I thought it might be of interest to make a comment on the current progress of the litigation between 3-ABN/Danny Shelton and Gailon Joy/Bob Pickle. In general, my comments are a report on the document filed with the Appellate Court on March 23, 2009; in which 3-ABN/Danny Shelton argue their position. In this message, when I use the word “Appellees,” that word shall always apply to 3-ABN/Danny Shelton. When I use the word “Appellants,” that word shall always apply to Gailon Joy/Bob Pickle.

In brief: In late 2008 the Appellees asked the court to dismiss the litigation that they had filed against the Appellants. On November 13, 2008, the Appellants filed a motion with the court that they be awarded costs as a condition of the dismissal of the litigation; and on the same day filed an appeal of the dismissal with the Appellate Court. The Appellees have filed (March 23, 2009) a 56 page response.

The major issue that the Appellees have raised is that the Appellate Court does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the litigation is not finished in the District Court. The reason that it is not finished is because the District Court has agreed to hear the request of the Appellants that they be awarded costs and fees. NOTE: In my opinion, if those costs and fees had not been requested the jurisdictional issue would not be raised.

A second issue raised by the Appellants is that the District Court erred by granting the request for dismissal. In the 56 pages of the Appellees document, it appears to me that 50 or more pages are taken up by responses to this argument. It is a fact of litigation in the U.S. that one typically can not raise an appellate argument of lower court error if an objection was not raised at the time the court was alleged to have committed the error. Over and over the Appellees claim that the Appellants failed to object at the time the error was alleged to have been committed. While other issues are raised, this is a reoccurring one. It is of interest that this document dwelt with IRS issues, EOC issues in California and First Amendment issues.

I will give one example: The Appellants argued that the District Court erred in accepting certain evidence (an affidavit) provided by the 3-ABN Board Chairperson. They go on to suggest that Dr. Thompson is a “proven liar” and “factually challenged.” In fact, the Appellants did not challenge in District Court that affidavit. They did not offer any evidence in rebuttal and they did not ask for an opportunity to cross-examine Dr. Thompson in regard to his sworn statement. Therefore, the Appellees argue that the Appellants can not raise that issue now.

NOTE: As this is a couple of brief comments, for a fuller understanding of the issues court documents should be reviewed in full.
Currently, the issues that remain are: 1) What will the Appellate Court decide? 2) What will the District Court decide in regard to awarding costs and fees to the Appellants? 3)
Will either side later file any other litigation?

Good grief!! What a mess.

Just an update...

http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=164



All costs have been denied to Bob Pickle.

I have asked this on AT, "I wonder if he will continue to slander"

Yes, Stan, Judge Saylor has denied all of Pickle, Joy and others claims for costs from 3-ABN, in a decision that he published yesterday, April 13, 2009. In his ruling, he sumarized the claims for costs as follows:

1) Mileage by Pickle in the amount of $993.62

2) Miscellaneous expense [Included the infamous request for the cost of taking a shower.] by Pickle in the amount of $4,614.09.

3) Personal costs to Pickle in regard to making copies of documents in the amount of $206.70.

4) Pickle's charges for his time in the amount of $30,114.75.

5) Charges from an expert witness in the amount of $20,342.32.

6) Charges for legal advice in the amount of $54,266.64.

The judge threw out the claims for numbers 1, 2, 4, and 5. on the grounds that the applicable law did not auathorize payments for such charges.

NOTE: The court ruled that under the part of the stature that governed # 5, the authorized payments were limited to a maximumn of $40 per day that the witness testified in court. That witness did not testify in court.

The court denied # 3 on the grounds that Pickle did not suffer any legal prejudice by the dismissal which would have been required to award those costs.

The charges claimed under # 6 were denied on the basis that Stan has posted in a comment above this one--to be specific that 3-ABN did not litigate with the intent to harass, embarras, abuse or to increase the costs of the defendants.

A couple of weekends ago we had as a guest speaker the one who went to Europe with 'her', have to say that it was a pretty compelling first hand testimony of a witness to that escapade, as well the passing on of the confession/bragging rights of other encounters of the accused.

Am sure there was a break down long before those incidents.

Hoefuly now all can move on..

Stan, your post is confusing, subject to speculation and threfore subject to inaccurate identificatin of what you are talkign about.

If you are going to post, pleas post in a manner that all will clearly understand what you are saying.

Gregory Matthews

The guess the only thing left now is the appeal, therefore, has anybody heard anything about that yet?

Is the appeal still up in the air?