Pacer documents - Judge's ruling 10/19/10

[Lilly]

Please go here to read the outcome of the Court proceedings. A final ruling has been issued and 3ABN WON!!!

http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=337

The Lord God loves 3ABN and those who work there.

[Cynthia]

Yep! Big smile, Lilly. It's about time, eh? The lawsuit filed by 3ABN and DS against Robert Pickle and Gailon Joy in Massachusetts is finally over.

To clarify though, for those who may not understand. All is not over. Only the Massachusetts case is. There is still a related and ongoing appeal case which Pickle and Joy filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals, protesting against the dismissal of the lawsuit against them, and asking for the Appeal Court to overrule that decision. (Ummm... yeah, they want to continue being sued, as they don't have any grounds to take 3abn to court otherwise, and as they wish they could...)

Since it's been so long...

To review: 2 yrs ago (October of 2008) 3ABN ( having already received all the meaningful relief they thought could possibly be achieved when filing the lawsuit in April 2007 ) filed a motion for the dismissal of the Massachusetts District Court lawsuit against Robert Pickle and Gailon Joy for their slander/libel/defamation. 3ABN's motion for dismissal was granted based on their reasoning, despite the arguments against that raised by and filed by Pickle and Joy.


Quoting the Court docket:

Case called, Counsel and dft's pro-se appear for status conference, Court hears arguments of counsel re: motion to dismiss, Court rules granting 120 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; The Court orders dismissal with conditions stated on the record, Any renewed claims brought by plaintiff shall be brought in this division in the District of MA. as ordered on the record, Court orders all confidential documents returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned, Court orders any motion for costs to be filed by 11/21/08. Order of dismissal to issue

Quoting the Judge on record:

"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.

All related documents, and quotes, referred to in this post can be accessed in our Pacer section here:
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=127


And the press release referring to the dismissal and the reasons for asking for a dismissal (as reflected in the above referenced document section) is here:
http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=131

The dismissal of the lawsuit was granted, "without prejudice" way back in November or 2008. --- pending the motion for costs which Pickle and joy filed and then filed again after that was denied. [all their motions, arguments, protests , and requests for reconsideration, asking for reimbursement and monies were denied]

Yet, Pickle and Joy belabored the point, and quibbled endlessly about the dismissal of the lawsuit, arguing anything and everything, till now when they are out of gas...

So that's what does this latest decision means. It means that finally, at least in the district court, Pickle and Joy are done. There are no more pending issues and arguments left for that court to decide, and nothing further which can or should be filed there. Pickle and Joy are finally done wasting that court's and 3ABN's time and money(actually the Donor's donated funding) with their ad hominem attacks, and their frivolous, petty, unsupported and desperate, unrelated, irrelevant [without legal precedent or standing] arguments, and motions.
[Every one of which -without exception- they have been ruled against and lost during the past 2 years!]

Now they can file their appeal brief, and all can move on, and again I say, "IT"S ABOUT TIME".

Thanks Lilly for providing the link viewtopic.php?f=9&t=337 to the latest and last decision in the Massachusetts District court, and the documents and arguments it related to, but as we know not all click on links, so I am including the Judges words and decision from that court document in full so they are not so easily ignored or buried ( Blessings to you, and a big hug as well as a smile, my friend)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 07-40098-RWZ

THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC.,
an Illinois Non-Profit Corproation,
and DANNY LEE SHELTON, Individually
v.
GAILON ARTHUR JOY
and ROBERT PICKLE


ORDER
October 19, 2010
ZOBEL, D.J.


This case began as a straight forward trademark infringement action with claims
for defamation and interference with business by a non-profit corporation, Three Angels
Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“Network”), and its founder and president Danny Lee
Shelton. The primary business of Network is to operate and manage a Christian
television and radio broadcast ministry. Although, according to the complaint, plaintiff
Shelton, is a member of the Seventh Day Adventist faith, Network is nondenominational
and is not affiliated with any specific church. Defendants, who are pro
se, are also members of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. This straight forward case
rapidly degenerated into a discovery morass accompanied by a series of ad hominem
attacks on plaintiff and his counsel and, eventually, on the district judge initially
assigned to this case.

One issue which has occupied considerable time of the court revolved around
defendants’ efforts to obtain, and keep, plaintiff Shelton’s personal financial records at
MidCountry Bank in Minnesota. Defendants sought these records with a subpoena
issued by the Federal District Court in Minnesota which ordered them to be sent under
seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman who, by reference from the District Judge, was
managing the discovery in the case. Plaintiffs moved for a confidentiality order which
was allowed. (Docket # 60.)

When, on October 23, 2008, plaintiffs moved to dismiss the case voluntarily,
they included a request that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to them. The
district judge, after a hearing on October 30, 2008, orally allowed the motion to dismiss
with conditions and ordered all confidential records to be returned to plaintiffs. A
written order was docketed on November 3, 2008. Defendants filed a notice of appeal
on November 13, 2008. Magistrate Judge Hillman returned the records to plaintiffs.
On December 9, 2009, more than a year after defendants’ notice of appeal from
the order of dismissal, defendants moved to designate as part of the record and
forward to the Court of Appeals the MidCountry Bank documents (Docket # 204). On
December 18, 2009, they moved for an order to plaintiffs to return them to this court
(Docket # 210). Magistrate Judge Hillman denied both motions on January 29, 2010,
and defendants filed objections to both rulings on February 3, 2010 (Docket # 229).
Because the case was pending in the Court of Appeals, this court failed to rule on the
objections.

Upon consideration of the parties’ briefs, the objections are overruled.

Magistrate Judge Hillman’s orders, while entered well after dismissal of the case, are
properly considered part of pretrial discovery and, as such, may be reconsidered by the
district judge only if clearly erroneous or contrary to law, 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).
The magistrate judge committed no error. Contrary to defendants’ assertion, brevity,
even extreme brevity, does not mean, nor suggest impropriety on the part of the judge.
The fact that defendants paid for the copying of these records does not confer
ownership on them and until a ruling by the magistrate judge that defendants were
entitled to these documents, plaintiff Shelton’s right to this private information trumped
defendants’ right to see and distribute them.

Defendants’ objections to the Magistrate Judge orders (Docket # 229) are
overruled.


DATE October 19, 2010
/s/Rya W. Zobel
RYA W. ZOBEL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

[Lilly]

Thanks Cindy for the good information!!!