www.3atalk.com

Robert Jude Pickle just posted a response to Artiste (and we all know who that is by now):

Bob Pickle: Pickle Publishing

Re: Our petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court
« Reply #4 on: Today at 06:42:40 PM »

Quote from: Artiste on Today at 06:15:46 PM

What determines if Simpson has to respond or not? And what is certiorari?


Pickle's response: From http://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/201 ... eCourt.pdf:

Quote

Rule 15. Briefs in Opposition; Reply Briefs; Supplemental Briefs

1. A brief in opposition to a petition for a writ of certiorari may be filed by the respondent in any case, but is not mandatory except in a capital case, see Rule 14.1(a), or when ordered by the Court.


My guess is that the reason Simpson doesn't want to respond is that Danny and 3ABN don't want to pay him to. After all, most lawyers never make it to the Supreme Court, and here Simpson has an opportunity to do so. If you were Simpson, wouldn't you want to, unless you had to do it on your own dime?

From http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3Acertiorari:

Quote

Noun: A writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court: "an order of certiorari".

What a joke! Simpson's response is the same any attorney in his position would take. SCOTUS will not require a response if they are not going to grant cert. Why should Simpson bother wasting 3ABN time and money when he doesn't have to. Robert Jude Pickle, get over yourself. Your insinuation that attorneys desire to practice before SCOTUS is ridiculous! SCOTUS will not take a case that doesn't present a new question to the court, one that has not been addressed or that has taken an unconventional angle to an legal question that has been previously addressed. They will deny your cert, period. Your response to Artiste is simply narcissistic and just plain ridiculous!

Enjoy the gravy train while it lasts (and everyone around here sees it) because it's almost over.

This should go in the documents section. But, I can't place it there as it is locked.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx ... 11-312.htm

The Documents forum is a read only section of our forums and is locked to make it easy to locate the documents and not have them buried amongst discussions and/or offtopic posts etc. All that is posted there can be discussed in this Open discussion forum, and you can post documents here as well.

Thank you for posting that link, Nestor. Just so you know I generally wait until documents are available to read in a court case before starting a topic in the Pacer section and posting all there. At this time we just have your link... I did see where you asked Pickle on the other forum if he was going to post his motion and he indicated he would but that it might take a while. I don't understand why it might take awhile, but am interested in reading his petition and seeing what he has to say. I can't imagine it's anything new. I am in agreement with uncovering truth that his petition will be denied as he has no legit legal leg to stand on. The lower courts addressed all his arguments and denied them already over and over and over... He just doesn't want to accept it imo...

For those of you who are interested in the number and type of orders that the Supreme Court is asked to order, go to the home page and click on the link to the court orders. As of the October 3 posting, it consisted of 89 pages. The most common request is for the one that Bob and Gailon has asked of the Court. Compare, if you wish, the number granted with the number denied. Note that of the number granted, the number that will be heard by the Supreme Court and compare with the number that are remanded to the respective Appealate Court.

By the way, they are listed in numberical order. For a quick check to see if Bob and Gailon's request has been granted, look for # 11-312.

Readers, don't bother to check what Nestor suggests. We have been sent on a wild-goose chase as if we don't know our way around the SCOTUS website.

Tells me a lot about you Gregory. Not everyone has "time" on their hands to go on chases to find information. My first impressions about you were absolutely correct. My intuition never fails me.

Wild Goose chase: My intent was to tell people where they could first learn the decision as to whether or not the Court was going to grant the Writ. I provided that due to the fact that there appears to me to be limited accurate information available. E.g. No copy of the request for the writ has been posted. That was my sole purpose. Due to the inflamatory verbage that has often been associated with posts, I intentionally said little more thatn to provide the link.

As to what you think of me personally: You are entitled to your opinion and I do not have a need to attempt to change your mind.

It is interesting that Robert has not yet posted his writ. It is well known in these parts that he is being paid for his work against 3ABN since he is doing little, if anything else, to derive income. His narcissistic bent must be off slightly since he loves to bang the drum loudly and show off his "handy work." I'm sure he'll get back on track and make it available soon though.

Nestor, do you give any serious consideration to the thought that this writ will be taken up by SCOTUS? I would think you would realize that with all of the real cases that the court has been presented, this one won't garner more than a seconds consideration. There is no new legal consideration here. The court will not consider wasting time on a case that has been effectively taken care of by the lower courts and presents no new legal question.

What are Robert's options after this one gets turned down?

Uncovering truth: In a post that I made in another forum, I implied that it was more likely that there would be a 3 inch snowfall, on July 4, in Denver, Colorado than it was likely that the Court would grant their Writ. In his reply to me, Bob suggested that there might be a 1 % chance and suggested that this was greater than what I had proposed.

My previous reference, in this forum, to a list of Court orders on October 3, when understood, casts it in better light as to what the chances are as far a numerical numbers are concerned.

But, numbers do not tell the whoe story. While I have not seen the Writ. and do not know what it claimed, I think that it is unlikely that the Writ will have raised a question that the Court would consider worthy of their consideration. IOW, I suspect that the Court will deny the Writ and consider the legal process as ended.

To answer Stan: If the Court denies the Writ, the end will have come in regard to the litigated issues. It will be final and done.

However, I call your attention to the fact that statements have been made that new litigation will either be initiated or continued in other courts. I can not predict what will happen in that regard. I simply beleive that if Bob and Gailon want to continue to litigate, they will probably find a way to do so in some court.


Truth: I have a great interest in the law. I read legal decisions for the fun of it. I have limited knowledge of the U.S. Supreme Court. The reference that you describe as a "wild goose chase" was a meaningful place to me where I increased my knowledge of how the Supremen Court operates. In my journey there I have as recently as today, looked up one of their decisions and read it. The 89 pages that I cited conained informative material in regard to decisions that the
Court makes. I can respect that you might not find anything of value there, and you might not find anything new to you. But, I did. Perhaps others could find information of value to them. In any case that is theirs to decide.

I apologize Nestor--I understand you had good intentions. But from what I read, you were suggesting people to go read to find information THAT VERY DAY. That is how it came across to me. Of course there were 89 pages to look through to try to find something that wasn't there and it took a lot of my time.

With your explanation, I see that this was not your intention for information to be found that very day and can see what you were meaning.