the court hearing that was held today, July 23, 2007.

The major part of my first post related to the Legal order regarding confidentiality sought by 3-aBN and Danny Shelton. In this same post are some other documents associated with this orequest for the order.

Other documents will also be posted.

I guess that I need help. I get a message telling me that I am not allowed to upload that type of a file.

I seem to be unable to paste the document from my clipboard.



This post has been edited by Observer: Jul 23 2007, 07:31 PM

[awesumtenor]

I intend to post here several of the legal documents associated with the court hearing that was held today, July 23, 2007.

The major part of my first post related to the Legal order regarding confidentiality sought by 3-aBN and Danny Shelton. In this same post are some other documents associated with this orequest for the order.

Other documents will also be posted.

I guess that I need help. I get a message telling me that I am not allowed to upload that type of a file.

I seem to be unable to paste the document from my clipboard.

What file format are the files?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Observer]

What file format are the files?

In His service,
Mr. J

MS Word from Office 2007.

NOTE: If you have Office 2003 and have updated it, you should be able to convert to 2003.

Tell you what. I seem to be able to e-mail. So, I shall attempt to e-mail them to you and send them to you. IF it works, you can post. To make this work, I need you or someone else to send me their e-mail address so I can send the files from an e-mail box of mine. O.K.


This post has been edited by Observer: Jul 23 2007, 07:53 PM

[Observer]

MS Word from Office 2007.

NOTE: If you have Office 2003 and have updated it, you should be able to convert to 2003.

Tell you what. I seem to be able to e-mail. So, I shall attempt to e-mail them to you and send them to you. IF it works, you can post. To make this work, I need you or someone else to send me their e-mail address so I can send the files from an e-mail box of mine. O.K.

I have sent the files to two different members. Thsy should be able to be posted.

[PeacefulBe]

Concise Factual Summary of Defendant’s claims/defenses.
The Defendants assert the record will demonstrate as a matter of fact, statute, and precedence that the allegations regarding Trademark Infringement, Copyright Violation, Trademark dilution and Prospective Business Advantage is a willfully and wantonly frivolous claim, without merit, a fraud upon the court, and therefore is likely a misuse of process.

Defendants have conducted an ecclesiastical investigation of allegations and charges
relating to the personal and professional conduct of the self-appointed managing director and purported founder, other employees, past and present, and the members/ directors of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. Defendants have conducted hundreds of hours of interviews and collected a substantial record of documents and statements from dozens of witnesses, victims, and employees, past and present. Defendants have provided ecclesiastical reports accurately reflecting the historical record of events during the twenty years of 3ABN history.

Defendants vehemently deny the Plaintiffs’ allegations of defamation and will assert that Plaintiffs have in fact engaged in a conspiracy of misinformation, issued factually challenged statements, failed to deliver any proof of their own defamatory and factually challenged claims against their victims and the Defendants, despite repeated requests from the Defendants, some victims, and others.

Personal, professional and corporate conduct is chameleon-like as they profess adherence to Seventh-day Adventist conservative theology while 3ABN allows the self-appointed leader of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. to conduct himself in such a way as to prove violative of the high standards required of ministry leadership within the Seventh-day Adventist Faith. They collusively have repeatedly violated the code of conduct expected of an institution that professes an absolute faith in, and teaches, the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Plaintiffs have in concert violated the code of conduct required as a member of ASI, a Seventh-day Adventist, denominationally-affiliated businessmen’s organization. Defendants intend to prove that the complaining institution, its leadership, and its membership have colluded to underwrite and allow its self-appointed leader to stoop to a level best described as institutional and personal corruption unbecoming of a leader of a Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministry. Defendants also intend to prove that some conduct violated Illinois CS, Massachusetts RSA, and the US Code.

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, while on the other hand promoting and managing themselves as a non-denominational institution. Plaintiffs have colluded repeatedly to misinform or delude the various Seventh-day Adventist congregations in such a way as to fraudulently continue to collect donations, trusts, wills, tithes, gifts, and bequests, and have willfully attempted to cover up conduct that was clearly violative of Seventh-day Adventist congregational Standards and the Due Process rights of its victims. The actual record demonstrates a willfully deceptive effort to deceive victims and contributors to the clear benefit of Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton and demonstrates that the very limited membership / directorate of 3ABN willfully and repeatedly ignored clear warnings of corruption and misuse of financial assets entrusted to 3ABN and its affiliates. The actual record demonstrates a willfully deceptive effort to deceive cast-aside victims of corruption and to deprive them of due process, to willfully set about to defame or undermine the character and personalities of its cast-aside victims, and to deprive them of their livelihood after the fact, all contrary to the standards expected of a Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministry and violative of the trust of more than 100,000 contributors to 3ABN. The actual record will demonstrate that the membership / directorate of 3ABN failed to show due diligence and to investigate the various warnings, wantonly electing to rely upon the factually challenged representations and statements of its self-appointed leader and purported founder, Danny Lee Shelton, to their ultimate detriment.

Defendants reassert their constitutional right pursuant to the US Constitution and the First Amendment thereto to continue to investigate and to report on the conduct of the Plaintiffs. Further, by their written statements the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel clearly intended the filing of this action to result in the silencing of the press and as such would be a misuse of process pursuant to the Defendants’ right to freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech inherent in the US Constitution. Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs’ proposed STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY is a contempt of the Honorable Court and a veiled effort to impound discovery grossly violating the clear order of the court as the Plaintiffs continue their efforts to sidestep local rule 7(a) in an effort to avoid full disclosure to the contributing public.



(1) Concise Factual Summary of Plaintiff’s Claims;

By their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle, acting individually and in consort, have engaged in an affirmative campaign of defamation, slander and libel directed against Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) and its Founder and President, Mr. Danny Shelton. Joy and Pickle have published false statements of fact and have made grievous misrepresentations—directly and by omission and innuendo—regarding 3ABN’s operation, administration, and financial management and regarding Shelton’s personal and professional conduct. Joy and Pickle purposefully and deliberately made these false statements and misrepresentations in order to destroy Plaintiffs’ reputations and goodwill, undermine public confidence in the ministry and its president, and financially cripple Plaintiffs so Plaintiffs would acquiesce to Defendants’ designs for the company and its administration. Joy and Pickle made their defamatory statements knowing yet willfully disregarding the falsity of the statements, or made the statements in brazen, wanton and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their statements.

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.

Joy and Pickle’s efforts have been the direct cause of reputation, financial, and other harm and damages to 3ABN and its President. Defendants’ have brought about a diminishment of Plaintiffs’ reputations and goodwill, a lowering of Plaintiffs in the eyes of the public and 3ABN viewers, donors and supporters, a reduction in financial contributions to the ministry, and a confusion or likely confusion of the public and internet community as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and origination of the “Save3ABN.com” website.

Despite the filing of the instant action, Pickle and Joy’s campaign of orchestrated disparagement continues. Plaintiffs anticipate the instant case will require considerable discovery, as Pickle and Joy’s defamation and trademark infringement are ongoing, and that there will be numerous, contentious discovery disputes. Defendants have already stated their intention to refuse Plaintiffs original-source access to electronically stored information, they have already challenged Plaintiffs’ right to discoverable information based on an alleged “reporter’s privilege,” and they have already raised an allegation that Plaintiffs have engaged in the destruction of evidence, yet refused to provide Plaintiffs with supporting information that Plaintiffs would need to investigate the charge.

Additionally, Plaintiffs’ concerns about Defendants using the pleadings in this matter, both as a forum to disparage Plaintiffs and as a source of material Defendants will mischaracterize, editorialize, sensationalize and publish to misinform the public, have come to fruition since the lifting of the impoundment order. Thus, Plaintiffs’ also anticipate the case will require substantial attention to the protection of various discovery materials and case submissions.

---------------------------------
Note: Pasted in final 5.5 words that were not in originally transmitted document. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Yougali! I also removed more blank lines.

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Jul 24 2007, 05:08 AM

[PeacefulBe]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


Case No.: 4:07-cv-40098 FDS


Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., an Illinois non-profit corporation, and

Danny Lee Shelton, individually,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Gailon Arthur Joy and

Robert Pickle,

Defendants.


JOINT RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE REPORT (PROPOSED by Defendants)

The counsel identified below participated in the meeting required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(f), on July 2, 2007, and prepared the following report. The pretrial conference in this matter is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. on July 23, 2007 before United States District Judge F. Dennis Saylor at the United States Courthouse, 595 Main Street, Worcester, Massachusetts 01608. The parties do not request that the pretrial be held by telephone.

(a) Description of Case
(1) Concise Factual Summary of Plaintiff’s Claims;
By their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle, acting individually and in consort, have engaged in an affirmative campaign of defamation, slander and libel directed against Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) and its Founder and President, Mr. Danny Shelton. Joy and Pickle have published false statements of fact and have made grievous misrepresentations—directly and by omission and innuendo—regarding 3ABN’s operation, administration, and financial management and regarding Shelton’s personal and professional conduct. Joy and Pickle purposefully and deliberately made these false statements and misrepresentations in order to destroy Plaintiffs’ reputations and goodwillc undermine public confidence in the ministry and its president, and financially cripple Plaintiffs so Plaintiffs would acquiesce to Defendants’ designs for the company and its administration. Joy and Pickle made their defamatory statements knowing yet willfully disregarding the falsity of the statements, or made the statements in brazen, wanton and reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of their statements.
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 identify and advertise their own world wide web site, “Save3ABN.com,” in violation of the Lanham Act.
Joy and Pickle’s efforts have been the direct cause of reputation, financial, and other harm and damages to 3ABN and its President. Defendants’ have brought about a diminishment of Plaintiffs’ reputations and goodwill, a lowering of Plaintiffs in the eyes of the public and 3ABN viewers, donors and supporters, a reduction in financial contributions to the ministry, and a confusion or likely confusion of the public and internet community as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and origination of the “Save3ABN.com” website.
Despite the filing of the instant action, Pickle and Joy’s campaign of orchestrated disparagement continues. Plaintiffs anticipate the instant case will require considerable discovery, as Pickle and Joy’s defamation and trademark infringement are ongoing, and that there will be numerous, contentious discovery disputes. Defendants have already stated their intention to refuse Plaintiffs original-source access to electronically stored information, they have already challenged Plaintiffs’ right to discoverable information based on an alleged “reporter’s privilege,” and they have already raised an allegation that Plaintiffs have engaged in the destruction of evidence, yet refused to provide Plaintiffs with supporting information that Plaintiffs would need to investigate the charge.
Additionally, Plaintiffs’ concerns about Defendants using the pleadings in this matter, both as a forum to disparage Plaintiffs and as a source of material Defendants will mischaracterjze, editorialize, sensationalize and publish to misinform the public, have come to fruition since the lifting of the impoundment order. Thus, Plaintiffs’ also anticipate the case will require substantial attention to the protection of various discovery materials and case submissions.
(2) Concise Factual Summary of Defendant’s claims/defenses;
Defendants vehemently deny the Plaintiffs’ allegations of defamation and in defense assert that Plaintiffs are participating in a conspiracy of misinformation, have issued factually challenged statements, and have failed to deliver any proof of their own defamatory and factually challenged claims against their victims and the Defendants, despite repeated requests from the Defendants, some victims, and others.
The Defendants further assert the record will demonstrate as a matter of fact, statute, and precedent that the allegations regarding Trademark Infringement, Copyright Violation, and Trademark dilution are willfully and wantonly frivolous claims, without merit, and consequently an abuse of process intended to silence the plaintiffs' critics and not to recover any purported damages. Indeed, the defamation per se that the plaintiffs have so repeatedly emphasized to this Court is characterized by its standing as a legal theory worthy of bringing to trial even in the absence of actual damages.
The Defendants took the notice contained in the Complaint that the repetition of the asserted trademarks of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., in the referrer tags contained in the web pages of save3ABN.com was asserted as an infringement and removed those references, which were never visible on the online display anyway and even were ignored by the search engines that many years ago relied on them. Thus, under applicable statutory and case law, there is no infringement, as "save3ABN" is not going to confuse any member of the public that the web site is a product or part of the business or even a competitor of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.
The defamation cause relates to Defendants' ecclesiastical investigation of allegations and charges relating to the personal and professional conduct of the self-appointed managing director and purported founder, other employees, past and present, and the members/ directors of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. Defendants have conducted hundreds of hours of interviews and collected a substantial record of documents and statements from dozens of witnesses, victims, and employees, past and present. Defendants have provided ecclesiastical reports accurately reflecting the historical record of events during the twenty years of 3ABN history.
The plaintiffs' personal, professional and corporate conduct is chimeral and duplicitous as they profess adherence to Seventh-day Adventist conservative theology while Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., allows their self-appointed leader to conduct himself in such a way as to prove violative of the clear and rigorously enforced standards required of ministry leadership within the Seventh-day Adventist Faith just as they are expected of the churches' membership. They collusively have repeatedly violated the code of conduct expected of an institution that professes an absolute faith in, and teaches, the doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Plaintiffs have in concert violated the code of conduct required as a member of Adventist-laymen's Services and Industries, a Seventh-day Adventist, denominationally-affiliated businessmen’s organization. Defendants intend to prove that the plaintiffs have colluded to underwrite and allow this self-appointed leader to stoop to a level best described as institutional and personal corruption unbecoming of a leader of a Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministry. Such a violation of the rules of their faith that the Seventh-day Adventist membership abides by is a regular topic of member discussion and the only difference the defendants brought to the discussion was to uncover the proof of the truth. In response, the plaintiffs are, in a familiar and oft-repeated scenario, seeking to silence them by bringing suit.
Plaintiffs have fraudulently relied 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, while coming to this court and representing themselves as operating a non-denominational institution. Plaintiffs have colluded repeatedly to misinform or delude the various Seventh-day Adventist congregations in such a way as to fraudulently continue to collect donations, trusts, wills, tithes, bequests, and gifts both outright and in trust, and have willfully attempted to cover up conduct that was clearly violative of the rights of their victims. The actual record demonstrates a willfully deceptive effort to deceive victims and contributors to the clear benefit of Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton and demonstrates that the very limited membership of 3ABN willfully and repeatedly ignored clear warnings of corruption and misuse of financial assets entrusted to 3ABN and its affiliates. The actual record demonstrates a willfully deceptive effort to deceive cast-aside victims of corruption and to deprive them of due process, to willfully set about to defame or undermine the character and personalities of its cast-aside victims, and to deprive them of their livelihood after the fact, all contrary to the standards expected of a Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministry and violative of the trust of more than 100,000 contributors to 3ABN. The actual record will demonstrate that the membership of 3ABN failed to show due diligence and to investigate the various warnings, wantonly electing to rely upon the factually challenged representations and statements of its self-appointed leader and purported founder, Danny Lee Shelton, to their ultimate detriment.
Defendants reassert their constitutional right pursuant to the US Constitution and the First Amendment thereto to continue to investigate and to report on the conduct of the Plaintiffs. Further, by their written statements the Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ counsel clearly intended the filing of this action to result in the silence of the press and as such would be a misuse of process pursuant to the Defendants’ right to freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech inherent in the US Constitution. Defendants further assert that the Plaintiffs’ proposed STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY is a contempt of the Honorable Court and a veiled effort to impound discovery grossly violating the clear order of the court as the Plaintiffs continue their efforts to sidestep local rule 7(a) in an effort to avoid full disclosure to the contributing public.
(3) Statement of Jurisdiction (including statutory citations);
Original subject matter jurisdiction under 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (action arising under the Federal Trademark Act).

Original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1388 (action arising under an Act of Congress related to copyright and trademark).

Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (action where the matter in controversy is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 (exclusive of costs and interest)).
(4) Summary of Factual Stipulations or Agreements;
The parties have not successfully stipulated to any facts nor executed any agreements related to discovery, trial or case management other than jointly authored statements contained in this report.
(5) Statement of whether jury trial has been timely demanded by any party.
Jury request has been made by plaintiffs and defendants.
(B.) Pleadings
(1) Statement of whether all process has been served, all pleadings filed and any plan for any party to amend pleadings or add additional parties to the action;
Defendants have been served with the Summons and Complaint. The Summons and Complaint have been filed. Defendants have both answered the Complaint. All motions pleadings to date have been filed. Defendant Joy has indicated he intends to move to amend the pleadings to include affirmative defenses and a counterclaim. Defendant Joy does intend to amend the pleadings and add additional parties as appropriate. The other parties have reserved the right to add parties.
(2) Proposed date by which all hearings on motions to amend and/or add parties to the action shall be heard:
August 15, 2008
© Discovery Limitations
(1) The parties agree and recommend that the Court limit the use and numbers of discovery procedures as follows:
(A) 25 (for each party) interrogatories;
(B.) No Limit document requests;
© No Limit factual depositions;
(D) No Limit requests for admissions;
(E) N/A Rule 35 medical examinations;
(F) 6 expert depositions other
for each party;
(d) Discovery Schedule Deadlines
(1) The parties recommend that the Court establish the following discovery deadlines:
(A) July 15, 2008 deadline for completion of non-expert discovery, including service and response to interrogatories, document requests, requests for admission and scheduling of factual depositions;
(B.) deadline for completion of all Rule 35 medical examinations; N/A
© other.
(e) Experts
The parties anticipate that they will require expert witnesses at time of trial.
(1) The plaintiff anticipates calling at least two experts in the field(s) of:Journalism to testify as to the standards of care related to due diligence and fact corroboration in investigative reporting
Computer forensics — to testify as to the storage, transmission, receipt, and deletion of electronic information mail, website publication, internet chat room postings, activity.
(2) The defendant anticipates calling at least six experts in the field(s) of:
First Amendment Expert; Trademark and Copyright Expert;
Defamation, slander and libel; Forensic accounting; theology,
denominational and ASI standards; Broadcast license and
acquisition experts;
(3) The parties pursuant to Local Rules, recommend the disclosure and discovery option as follows:
maintenance, via electronic, weblog and hard copy as appropriate.
(4) The parties recommend that the Court establish the following deadlines for disclosure of experts and experts’ opinions consistent with Rule 26(a)(2):
(A) Deadlines for all parties’ identification of expert witnesses (initial and rebuttal). (Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(2)(A).)
December 15, 2008
(B.) Deadlines for completion of disclosure or discovery of the substance of expert witness opinions.
February 15, 2009
© Deadlines for completion of experts witness depositions, if any.
February 15, 2009
(f) Motion Schedule
(1) The parties recommend that motions be filed and served on or before the following date:
(A) October 15, 2008 non-dispositive motions;
(B.) October 15, 2008 dispositive motions.
(g) Trial-Ready Date:
(1) The parties agree that the case will be ready for trial on or after
March 15, 2009.
(2) The final pretrial conference should be held on or before March 1, 2009.
(h) Insurance Carriers lndemnitors:
List all insurance carriers/indemnitors, including limits of coverage of each defendant or statement that the defendant is self-insured.
Defendant Joy is un-insured;
Defendant Pickle may be insured for some allegations;
(i) Settlements
(1) The parties will discuss settlement before August 31, 2007, by the plaintiff making a written demand for settlement and each defendant making a written response/offer to plaintiff’s demand.
(2) The parties believe that a settlement conference is appropriate and should be scheduled by the Court before May 15, 2009.
(3) The parties have discussed whether alternative dispute resolution (ADR) will be helpful to the resolution of this case and recommend the following to the Court:
The parties have not discussed alternative dispute resolution, within the context of this case, to the point that they could offer the Court a joint recommendation.
The defendants actively sought to resolve all matters through alternative dispute resolution, namely the Seventh-Day Adventist formal hearing procedure, but ultimately the plaintiffs refused to participate as the nature and format of the hearings became clear.
(j) Trial by Magistrate Judge
(1) The parties have not agreed to consent to jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636©. (If the parties agree, the consent should be filed with the Rule 26(1) Report.)

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Jul 23 2007, 08:40 PM

[PeacefulBe]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., an Illinois non-profit corporation, and Danny Lee Shelton, individually,
v.
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 07-40098-RCL
Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle,
Defendants.
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIALITY



Pursuant to Federal Rule 26© IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the following provisions shall govern confidentiality of all discovery material produced and received by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Lee Shelton (collectively the “Plaintiffs”) and Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle (collectively the “Defendants”), any additional defendants as yet unnamed, and any third parties, during any and all discovery and/or proceedings related to the above-captioned matter (the “Action”):

1. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply in the construction and application of this Order:
a. “Docwnent” shall have the meaning provided in Rule 34 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable local rule and encompasses
any and all writings of any kind, including without limitation, letters,
memoranda, notes, transcripts, computer tapes, discs, printouts, cartridges,
recordings, hard drives, e-mail messages and attachments and all similar
materials, whether electrically, mechanically, or manually readable. The
term “document” is to be given a broad definition and interpretation.
I
b. “Confidential Information” means any and all documents, materials and things, and the information contained or reflected therein, which is designated and/or qualifies as “Confidential Materials” or “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only Materials” as defined herein.

c. “Authorized Recipient” means a person to whom certain Confidential Information may be disclosed in accordance with the provisions of this Order.

f. “Filed Under Seal” means to be kept separate from the general Court File and to be placed in an envelope or suitable container which bears a legend in substantially the following form:

CONFIDENTIAL - INFORMATION PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER IN CASE NO. 07-40098-RCL: This is sealed pursuant to an Protective Order of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Case No. 07-40098-RCL, and contains confidential information. It is not to be opened or the contents provided, shown, made available or communicated to anyone other than any Authorized Recipient as set forth under the Protective Order on file in this action.”

g. “Producing Party” means the party or third party producing the discovery to another party, of whom may or may not seek to assert a claim of confidentiality and designate certain materials according to the classifications of confidentiality set forth under this Order. The Producing Party is the designating party.


h. “Receiving Party” means the party receiving service of discovery from the Producing Party.

2. Scope of Order. This Order shall apply to all documents and other information produced in discovery, pre-trial or trial (“Discovery”) during the course of the Action, regardless of whether produced, received or reviewed by the parties or their respective present or former agents, employees, or representatives, or by third party. Any third party responding to discovery in this matter may become a party to this Order by (a) signing the form attached hereto as “Exhibit A,” hereby agreeing to be bound by all terms and conditions herein, and (B.) delivering a copy to counsel for both Plaintiffs and Defendants.




2
3. Confidential Information. The provisions of this Order extend to all designated Confidential Information regardless of the manner in which it is disclosed, including but not limited to documents, interrogatory answers, responses to requests for admissions, deposition transcripts, deposition exhibits, and any other discovery materials produced by a party or third party in response to or in connection with any discovery conducted in this Action, and any copies, notes, abstracts, or summaries of the foregoing materials.


4. Purpose of Discovery Limited to Adjudication of this Action. All materials produced in connection with this litigation, including but not limited to all materials designated as Confidential Information, shall be used solely for the purposes of this lawsuit only and for no other purpose, including without limitation any business or other purpose, unless otherwise agreed-to in writing by all parties to the Action. Confidential Information may be disclosed only in accordance with this Order, and all persons to whom such information is disclosed are hereby enjoined from using any and all Confidential Information so disclosed for any purpose other than as provided in this Order.


5. Designation of Discovery. Counsel for the Producing Party must initially designate documents or information as “Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only” or “Confidential” prior to the actual production of the documents or information by placing the notation “Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only” or “Confidential” on every page of each document so designated, or, in the case of Confidential Information disclosed in a non-paper medium (e.g., videotape, audiotape, computer disks, etc.) (“Electronic Material”) by placing the notation “Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only” or “Confidential” on the outside of the medium or its container, which shall be treated as such by all non-producing parties to this action (collectively, the “Receiving Parties”) unless the Court shall rule otherwise. Designation of witness deposition
3
testimony shall be accomplished by a statement to that effect during the deposition, or by a follow-up written designation, sent within twenty (20) days after receipt of that deposition transcript, identifying the specific portions of the deposition testimony and transcript exhibits being designated as “Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or “Confidential.” Documents or deposition testimony not so designated are not subject to this Order.


6. Discovery Obtained from Third Parties. Regarding any Discovery originating from third parties, the party receiving such discovery (the “Receiving Party”) shall immediately notify the other party or parties to this action (the “Notified Party”). For all documents sent to the Receiving Party by a third party or documents retrieved by the Receiving Party from a review of documents at third parties’ place of production, the Notified Party shall have a period of fourteen (14) days (the “Review Period”) from the time those documents are made available to the notified party within which period to designate any of the documents as “Confidential —Attorneys Eyes Only” or “Confidential.” The Review Period may be lengthened by agreement of the parties under extraordinary circumstances, such as in the event of a voluminous production, such agreement which will not be unreasonably withheld by either party. The parties reserve the right to seek Court intervention if such extraordinary circumstances exist and the parties are unable to reach agreement on a reasonable extension to the Review Period. Prior to notification and the expiration of the Review Period, no one but the attorneys for each party (or by extension those parties listed in paragraph 11) shall have access to any third party documents, information and materials produced in response to a subpoena. The fact that a third party has made its own confidentiality designations or has become a party to this Order has no bearing on the operation of this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to require the
4
attorney for any party to divulge its work-product, including but not limited to its selection 01 relevant documents for use in this litigation.


7. Multi-Media Production. Whenever a party or person produces Electronic Discovery as Confidential or Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only and reduces such material to hardcopy form, such party shall mark such hardcopy form with the appropriate confidentiality designation on each page of each document.


8. Inadvertent Failure to Designate Confidentiality. Inadvertent failure to designate any produced materials as “Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only” or “Confidential” may be corrected at any time by written notice, which designation shall operate prospectively pursuant to the terms of this Order.


9. Material Designated Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only. Confidential —Attorneys’ Eyes Only Material shall include all documents of a highly sensitive nature whose disclosure to any party will result in clearly defined and serious injury to the producing party.


10. Material Designated Confidential. Confidential Material shall include all non-public, proprietary and commercially sensitive material not otherwise included within the definition of Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only Material.


11. Disclosure of Information Designated “Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only.” Subject to the requirements set forth below, Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Material, including any copies, notes, abstracts or summaries thereof, shall be disclosed to and reviewed by only (a) the counsel of record for the Producing, Receiving and/or Notified Parties, including their legal assistants, secretaries and other staff, as well as outside photocopying or graphics



5
production vendors; (B.) officers, directors, or employees of the Producing Party; © authors, addressees, recipients, or persons who otherwise can be shown to have personal knowledge of the Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information subject to the Certification requirements of paragraph 13, below; (d) any person to whom the parties agree, in writing and in advance, may receive such designated information subject to the Certification requirements of paragraph 13; (e) expert witnesses or other outside consultants unless any party objects pursuant to paragraph 14 below and subject to the Certification requirements of paragraph 13; and (f) the Court, court employees, court reporters transcribing testimony herein, and notarizing officers.


12. Disclosure of Information Designated Confidential. Subject to the requirements set forth below, Confidential Materials, including any copies, notes, abstracts or summaries thereof, shall be disclosed to and reviewed by only (a) the Receiving Parties, (B.) the Notified Parties, © the Producing Parties subject to any applicable certification requirements required for third parties pursuant to this Order, (d) counsel of record, both outside counsel and in-house counsel, their legal assistants, secretaries and other staff, as well as outside photocopying or graphic production vendors, (e) if applicable and subject to the Certification requirements of paragraph 13, witnesses at a deposition or pretrial hearing, provided that the Producing Party is given prior notice of which Confidential Information a party intends to use at such proceeding and is given ten (10) days’ prior notice in order object to the use of such Confidential Information — if such objection is made the party seeking to use the Confidential Information may seek Court intervention but will not use such information absent Court approval; (0 any person whom the parties agree, in writing and in advance, may receive such designated information subject to the Certification requirements of paragraph 13;(g) expert witnesses or other outside consultants unless any party objects pursuant to paragraph 14 below and subject to
6
the Certification requirements of paragraph 13; and (h) the Court, court employees, court reporters transcribing testimony herein, and notarizing officers.


13. Certification Requirements. Before any person identified in Paragraphs 11©, (d) and (e) and 12©, (e), (1) and (g) is given access to Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials, that person shall be furnished with a copy of this Order and shall, sign a certification in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit B and the party seeking the use or disclosure of such Confidential Information shall provide to all other parties a copy of the Certification at least ten (10) days prior to the day the party intends to use and/or disclose the material to such authorized recipient. Regarding expert witnesses, Confidential Information may not be quoted, copied, or otherwise disclosed by the expert witness in any report or opinion, written or oral, that the expert prepares or gives in connection with this action except in accordance with this Order and the expert must be notified of this prohibition, in writing, at the time the material is disclosed to him or her by the party seeking the expert’s opinion or consult.


The originals of all Certifications shall be maintained by counsel for the Receiving Party until the fmal resolution of this litigation. Such Certification shall not be subject to discovery except upon agreement of the Parties or further order of the Court after application upon notice and for good cause shown. Any party may object to and make a motion prohibiting disclosure of Confidential Information to any person, in which case no disclosure shall be made unless the motion is resolved in favor of the party seeking such disclosure.

14. Objection to Designation of Information. Should counsel for any of the Receiving Parties object to the confidentiality designation or lack thereof by the Producing Party of any particular material, counsel for the Receiving Party at any time may notify counsel for the Producing Party or the Producing Party in writing that he or she objects to the designation,
7
specifying with particularity the material he or she believes has been classified improperly and the basis for his or her contention that said document should be otherwise designated. Upon receipt by the Producing Party of such written objection, counsel shall negotiate in good faith to resolve the dispute as to the designation. If counsel are unable to agree upon the handling of the disputed material, counsel for the Receiving Party may file with the Court a motion regarding the designation or lack of designation of such material. During the pendency of any such objection, dispute or motion, the material in question shall be handled as though designated Confidential —Attorneys Eyes Only.

In any proceeding initiated by a non-producing party challenging the propriety of the designation of any material as Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials, or the lack of designation, the Producing Party shall bear the burden of establishing the propriety of the proposed designation.

15. Disclosure of Confidential Information Prohibited. No one who has access to Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials pursuant to this Order shall distribute, disclose, divulge, publish, or otherwise make available any Confidential —Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials, copies thereof, or extracts or summaries therefrom, to any other person, except persons who are also authorized to view or have access to these materials pursuant to this Order, and except for the Court or employees thereof as necessary in the conduct of this particular litigation, unless such persons have first obtained leave of the Court or the written consent of the Producing party to disclose such materials.

16. Use of Information De~jgnated “Confidential” in Deposition. In the event any party wishes to use Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials at a
8
deposition, the Producing Party may compel all persons other than the deponent, court reporter, and other authorized recipients as defined in paragraphs 11 and 12 to be excused from the deposition during the time that the Confidential Information is being disclosed or discussed. No Party shall use Confidential — Attorneys Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials at the deposition of a person who is not authorized pursuant to paragraphs 11 and 12 of this Order without either the consent of the Producing Party or by further order of this Court. At the time of the deposition or within twenty (20) days after receipt of the deposition transcript, the Producing Party may designate as Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials certain portions of the transcript which contain or relate to Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials, or that relate to matters or information which are deemed confidential. All portions of deposition transcripts shall be treated as Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only until twenty (20) days after receipt of the deposition transcript by the Producing Party.

17. Return of Confidential Materials and Post-Action Custody: Within thirty (30) days after fmal termination of the Action, including all appeals, any recipient of confidential information pursuant to this Order shall deliver all Confidential and/or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information, including all copies thereof and all documents incorporating or referring to such information, in whole or in part, to counsel for the party that produced the protected information to the Receiving or Notified Party. The parties shall not retain any copies or reproductions of any documents produced by Plaintiffs in this case and, upon return of said documents, shall provide a signed, written statement confirming that all said documents have been returned and no copies have been retained.

18. Continued ApDlication of Order. Neither the final resolution or termination of this lawsuit nor the termination of employment of any person who has access to any Confidential
9
— Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials shall relieve such person from the obligation of abiding by this order.

19. Application of Order in Context with Other Actions. If any person receiving documents covered by this Order (the “Receiver”) is subpoenaed in another action or proceeding or served with a document demand, and such subpoena or document demand requests Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials that were designated as such by a party other than the Receiver, the Receiver shall give notice by hand, overnight delivery or facsimile transmission within five (5) business days of receipt of such subpoena or document demand to such designating party at the following addresses:

For Three Aniels BroadcastinR Network, Inc~. and Danny Shelton

Gerald S. Duffy
William Christopher Penwell
Jerrie M. Hayes
Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy & Foster, P.A.
100 Washington Avenue South
Suite 1300
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Fax number (612) 339-6591

For Gallon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle

Laird J. Heal
3 Clinton Road
P.O. Box 365
Sterling, MA 01564
Fax number (978) 422-0463


20. Preservation of Rights and Privil~ges. Nothing contained in this Order shall affect the right, if any, of any party or witness to make any other type of objection, claim, or other response to discovery requests, including, without limitation, interrogatories, requests for admissions, requests for production of documents or questions at a deposition. If during the course of discovery any Party shall find a document in its possession that requires confidentiality
10
protections in addition to those set forth in this Order, such party may object to production of the document, and should attempt to negotiate in good faith the appropriate level of protection with the other Parties.

21. Attorneys’ Rights and Obligations under Order. Nothing contained in this Order shall affect the ability of counsel to discuss the substance of the case with their client, provided however, that counsel shall not disclose any Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or convey specific information contained therein.

22. Procedure for Filing Confidential and Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only Materials. In every submission or filing with the Court, every document (including motions, memoranda, deposition transcripts, or other items) containing Confidential — Attorney’s Eyes Only Materials or Confidential Materials shall be filed with the Clerk under seal in an envelope or container on the face of which shall be stamped:

CONFIDENTIAL

This envelope contains documents which are filed under seal in this case by [name of partyl and, by Order of this Court, dated ____ 2007, shall not be opened nor the contents displayed or revealed except as provided in that Order or by further order of the Court.

Submissions filed under seal shall not be available for inspection except by the Court and authorized persons as set forth herein, nor shall any unauthorized person be present in the courtroom during motion hearings when any Confidential Information is disclosed.

23. Use of Confidential Information at Trial or Hearing Counsel for either party will provide opposing counsel with notice of any pretrial hearing or trial date where the handling of Confidential Information will be discussed and all parties will be given opportunity to participate to protect its Confidential Information.
11
24. The parties will abide by this Stipulated Protective Order immediately, including
until such time as it is entered by the Court.
Gailon A. Joy
Date:

Date:

Date:
and
By:
Gallon A. Joy
P.O. Box 1425
Sterling, MA 01564
PRO SE FOR DEFENDANT GAlLON A. JOY
Laird Heal Esq.

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Jul 23 2007, 08:47 PM

[Johann]

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that these documents make the amazing assertion that it is Joy's and Pickle's fault that the 3ABN administration is defaming itself. How low can a Christian organization go? Is it trying to destroy itself?

[Observer]

Thanks for posting the documents.

It should be noted, as a technicality, in the transmission process, conversion from one format to another, and transmission by e-mail. there are some minor changes in format that have occured due to the varioussoftware used to transmit and convert. These are not generally of major importance.

In some cases, totally blank lines were removed. i.e. no blank lines between paragraphs.

There are a couple of other minor format chages that the software did. But, they are basicly accurate.

[PeacefulBe]

Glad to help, Gregory.

I did remove a few sets of blank lines and had to add a "period" to each instance where there was a ( b ) because it became ( due to the way the software reads those symbols. I have also noticed that the software interprets ( c ) as ©. Those are still present in the posted documents.

PB

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Jul 23 2007, 09:10 PM

[Fran]

Thanks for posting the documents.

It should be noted, as a technicality, in the transmission process, conversion from one format to another, and transmission by e-mail. there are some minor changes in format that have occured due to the varioussoftware used to transmit and convert. These are not generally of major importance.

In some cases, totally blank lines were removed. i.e. no blank lines between paragraphs.

There are a couple of other minor format chages that the software did. But, they are basicly accurate.

Let the "Opinions" begin, please.

[PeacefulBe]

My opinion is that there is a lot to absorb in these documents. I don't know about anyone else, but I think I will sleep and see if they make more sense in the morning.

[Artiste]

I am not a lawyer, but it appears to me that these documents make the amazing assertion that it is Joy's and Pickle's fault that the 3ABN administration is defaming itself. How low can a Christian organization go? Is it trying to destroy itself?

I think the defendants are making some fantastic points, and they are very well worded! What a great forum to explain exactly where 3abn administration is going wrong. "...institutional and personal corruption unbecoming of a leader of a Seventh-day Adventist supporting ministry" describes it well!


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

This post has been edited by Artiste: Jul 23 2007, 11:46 PM

[Observer]

Just a technical note for those who are interested in computer geek stuff:

My problem may have been with the fact that I was using Internet Explorer 7.

My wife purchased someting Sunday on E-bay, and was unable to pay for it. I telephoned Pay-pal. They told me the problem was with IE-7. I had to download Firefox on a one-time useage basis. After doing that, I was able to pay for the item she had purchased.

O.K. Back to the topic--3-ABN and the hearing Monday.

This post has been edited by Observer: Jul 24 2007, 03:11 AM

[Johann]

A delete function would be helpful. I needed some editing on this post, and then it was duplicated. . .

This post has been edited by Johann: Jul 24 2007, 05:09 AM