Danny Shelton/3abn Seeks Protective Order, ... Again Options

[Seraphim7]

Seraphim,

Where have I been hiding?

...
Please stop.

[not working]

Yes, hiding. You have accused others of not being credible witnesses though some members here have actually been a part of the 3abn saga from the beginning.

Yet we see, based on your own comments on BSDA, that you have no credibility. Your choice to continue to evade the truth, you also huff and puff as one who would blow down the solid witness of others (who are actual witnesses) even after it has been clearly established by your own words, that your claims are built on nothing but "straw".

Unless we are mistaken, we took for granted that you are capable of seeking the truth from the sources made available right here on BSDA. You claim to have been reading here for what, a year? Yet you demand that others show you what you demand to see. Forgive any of us, me in particular, for giving you the benefit of the doubt and expecting anyone of you of being able to do a few simple searches and reading for yourselves. Most, if not all, of the information has been gathered over the years and placed in the 3abn sub-forum, which is marked clearly for any to see.

Once again forgive us for giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Peace

[Panama_Pete]

The Motion for Protections concern private and confidential information ONLY.That is what Mrs. Steenson is talking about in her affidavit in support of that motion.. Not everything filed with the government is available to the public.

The Protective Order, itself, concerns everything from every source, not just confidential information only.

9. All materials in connection with the litigation, including but not limited to all materials designated as confidential information shall be used for the purposes of this lawusit only and for no other purpose , including, without limitation, any business or commercial purpose.

That includes any historian, journalist, or newspaper, who would want to write a book or magazine article, wouldn't it? Writing a book would be a business purpose.

So somebody in America writes a book -- making use of freedom of speech -- and the former plaintiffs suspect it includes something from the "all materials" category.

Then what happens when The New York Times book review hits the streets and the "materials" are mentioned in there? Do the former plaintiffs file a suit against The New York Times, if necessary?

Please explain how this clause works to those of us who never lived in Cuba or North Korea.

[Ian]

For those with access to PACER, you may find interesting 3ABN's/Danny's opposition to my motion to compel..

Bob, is it of enough importance to those of us who are interested for you to post it here so that we can read and evaluate it? Or do you not have access to Pacer?

Yes he has access. I do too, but I figured he or another would reply to you and supply the info you asked for before now.

I neither know or understand what Mr Pickles point is, or why he thinks it important enough to post about here in this forum, (he can say, and explain if he feels the need to, and quote his own arguments) but I do believe sincere questions, which I take your's to be, are owed honest, unbiased answers so that you can have the opportunity to read and evaluate things for yourself, as you said.

In regards to Danny Shelton... the only document that he personally has filed in relation to what Mr Pickle is talking about, according to the current court docket, is this:
 DSdoc43121807.pdf ( 89.45K ) Number of downloads: 18


My only comment: As a fellow American, (not a criminal with something to hide) who is concerned about privacy issues and inalienable God-given rights, I have every sympathy with the concerns expressed in his affidavit.

Sabbath blessings PB.

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 5 2008, 02:46 PM

[calvin]

After much hard work, I just learned how to add an attached file--if I can remember how to do it again. Here is a recent motion in the 3-ABN case for your information:

Bob, you and Gailon Joy are not represented by counsel?

[fallible humanbe...]

Bob, you and Gailon Joy are not represented by counsel?

Calvin,

It is my understanding that they are both representing themselves pro se. Mr. Pickle had been represented by Laird Heal until Gailon Joy filed his bankruptcy case. At that point, Attorney Heal, by becoming Mr. Joy's counsel created a form of conflict of interest. Attorney Heal had to decide which of the two cases he would be involved in since there was procedural overlap. He chose Mr. Joy which meant he had to drop Mr. Pickle. Mr. Pickle then decided to represent himself pro se.

Now I am sure Mr. Pickle will spin that differently . . . but according to legal counsel there was no way that Attorney Heal could continue to represent Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy at the same time in the two different cases, it would raise ethical questions.

- FHB

[Ian]

The Protective Order, itself, concerns everything from every source, not just confidential information only.
That includes any historian, journalist, or newspaper, who would want to write a book or magazine article, wouldn't it? Writing a book would be a business purpose.

So somebody in America writes a book -- making use of freedom of speech -- and the former plaintiffs suspect it includes something from the "all materials" category.

Then what happens when The New York Times book review hits the streets and the "materials" are mentioned in there? Do the former plaintiffs file a suit against The New York Times, if necessary?

Please explain how this clause works to those of us who never lived in Cuba or North Korea.

Maybe we could start by understanding the difference between

!.)not revealing private information to the public such as private donor information (names addresses , phone numbers...and personal finances etc, because individuals have privacy rights. AND

2.not revealing business information from the lawsuit to competitors who would not normally have access to that information, and who could or would use it for business and commercial purposes to their advantage and to 3ABN's detriment?

Other then that I have nothing to say.

[awesumtenor]

Other then that I have nothing to say.

You keep doing this... 'then' is a word denoting a point in time; 'than' is a word denoting exception or comparison.

At the point you want to make the above statement, then you need to use "than" rather than "then".

In his service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

You keep doing this... 'then' is a word denoting a point in time; 'than' is a word denoting exception or comparison.

At the point you want to make the above statement, then you need to use "than" rather than "then".

In his service,
Mr. J

The difference is quite distinct and could cause confusion. Could that be done on purpose? Is it a way of being unclear for an easier spin?

[PeacefulBe]

After much hard work, I just learned how to add an attached file--if I can remember how to do it again. Here is a recent motion in the 3-ABN case for your information:

Thank you for this link Gregory!


Attached File(s)
3ABN_071218___2.pdf ( 262.8K ) Number of downloads: 33

I'm not sure why this link didn't show up...



This post has been edited by PeacefulBe: Jan 5 2008, 06:01 PM

[PeacefulBe]

Bob, is it of enough importance to those of us who are interested for you to post it here so that we can read and evaluate it? Or do you not have access to Pacer?
Yes he has access. I do too, but I figured he or another would reply to you and supply the info you asked for before now.

I neither know or understand what Mr Pickles point is, or why he thinks it important enough to post about here in this forum, (he can say, and explain if he feels the need to, and quote his own arguments) but I do believe sincere questions, which I take your's to be, are owed honest, unbiased answers so that you can have the opportunity to read and evaluate things for yourself, as you said.

In regards to Danny Shelton... the only document that he personally has filed in relation to what Mr Pickle is talking about, according to the current court docket, is this:
 DSdoc43121807.pdf ( 89.45K ) Number of downloads: 18


My only comment: As a fellow American, (not a criminal with something to hide) who is concerned about privacy issues and inalienable God-given rights, I have every sympathy with the concerns expressed in his affidavit.

Sabbath blessings PB.

Ian, Thanks for the links! Glad to be able to see them with my own eyes.

[GRAT]

You keep doing this... 'then' is a word denoting a point in time; 'than' is a word denoting exception or comparison.

At the point you want to make the above statement, then you need to use "than" rather than "then".

In his service,
Mr. J

While we are on the grammar thing, something that drives me nuts is the misuse of a and an. When a word starting with a vowel is used such as "opinion" you use "an opinion" not "a opinion". Maybe not a big deal but when we use correct grammar we sound more intelligent. I know I'll go hide now.

[Pickle]

Bob, you and Gailon Joy are not represented by counsel?

Correct.

[Pickle]

Calvin,

It is my understanding that they are both representing themselves pro se. Mr. Pickle had been represented by Laird Heal until Gailon Joy filed his bankruptcy case. At that point, Attorney Heal, by becoming Mr. Joy's counsel created a form of conflict of interest. Attorney Heal had to decide which of the two cases he would be involved in since there was procedural overlap. He chose Mr. Joy which meant he had to drop Mr. Pickle. Mr. Pickle then decided to represent himself pro se.

Now I am sure Mr. Pickle will spin that differently . . . but according to legal counsel there was no way that Attorney Heal could continue to represent Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy at the same time in the two different cases, it would raise ethical questions.

- FHB

Incorrect. The bankruptcy had nothing to do with it.

[Pickle]

Maybe we could start by understanding the difference between

!.)not revealing private information to the public such as private donor information (names addresses , phone numbers...and personal finances etc, because individuals have privacy rights. AND

2.not revealing business information from the lawsuit to competitors who would not normally have access to that information, and who could or would use it for business and commercial purposes to their advantage and to 3ABN's detriment?

Other then that I have nothing to say.

You are incorrect.

1) They want to totally put off limits all donation information, not just prohibit it from being revealed to the public, which would prevent us from knowing how much they received in total donations. The problem is that they have been calling gross sales revenue and shipping charges "donations," and thus one can't tell how much they really took in.

If we can't have access to donation information, we can't verify what their donations were, and why donors stopped giving. That kind of prohibition guts their case.

2) You are almost correct. The problem is that they want to put off limits even stuff that Illinois law requires to be open to public inspection, and they don't limit their proposed order to just the type of stuff that might benefit a competitor.

[justice4jesus]

Bob, is it of enough importance to those of us who are interested for you to post it here so that we can read and evaluate it? Or do you not have access to Pacer?
Yes he has access. I do too, but I figured he or another would reply to you and supply the info you asked for before now.

I neither know or understand what Mr Pickles point is, or why he thinks it important enough to post about here in this forum, (he can say, and explain if he feels the need to, and quote his own arguments) but I do believe sincere questions, which I take your's to be, are owed honest, unbiased answers so that you can have the opportunity to read and evaluate things for yourself, as you said.

In regards to Danny Shelton... the only document that he personally has filed in relation to what Mr Pickle is talking about, according to the current court docket, is this:
 DSdoc43121807.pdf ( 89.45K ) Number of downloads: 18


My only comment: As a fellow American, (not a criminal with something to hide) who is concerned about privacy issues and inalienable God-given rights, I have every sympathy with the concerns expressed in his affidavit.

Sabbath blessings PB.

That's "CO-founder"!