www.3atalk.com

Cynthia wrote:Pickle and Joy handed in their appeal brief on Dec 13, 2010 and 3ABN's reply brief is due on January 17, 2011, after which Pickle and joy should have had 2 weeks for their reply brief and then their appeal against the dismissal of the lawsuit against them would have gone to the panel of judges to rule on, and decide. Simple enough, right?

But, once again what should have been simple and straightforward , is again complicated, drawn out, full of babble and confusion and "vexatious" arguments and filings... I spoke too soon when I said "and finally..." in the title of this topic. I should have known better as Pickle and Joy managed to draw out a lawsuit and keep filing and filing and arguing and quibbling and beating dead horses for 2 years after it was dismissed, right?

So not surprising really, they are doing the same thing in the appeal case. Here are the PACER docket entries for all the stuff filed since Pickle and joy filed there Appeal Brief just a few weeks ago:

12/16/2010 PLEADING tendered: Supplemental Brief (9 paper copies) provisionally filed under seal filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/13/2010. [09-2615] (BLC)

12/16/2010 PLEADING tendered: Supplemental Appendix (1 volume, 5 copies) provisionally filed under seal filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/13/2010. [09-2615] (BLC)

12/16/2010 Open Document
11 pg, 1.45 MB MOTION To File Under Seal filed by Appellant Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/13/2010. [09-2615] (MM)

12/16/2010 (*****FILED PROVISIONALLY UNDER SEAL ********) AFFIDAVIT in support of motion to file under seal [5512457-2] filed by Appellant Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/13/2010. [09-2615]--[Edited

12/17/2010 by MM]. CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. (MM)

12/16/2010 Open Document
14 pg, 989.74 KB AFFIDAVIT of Robert Pickle filed by Appellant Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/13/2010. [09-2615] (MM)

12/16/2010 APPENDIX filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Number of volumes: 2. Number of copies: 5. Volume 1 labeled Joint Appendix and Volume 2 labeled Exhibit for Appendix. Certificate of service dated 12/13/2010. [09-2615] (BLC)

12/20/2010 NINE (9) paper copies of appellant/petitioner brief [5511435-2] submitted by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. [09-2615] (BLC)

12/27/2010 Open Document
9 pg, 26.66 KB APPELLEES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS filed by Appellees Danny Lee Shelton and Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.. Certificate of service dated 12/27/2010. [09-2615]--[Edited 12/28/2010 by MM] CLERK'S NOTE: Docket entry was edited to modify the docket text. [09-2615] (MGS)

12/31/2010 Open Document
12 pg, 46.67 KB REPLY filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle to response and motion to award fees and costs [5514498-2]. Certificate of service dated 12/31/2010. [09-2615] (RP)

12/31/2010 Open Document
22 pg, 87.51 KB MOTION for sanctions and RESPONSE to response and motion to award fees and costs [5514498-2] filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/31/2010. [09-2615] (RP)

12/31/2010 Open Document
5 pg, 15.48 KB AFFIDAVIT in support of reply [5515544-2], response and motion for sanctions [5515545-2] filed by Appellants Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle. Certificate of service dated 12/31/2010. [09-2615] (RP)

It's not done yet.. as 3abn will need to reply to Pickle and Joy's objection to their motion for sanctions, and then reply to Pickle and Joy's new motion for sanctions against them for asking for sanctions against Pickle and Joy, and then Pickle and joy will get to reply to that.. Lost yet? and how in the world do they expect Simpson to be able to draft and file 3ABN's appellent brief with all this vexatious filings and stuff going on?

Bob "majoring in minors" Pickle made a post about this on advent talk causing confusion and Artiste to ask "Could you please give a synopsis in plain English?"

I have to admit, that was funny. Very.

His answer wasn't a good one in my opinion and cleared nothing up as he never even mentioned the main points and problems in either of his posts. ( He was making it mostly about how many words were in his filing, and asking "can anyone see what we did wrong?"...umm, ok... get off your dead horse, put down the lance and back slowly away from the little windmill, Bob. The main problem just whooshed right over your head..)

As far as I am concerned all of this from the duo is again unnecessary and not even relevant to their actual Appeal, although I know they think it is... Anyway,since I feel it off topic as far as the appeal goes, I am going to address this on a new thread, entitled "Vexatious litigation" in case anyone would like to understand what all the filings above and requests for sanctions are really all about. Join me there, if interested.

From: Bob [mailto:bob@ ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 8:30 PM
To: Gregory Simpson Cc: G. Arthur Joy
Subject: Question regarding motion

Counselor Simpson:

Regarding TABN000677 and TABN000680, I was wondering if you are going to require us to file a
motion seeking leave to file under seal these two documents. These two purchase orders do not contain
any confidential information as far as I can tell. They merely identify the number of 3ABN World's that
Smith & Butterfield printed, how much was charged, and when the finished magazines arrived back at 3ABN.

It seems to me that it will not impress the appellate court if you require us to file these two documents under seal.

Bob Pickle

Original Message -------
Subject:3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2010 14:06:04 -0600
From:Gregory Simpson <gsimpson@
To:Bob <bob@ , John Pucci <Pucci@
CC:G. Arthur Joy <g.arthur.joy@ Richards , Lizette<Richards@

Bob

You may not file these documents at all, whether under seal or not.

An elementary rule of appellate procedure is that the appellate record can only include materials that were filed with the district court. See FRAP 10. You filed a motion in the district court for leave to file these two documents under seal, then identified as Exhibits Q and R to Doc. 171. Your motion is Doc. 173. We opposed your motion in Doc. No. 174. Judge Saylor denied your motion in Doc. 193 on the basis that the documents were not relevant. He pointed out that you have already been ordered to return these documents to me. You continue to flout the district court's order to return these documents.

I will ask that you be sanctioned if you file these documents, or make a motion to file them. They were never filed with the district court. You are not even supposed to have them.

M. Gregory Simpson

From: Bob [mailto:bob@ ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 2:53 PM
To: Gregory Simpson
Cc: G. Arthur Joy; John Pucci; Lizette Richards; Gerald Duffy; Kristin L. Kingsbury; Jerrie Hayes; William Christopher Penwell
Subject: Re: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion

Counselor Simpson,

As far as the confidentiality order is concerned, upon which Judge Saylor's order of October 30, 2008, was based, we do not have to return these documents, as you very well know.

More importantly, the First Circuit ruled a year ago that the Remnant documents, by virtue of being offered to the lower court, were part of the record on appeal. Therefore, the two documents in question are also part of the record on appeal since we offered them to the lower court.

You have failed to answer my question: Will you require us to file a motion to file under seal these two documents? I think if you so require, it will not impress the appellate court. Will you so require?

Bob Pickle

-------- Original Message -------
Subject:RE: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:52:08 -0600
From:Gregory Simpson <gsimpson@
To:Bob <bob@ , John Pucci <Pucci@ CC:G. Arthur Joy <g.arthur.joy@ Richards, Lizette <Richards@



Bob

I disagree with each assertion in your email below, but am not interested in debating you.

I will not agree to the filing of these documents, under seal or otherwise. Do what you have to do,
and I will respond as I indicated.

M. Gregory Simpson

From: Bob [mailto:bob@ ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:25 PM
To: Gregory Simpson
Cc: G. Arthur Joy; John Pucci; Lizette Richards
Subject: RE: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion

Counselor Simpson:

I do not believe that you disagree with each assertion in my email.

Once again, let me remind you of the provisions of the confidentiality order:

" If any non-designating party or their counsel intends to use at trial, or for the purpose of any motion filed with the Court, any documents, interrogatory answers, deposition testimony, or other discovery responses which have been designated as Confidential Information, he/she shall so advise designating party’scounsel seven (7) days prior to such use, and counsel for all parties shall confer in an effort to agree upon a procedure to maintain the confidentiality of such Confidential Information.
"
Therefore, I must confer with you as to whether you will require us to file mere purchase orders for printing under seal. Shall I assume from your response that you do not care whether they are filed under seal or not, but that you only care whether they are filed at all? If this be the case, I shall file them not under seal.

However, if my assumption is incorrect, and you require us to file them under seal, then please plainly state so.

Bob Pickle

-------- Original Message -------
Subject:RE: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2010 16:37:33 -0600 From:Gregory Simpson <gsimpson@
To:Bob <bob@ , John Pucci <Pucci@
CC:G. Arthur Joy <g.arthur.joy@ Richards , Lizette <Richards@

You may not file these documents at all because of FRAP 10. If you file them in violation of FRAP 10, you must do so under seal because of the protective order.

M. Gregory Simpson

From: Bob [mailto:bob@ ]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2010 4:55 PM
To: Gregory Simpson
Cc: G. Arthur Joy; John Pucci; Lizette Richards Subject:
RE: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion

Thank you for your clear answer as to requiring us to file under seal mere purchase orders for printing, purchase orders which contain nothing qualifying for confidentiality protection.

As to FRAP 10, the admissibility of excluded evidence cannot be reviewed if that evidence is not included in the record on appeal.

Bob Pickle

-------- Original Message -------
Subject:RE: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion
Date:Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:25:49 -0600
From:Gregory Simpson <gsimpson@
To:Bob <bob@ , John Pucci <Pucci@
CC:G. Arthur Joy <g.arthur.joy@ Richards , Lizette<Richards@



I think you are using me as a source of legal advice because you suspect I may be right. I will play along because it may save my client the fees that would be necessary to respond if you filed these documents.

You say that the Court of Appeals needs to see the documents in order to review Judge Saylor's decision to exclude them. On the contrary, the admissibility of the excluded documents can ONLY be reviewed by the First Circuit without viewing the documents themselves. The Court of Appeals is a reviewing court. It reviews the district court's decisions using the information that was before the district court, and nothing more. Hence, FRAP 10.

Judge Saylor concluded that these documents were irrelevant based on your description of them in the motion to file them under seal, (and the fact that you had been ordered to return them to me but ignored the order). The Court of Appeals will review that ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. The Court of Appeals will make this decision without looking at the documents themselves, just as Judge Saylor did.

I am not just posturing. This is a clear cut issue, and these documents may not be filed.

M. Gregory Simpson

Subject: RE: 3ABN v. Pickle & Joy - Response to Pickle's Question regarding motion
From: Bob Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:45:45 -0600
To: Greg Simpson CC: "G. Arthur Joy", John Pucci, Lizette Richards

Counselor Simpson: I am not using you as a source of legal advice. You are either misinformed, or are once again attempting to commit extrinsic fraud. Consult Moore's Federal Practice § 310 if you are in doubt. The case law is clear.

Bob Pickle