steffan wrote:Pickled writes
Remnant caved and produced the documents on September 22, 2008. After examining them we believed that those documents provided us a basis for counterclaims against the attorneys, since they knew or should have known that the case was frivolous from the get go. They then dropped the case like a hot potato, trying to get the court to order us to surrender those documents to them, when there was no legal reason why we should have to. We therefore appealed.
emphasis mine.
[If the Remnant documents were so bad, then the case would have been dropped "like a hot potato" before the order to produce. Do you even see how ridiculous you sound, pickled? By the way, are you pickled when you make your case with statements like the one above?
True. Logic has never been his strong suit... nor honesty. Not only that, imo this is just a bunch of sour grapes arguments by Pickle and hot foul air. The Documents were produced in Sept 2008, but were never filed in the case, and at the Motion to dismiss hearing they were not even brought up as a basis for counterclaims against the attorneys... In fact although Pickle and Joy threatened counterclaims against the plaintiffs from day one 04/06/2007, they never filed any at all... and still haven't, and here we are well over 3 years later... At the status conference when the lawsuit was dismissed Pickle only alluded to future counterclaims against the Plaintiffs, (they being DS and 3ABN) and not against their Attorneys, and the Judge flat out cut those arguments off. (that and the order to return the doscs bold text) Here is the only reference even made to the remnant documents. (red font)
"Status conference/Motion for Voluntary Dismissal""a true and accurate transcription of ..stenographic notes in Case No. 07cv40098-FDS, Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., and Danny Lee Shelton versus Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle, before F. Dennis Saylor, IV, on October 30, 2008"
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=127#p1755
THE COURT: All right. Here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to grant the motion. I'm going to dismiss it without
prejudice and with some conditions, which include the condition
that any claims brought by the plaintiffs, based on the same
facts and circumstances or -- or -- or nucleus of operative
events may only be brought in the Central Division of
Massachusetts, but let me be more formal about that.
The motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. I
order that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. I make
no finding of any kind as to the merits or lack of merits of
any of the claims or factual defenses set forth in the
pleadings, and
I'm dismissing the claim principally based on
the representation by the plaintiff that there is no longer any
purpose for the litigation, because plaintiffs do not believe
that they can accomplish -- or achieve any meaningful relief
based on the facts and circumstances as they now exist,
including, but not limited to, the bankruptcy of one of the
defendants.
I am imposing this dismissal with the condition that
any claim or claims brought by plaintiffs based on the same or
similar facts and circumstances may only be brought in the
Central Division of the District of Massachusetts, so that if
this lawsuit in some ways comes back to life, it will be in
front of me, and I'll have all the facts and circumstances at
my disposal at that point and can make such orders as I think
are just under the circumstances.
I will order that all materials produced in discovery
that were designated as confidential under the confidentiality
and protective order issued in this case on April 17th will be
returned, as set forth in that order.
Destruction of the documents will only be permitted if
consistent with the terms of the order; and similarly, any
photocopying or other copying of any such materials will only
be permitted if permitted under that order.
Any pending third-party subpoenas are deemed moot, and
the party will -- any party having issued such a third-party
subpoena will take reasonable steps to notify the recipient of
the subpoena that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and the
subpoenas are no longer in effect.
MR. PICKLE: Your Honor, could I -- could I --
THE COURT: Let me -- let me just finish. And any
records that were delivered under seal and that are in the
custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party
that produced those documents.
Yes, sir. Is this Mr. Pickle?
MR. PICKLE: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PICKLE: Your Honor, one of the concerns that the
case law brings up is that -- see -- a voluntarily dismissal
without prejudice, one of the questions is well, will there be
plain legal prejudice to the defendants, and one of the things
that is, like, undue expense.
We've had -- and one of the factors they look at is
amount of time and effort and expense the defendants have
expended. We bring this out in our memorandum. Okay. What
the -- what the plaintiffs are doing -- see, our basis for
counterclaim --
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, Mr. Pickle. There's no
counterclaim filed, as I understand; is that right?
MR. PUCCI: Right.
THE COURT: In this case.
MR. PICKLE: That is correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: You know, and -- and, you know, whether
you have some future claim against the plaintiffs, I make no
comment on of any kind whatsoever.
MR. PICKLE: It is --
THE COURT: In terms of -- just let -- let me, if I
can. Just in terms of your costs and expense and attorney's
fees, my understanding is that but for a brief appearance by
Mr. Heal, I think, at the beginning of the litigation, you've
been proceeding pro se; and let me add as a further condition
that I will at least permit defendants to seek recovery of
reasonable costs, fees, expenses -- reasonable cost of
attorney's fees or expenses, if they file something within 21
days of the date of this order. I'm not promising that I will
allow those to be paid, and I'll permit plaintiffs to oppose
it, but I will give you the opportunity to make that argument
formally and with a specific itemized detailing of your costs
and expenses.
MR. PICKLE: Okay. Your Honor, if the discovery in
this case and work product is not transferable to -- to the
other -- the future actions, either by the plaintiff or
ourselves, that would prejudice the defendants.
THE COURT: Well, it's -- it is transferable, unless
it's subject to the confidentiality order. If it's subject to
the confidentiality order, you have to return it, or do
whatever the order says you're supposed to do with it; and, you
know, you have gained presumably a certain amount of
information. You're not required to erase it from your brain,
and you can use it consistent with the terms of the order
as -- as may be permitted by that order, but that's --
MR. PICKLE: That would mean, your Honor, that we
would have to spend months and months litigating again to get
the documents from Remnant, for example.
THE COURT: There is going to be no lawsuit pending.
You'll have -- we'll have to wait and see how that plays out
and in what court.
As far as Pickle's claim on AT about 3ABN dropping the case and
"trying to get the court to order us to surrender those documents to them". That is absurd as the bold text above proves. The Judge did in fact order them returned, along with all other such documents, and they have disobeyed the Courts order and refused to do so. There is simply no valid reason why Pickle and Joy should have them anymore.
Further when after the case was dismissed and Pickle and Joy did not return the documents which had been given to them under seal as the Judge ordered, but instead tried to file them in relation to the motion to get their expenses and costs paid,(denied) they had a different story then the one Pickle gives now and it had nothing to do with counterclaims against the Attorneys. They claimed:
"If the Plaintiffs object to these documents becoming part of the public record, such objection would
constitute prima facia evidence that they never intended this case to go to trial. It would also s
erve as prima facia evidence once again that 3ABN Board chairman Walter Thompson lied
when he said that the sole purpose of the instant case was to expose the truth, not hide the truth."
That is ridiculous, of course it is nothing of the sort. Exposing the truth does not mean one has to publicize every confidential financial document and trade secret to the world as Pickle claims, cases can be decided and argued and ruled on without such, and in fact the courts disagreed with Pickle. The Massachusetts court issued a protection order for all such documents, they were designated as "confidential" and the Judge in Michigan who dealt with the duo's subpoena expressly ordered that the Remnant documents were being produced “subject to the Protective Order already entered in the underlying case.” Nor does Pickle's weird rational mean the plaintiffs should agree to have Pickle and Joy keep filing documents --which were never even filed before-- in the dismissed case, especially when the Judge had ordered Pickle and Joy to return them, just because Pickle claims if they don't agree it means his false accusation is true. It's so ridiculous to me.
Further.. Pickle and Joy's attempts to file the documents after the case was dismissed were denied, and the Judge stated, and I quote:
Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered DENYING [153] Motion for Leave to File under seal. The documents do not appear to be relevant and were not considered by the Court in connection with the underlying dispute.
(Anyone wanting to review all the related documents can do so here:
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=183&start=0 )
The point is this counterclaims against the attorneys is a pipe dream which Pickle only brought up months and months after the case was dismissed while trying to get the courts to overturn and reconsider and amend their judgments and those motions were all DENIED ALSO.
Next he attempted to file the documents in the Appeal court, as he said
"we appealed" but being Pickle, and only telling partial truths to mislead and misrepresent things (AKA deception and lying) he leaves out that he filed the appeal first, then he attempted to file the remnant documents in the already dismissed lawsuit. That motion was denied , then he tried it again. Denied again. Next he tried to run around that and get his way by filing them in the appeal case instead. That motion and attempt was
denied also as their was no merits in his arguments and it was procedurally incorrect as 3ABN's attorneys rightfully pointed out:
Document: 00115981217
Doc 00115981217 11 27 09.pdf- APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO
ENLARGE THE RECORD AND TO FILE UNDER SEAL - (744.14 KiB) Downloaded 2560 times
Appeal decision:
12/04/2009 Open Document ORDER entered by Bruce M. Selya, Appellate Judge: Appellants move to enlarge the record in this appeal (Appeal No. 08-2457) to include certain documents. As those documents were submitted to the district court after the filing of the notice of appeal, they are not properly considered as part of the record in this appeal and, accordingly, the motion to enlarge the record on appeal is denied. We note that, in any event, appellants filed a subsequent notice of appeal from the district court's refusal to accept the proffered documents. This new appeal has been docketed in this court as Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. v. Joy, No. 09-2615, and the documents in question are part of the record on appeal in this subsequent appeal. To the extent that appellants intend to argue that the district court erred in refusing to accept the documents in question, that issue may be raised in Appeal No. 09-2615. [08-2457] (MM)
As noted above (blue font) In the second appeal filed, the documents are part of the record on appeal, but only in a limited way. As the Judge clearly says the only issue about them which may be raised in appeal is if the defendants Pickle and Joy
"intend to argue that the district court erred in refusing to accept the documents" IOW they have to argue that the Judge erred in ruling that
"The documents do not appear to be relevant and were not considered by the Court in connection with the underlying dispute.".
Again, Bob, being a Pickle, misrepresents what was said by consistently only reporting half the story, and only arguing and posting to others that
"the records are part of the appeal" and claiming they were relevant as they prove the lawsuit was filed frivolously. Not only is that false, but that was NOT even an issue in the lawsuit, he and Joy NEVER filed counterclaims nor any suit about that, and they are in for a sad awakening and put down if they try to argue that and claim the Judge erred due to that in their Appeal of that case.
As Gregory Simpson, attorney for 3ABN so eloquently argued when Pickle tried to file them in the dismissed lawsuit:
The Remnant documents were designated as confidential by both Remnant and Plaintiffs. They were ordered produced with that express understanding.
Instead of complying with this Court’s order to return the Remnant documents, Defendants began talking freely about them on the internet, stating falsely that they prove wrongdoing by the Plaintiffs. (See Simpson Aff. Exs. 5 and 6). At the same time, Defendant Joy began making veiled death threats against the Plaintiffs, suggesting that Plaintiff Shelton was like a conquered king and “you know what they do with conquered kings? Ask the czar and his entire family!!!” (Simpson Aff. Ex. 6), and referring to his actions against Shelton and supporters of the Plaintiffs as “ethnic cleansing.” (Simpson Aff. Ex. 7).
Now, in a rather transparent effort to publicize documents that had no relevance to the underlying lawsuit and even less relevance to the motion at hand, Defendants move to file Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Robert Pickle (Doc. 152), under seal. The benefit of filing the document under seal is somewhat diminished, however, by Defendants’ description of Exhibit A as “a selection of the documents from Remnant [Publications, Inc.] pertaining to kickbacks and/or royalties from Remnant to DLS Publishing, Inc….” The point of filing these documents under seal is obviously undermined by Defendants’ characterization of what they represent. (In point of fact, the Remnant documents reflect perfectly legal transactions that have been fully vetted by certified public accountants and evidence no wrongdoing by anybody).
Quite frankly, Defendants have been talking about these documents on the internet for some time now. The only apparent purpose of this motion is to provide Defendants a forum to publicly characterize confidential documents that they have been ordered to return to Defendants. By calling these documents evidence of “kickbacks and/or royalties” in a public filing, the Defendants can now quote themselves endlessly on the internet, as they tend to do, with citation to a public filing for support. They have abused the judicial process hopefully for the last time. The motion should be denied because Exhibit A does not contain admissible evidence. Evidence is admissible if and only if it is relevant.
Of course the court agreed with the above as well as the legal precedences and citations , and denied Pickles motion but despite that, Pickle continues to this day to do exactly what Simpson said:
The only apparent purpose of this motion is to provide Defendants a forum to publicly characterize confidential documents that they have been ordered to return to Defendants. By calling these documents evidence of “kickbacks and/or royalties” in a public filing, the Defendants can now quote themselves endlessly on the internet, as they tend to do, with citation to a public filing for support.
Update in Pickle and Joys Appeal:
None. They filed a notice of appeal on 12/03/2009. And have been huffing and puffing and trying to blow down the house of 3ABN in the forums, and making empty claims in posts, and trying to persuade the limited court of public opinion, AKA adventtalk cheerleaders or readers there, but here we are over 8 months later and they haven't even filed their appeal brief or made the first step in trying to argue anything where it really matters...
And just think , those people are donating money to the Pickle and Joy Defense fund while all they are doing is libeling and attacking and trying to bring down a ministry, and claiming they are concerned about the money that ministry receives from donors while causing that ministry to have to keep paying money for all this frivolous and endless arguments by Pickle and Joy?! That is more proof Pickle is lying. The adventtalk forum sits on his server and he administrates it, and he has his banner there still soliciting money for his defense, when there is no case against him now, and he is the aggressor and has always been the aggressor. How about realizing attacking and being on the offensive
is not defenseand it is not what Eph 6 talks about? How about spending that same money and amount of time and dedication to assist a ministry you do support, in order to help others? I just don't get it, how do people get so off focus and get such mixed up priorities?