www.3atalk.com

They asked for that today in the adversarial case Gailon Joy had filed against them.

Here's the definition of "summary Judgment":

• A decision made on the basis of statements and evidence presented for the record without a trial. It is used when there is no dispute as to the facts of the case, and one party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

• A final decision by a judge that resolves a lawsuit in favor of one of the parties. A motion for summary judgment is made after discovery is completed but before the case goes to trial. The party making the motion marshals all the evidence in its favor, compares it to the other side's evidence, and argues that a reasonable jury looking at the same evidence could only decide the case one way--for the moving party. If the judge agrees, then a trial would be unnecessary and the judge enters judgment for the moving party.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_____________________________________
In re Case No: 4:08-CV-40090-FDS
GAILON ARTHUR JOY, Debtor )

GAILON ARTHUR JOY
Plaintiff

v.

THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.,
DANNY LEE SHELTON,
JOHN P. PUCCI, ESQ.,
JERRIE M.HAYES, ESQ.,
GERALD S. DUFFY, ESQ.,
FIERST, PUCCI & KANE LLP,
and
SIEGEL BRILL GREUPNER )
DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A.
Defendants


DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

NOW COME Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”), Danny Lee Shelton (“Shelton”), John P. Pucci (“Pucci”), Jerrie M. Hayes (“Hayes”), Gerald S. Duffy (“Duffy”),Fierst, Pucci & Kane LLP (“Fierst Pucci”), and Siegel Brill Gruepner Duffy & Foster, P.A. (“Siegel Brill”), Defendants in the above-captioned proceeding, pursuant to Fed. R. Bank. P. 7056 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, as well as Local Rules 7.1 and 56.1, and hereby file this Motion for Summary Judgment, along with the accompanying Statement of Material Facts, Memorandum of Reasons and Affidavit of Gerald S. Duffy. Defendants seek Summary Judgment as to the entire claim asserted by Debtor, Gailon Arthur Joy (“Joy”), in his Amended Adversarial Complaint. In support thereof, Defendants rely on the material facts of record as to which there is no genuine issue to be tried as set forth in the accompanying Statement of Material Facts (and as established by the affidavit, Rule 2004 Examination transcript, and other documentation referenced therein and submitted therewith), as well as the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Reasons.

WHEREFORE, 3ABN, Shelton, Pucci, Hayes, Duffy, Fierst, Pucci, and Siegel Brill respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant Summary Judgment in their favor as to the entire claim asserted by Joy in his Amended Adversarial Complaint and grant whatever other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems fair and just.

REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court set a day and time for oral argument to be heard on this Motion, and further request that leave be granted for the parties to appear by telephone.

Respectfully Submitted,
SIEGEL, BRILL, GREUPNER,
DUFFY & FOSTER, P.A.

/s/ M. Gregory Simpson

Dated: May 15, 2009

You can read the complete set of documents they filed today in the Pacer section here:
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9 ... 1883#p1883

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

Someone needs to read all that was posted on May 20 and since then! Why is it no posted here? Did everyone read exhibit "P"?


Edited to remove unsupported accusation. Fran, it is a well known expectation that if you are going to make an accusation that you provide evidentiary support. If you post accusations without it, they will be edited.

As far as I can tell, you and your cronies continue to be the liars. And new liars seem to get added to your group, with "Dr." Day being the next liar. Unless you are going to post exhibit P and point out the lie, don't bother posting. In the meantime, here's some documentation for the lie of the Day.

http://www.infomercialwatch.org/reports/daynad.shtml

NAD Concludes That Lorraine Day Infomercial Is Misleading

Lorraine Day, M.D., would like you to believe that she cured herself of metastatic breast cancer with a 10-step program featuring diet and prayer. For several years Day has been marketing videotapes that provide her story and advise consumers to use her program rather than standard treatment. I believe she was cured by surgery. She has released medical records documenting that she had a biopsy followed by a wider local operation, but she has refused to release additional records that might show whether or not any cancer remained after the second operation.

I believe that Day's advice is misleading and very dangerous. After ITV Direct began broadcasting an infomercial for Day's "Cancer Doesn't Scare Me Any More" videotape, I asked the Council of Better Business Bureaus' National Advertising Division (NAD) to investigate. In response to my complaint, NAD has concluded that the infomercial is misleading. While noting that people are free to tell their stories or offer personal opinions, NAD's report states:

The infomercial . . . does more than tell a story or offer an opinion. It contains objectively provable claims, both express and implied, which advertisers are obligated to substantiate. For example, the infomercial specifically claims that diet and lifestyle choices, rather than conventional medical treatment, are responsible for Dr. Day getting well. Inherent in that claim is a factual assumption—that following her second surgery in 1993, that Dr. Day actually still had cancer. The infomercial explicitly claims that the surgery was not successful and that Dr. Day was "sent home to die." The claim is one that might be verified by examining medical records. Although the advertiser maintains that Dr. Day is under no duty to disclose medical records to the challenger, the burden of substantiating all objectively provable claims and reasonable implied claims is incumbent on all advertisers. Such substantiation potentially existed in the pathology report (or an equivalent medical record) regarding Dr. Day's second operation. Such records could determine whether the second specimen had clear borders which may indicate that all of the remaining tumor had been removed., The advertiser, however, provided no evidence that Dr. Day was found to have cancerous elements in her body following the second surgery or that she was "sent home to die" by doctors.

NAD's conclusion is loud and clear:

The infomercial . . . implied that Dr. Lorraine Day, by virtue of following a 10-step program consisting of diet and lifestyle modification, was cured of cancer. NAD determined that the advertiser failed to provide a reasonable basis for this and for underlying objectively provable claims. Accordingly, the NAD recommended that the advertiser discontinue the following claims:
The claim that Dr. Day had cancerous cells following her second surgery and that doctors "sent her home to die",
The claim that if people go on a vegetarian diet and exercise on a regular basis and decrease their alcoholic intake, they will decrease their incidence of caner by 33 percent. . . and
The claim that "chemotherapy doesn't work for anybody."

ITV Direct disagreed with NAD's conclusions but said it would "take them under advisement for all future edits or modifications of the infomercial." An NAD official told me that if the infomercial is not modified within a reasonable period of time, NAD is likely to file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission.
For Additional Information

Fran, Maybe you are unaware but unlike Pickle/Joy the people here do not receive Pacer documents freely, nor does anyone or organization back us up financially. We are all just concerned for the truth individuals who give our time, energy and finances when we can and the Lord has blessed. Patience is a virtue.

Donna

Fran wrote:Someone needs to read all that was posted on May 20 and since then! Why is it no posted here? Did everyone read exhibit "P"?

Fran wrote:Someone needs to read all that was posted on May 20 and since then! Why is it no posted here? Did everyone read exhibit "P"?

Fran,

First, there are far more documents posted in the Pacer section here than are available at Adventalk or at Bob's second site. Do you also realize that their availability is also sometimes slow due to the fact Bob does not always file the documents with a disc providing them in .pdf format. Why would he do that if he is clearly quite sophisticated in computer and internet technologies?

Second, have YOU read all the briefs submitted by the 3abn attorneys?

Third, can you tell me if you have considered any other explanation for your claim still being open other than what you want to believe which is that there is still on ongoing investigation? I would like to hear them if you have.

Fran wrote:Someone needs to read all that was posted on May 20 and since then! Why is it no posted here? Did everyone read exhibit "P"?

Yes, I have read exhibit "P' and will reply to that later, but first off and no offense intended Fran, but it would be very helpful and far less confusing for all if you, yourself, actually read the documents which are posted here and read and tried to understand the subject matter in the threads you are posting in before you post.

This thread and topic is about the Adversarial proceedings case (related to his bankruptcy case) which Gailon Joy filed against 3abn, DS, and their Attorneys. (It was already dismissed once)

The last documents filed in that case were the "Motion for summary judgment", the "memorandum in support of the motion...", and "The Statement of facts". All filed by 3ABN on 05/15/2009. That is what the opening post here reports. Neither Gailon Joy nor his Attorney have filed an argument or reply since then, and the Judge hasn't ruled yet. So there are no updates posted since the 20th, nor any updates at all in regards to this case...