Sheri Coleman, sons Garett and Gavin murdered 5-5-09, Columbia, IL. Pt9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Observations... Looking at this document (letter from Carey to JMM dated June 24th): Then, this newspaper article says:

>>Joyce Meyer Ministries proposed a confidentiality agreement that seals the answers and documents it turns over in a wrongful death suit filed by Sheri, Garett and Gavin Coleman's family. Belleville attorney Jack Carey and Chicago attorney Enrico Mirabelli, Sheri's cousin, refused and asked Circuit Judge Mike O'Malley to order the ministries to produce the information that was due last week.<<

The above may not be an entirely accurate reporting -- I do not believe JMM is asking them to seal all of the information, else why would they offer to give them anything? I believe it might be more accurate to say that they want to assist, but they are asking for some appropriate protections and considerations per the following.

In the letter from Carey to JMM, it states:

>>"I am in receipt of your second Stipulation and Protective Order for Confidentiality of Discovery Materials. This second draft was received on the day Joyce Meyers Ministries, Inc. compliance was due."<<

[note to self: The above says "second," seems to indicate that there was a first. Carey does not reference any response to a 1st Stipulation, although a 2nd draft from JMM would seem to be a response by JMM to work on the 1st draft after a request of some sort from Carey.]

Requests from respondents were made about May 26th, 28 days was the requested time for response, i.e. June 23rd would be the date to have responses in (I believe).

Carey also writes in his letter:
>>"Within the past 10 days I have received two confidentiality agreements requesting my signature claiming..."<<

So, after approx. 18 days of the request to the respondents (approx. 13th of June, approx. 13 business days), JMM responded -- apparently feeling that they wished to assist but needed Carey to make a consideration. Their timing appeared consistent with someone who wanted to move in a timely fashion to assist w/responses by the 28 day mark.

To my knowledge, Carey has not released the content of the 1st draft from JMM, nor his response to it. Sometimes this is done by phone w/attorneys, i.e. they discuss what is needed to get into agreement, that then gets applied to a 2nd draft and sent.

Carey's letter notes a "blurb" of text from JMM's 1st/2nd draft:

"3. The information, materials and documents requested, if made public, may cause the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, irreparable harm because (i) the requested materials and documents contain confidential, sensitive information pertaining to the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, or (ii) contains information that Respondent in Discovery, JMM, is required by law to keep confidential."

In other words, they are stating that some of the requested material contains things that are confidential to "JMM" (not necessarily Chris Coleman) OR that they must, by law, keep confidential.

Carey goes on to write:
>>In addition, your client wants to designate as confidential all or any part of the requested materials . . . . How the following inquiries are confidential to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. confounds me, e.g. copies of Christopher Coleman's complete personnel file, copies of the Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. policy of employment as it related to Christopher Coleman, copies of Christopher Coleman's W-2's for the last five years, copies of all correspondence, notes, memorandums, deeds, contracts, policies or other documents relating to the termination of Christopher Coleman, etc.

In short, I see nothing in the requested materials that would cause irreparable harm to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. Further, I know no law or contract which would keep Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. from complying with the Plaintiffs' Request for Production and Answers to the Interrogatories propounded by the Plaintiffs.<<

The ellipsis in the first sentence gives only "partial" information on their client (JMM). This type of "partial" makes me nervous -- what should have been in the place of the ellipsis? Why wasn't a copy of the letter to which Carey was responding included in his response? What information did Carey not want to include in this letter that was released to the press?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3912039&postcount=942"]Now then...look at what was actually requested:[/ame]

At the above link you will see this:
>>2. Copies of all policies of Joyce Meyer Ministries regarding employment with the organization.<<

Item 2 above is different from that which Casey stated above which says: "copies of the Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. policy of employment as it related to Christopher Coleman" Item 2 was not specific to CC, Carey's letter "was" specific to him -- these are two different things.

>>6. Copies of all private airplane manifests, held by Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. which list all passengers.<<

Item 6 was not included in Carey's letter, it was included in the request made to JMM originally.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3912039&postcount=942"]Again, at this link[/ame] you see that there is much more requested in the interrogatories, with the first/last items being:

>>1. State the full name, current residence, and business address, and relationship to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. of all persons answering and signing these interrogatories.<<

>>5. List the names and addresses of all other persons (other than yourself and persons heretofore listed) who have knowledge of the facts of the occurrence and damages claimed to have resulted from the actions set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint.<<

Names AND addresses are being asked, not just names (as in previous items).

The following Item 2:
>>Have you or anyone acting on your behalf had any conversations with any person at any time with regard to the manner in which the occurrence complained of in Plaintiffs' Complaint occurred?<< (and then if answered in the affirmative, state the following)

I wish I had more experience in reading interrogatories for wrongful death suits so that I could compare them to that which is in these. The above almost seems like JMM is being expected to put out a company memo to maybe 100s or 1000s of employees, asking them to report to their bosses per that in the interrogatories and so that they can gather data for this case (items 2, 3 and 4). It is as if Carey is expecting JMM to do the investigating for him, then turn the information to Carey, and maybe with disregard for certain laws which employers must uphold? I have to wonder if there is a precedent for such a thing -- is this commonplace? I just don't know.

Back to Carey stating:
>>In short, I see nothing in the requested materials that would cause irreparable harm to Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc.<<

Maybe Carey doesn't see what JMM sees per the items he mentioned in the paragraph previous to his statement, but that is NOT all that was requested -- it is only a chunk of that which was requested. I would like to think that JMM wants to assist in every way that they are able. I'm getting the impression that Carey may not be doing "his" work in investigating, but expecting JMM to do so and with disregard to those who would help. Of course, we will see what the judge thinks.

Of COURSE I want Sheri's family to win the civil suit, but I would like to see the suit proceed in an honorable fashion and I'm a little concerned about this type of statement:

>>As I view your Stipulation and Protective Order for Confidentiality of Discovery Materials, if I elect to use any of the materials in subsequent pleadings, memorandums, client communication, press releases, I first must seek the permission of Joyce Meyer Ministries, Inc. ain't gonna happen."

Whenever I have worked with attorneys (admittedly not very often), there is a "working together" that they try to maintain, and an "ain't gonna happen" sounds to me to be quite strident and not in the spirit of working together to get things moving. It seems that it could be very important to do whatever might be necessary (within reason) to get the civil suit completed (with a guilty for CC) before the criminal case, but I could be wrong. I sincerely do not think that JMM wants to tie Carey's hands, I think they are only asking for considerations which are probably reasonable. We will see what the judge says, eh?

This will be an interesting learning experience.
 
Greetings Analytical,

IMO, you get the 4th of July, 2009 WHAMMO BLAMMO FIRE CRACKER award for helpful information on the civil suit on this case! THANK YOU!

I was trying to figure out where you got that info and found this article. I can see in the column to the left, under "Court Documents" there is a "Joyce Meyer Ministry's proposed confidentiality agreement." BUT...you saw it first in terms of mentioning it here and you have the BIG BINGO! THANKS!

I have labored through the "STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS" and I personally can't find fault with it, but perhaps someone can speak up to a rational reason for fault -- I will post some of the text in a next post.

To me this document speaks "We want to help, we want to do so now, we want to do so within the realm of helping "with the case" as is pertinent to the case, rationally and complying with all laws, all we are asking is for you to work with us in terms of confidentiality where non-necessities to the case are concerned, we may need some "heads up" at some times where certain things which have been noted as "confidential" or for "attorneys eyes only" are concerned (due to our stated reasons), when you give us a heads up on your needs at certain times we will either "not respond" within 5 days (which means you are free to go forth, we will not argue) OR we will give you what we think are our reasonable objections and why, within 5 days, but are willing to comply with the court (should they not accept our concern pertaining to the law and confidentiality) AND when the end of this matter arrives, all we ask for is our confidential documents given back to us.

Now, my understanding of that which is written in this document may not be entirely correct, but for now, I am convinced that JMM wants to be as helpful as possible within absolute reason, and all they are asking for IS reason. So many (check your own self) do not give response in a week, a month or a year, and they are saying they will give response within 5 days -- they appear to want to be time appropriate (5 days seems SO appropriate to me, I have had to deal with far longer in other things -- I think this in honoring the importance of this case, they could ask to take so much longer in a weighty matter but they have said 5 days), they are only asking that they be allowed to give due diligence to matters which concern them AND I would do likewise for myself AND if I was representing anyone ever, I would do that for them.

I hope to express that I really do want the civil suit to find CC as guilty as I think he is as soon as possible, and I do hope for Carey and Sheri's family to have all of the help and cooperation they can get. I hope for this in the realm of caring for those who would help them. IMO, you "work with those" who wish to cooperate with you -- sure you might push if you think there is real room for this, but I can't imagine pushing against anything reasonable and equitable (and I think that JMM is being that).

For me, I cannot imagine anyone considering these requests as anything less than reasonable and equitable, I would consider them so for you, for me, for a business, for a non-profit. For any attorney to do so, IMO, I would think they a.) want to be given a license to be lazy and/or sloppy and/or irresponsible in their work b.) want a license to permit the laziness and/or sloppiness and/or irresponsibility of their staff and/or others they may hire for the case (investigators) c.) want a license to to give gathered, yet "non-necessary to the case" information to everyone or anyone they wish due to whatever "non-focussed" and/or dubious reason they may have (and I do mean "dubious" and in "dubious integrity") and/or d) any combo of the latter and anything else I missed.

Sheri and these beautiful children were murdered, they deserve justice -- I am ALL for it! They deserve a focussed pursuit of information necessary to the case with honor and a "working with" attitude to those who give and will give it and, yet, who had nothing to do with any guilt in the case. I hope Sheri and the children get this. I am NOT interested in some attorney who thinks they should bully others without regard or consideration to the real job at hand.
 
It appears to me that JMM is utilizing the confidentiality agreement to prevent the attorneys from releasing information to the press. . . I don't think it's employee info that they're worried about - now the bombshell of implied complicity, that could be permanently damaging and/or any record of financial transactions supporting CC's defense. If ever there was a time that JM needs to "let go and let God", it's now. To try to hide information to prevent a scandal could backfire and THAT would be a fatal error. IMHO, of course.
 
Some of the text from the document here:

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR
CONFIDENTIALITY OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

2. The purpose of this Stipulation and Protective Order for Confidentiality of Discovery Materials is to (i) insure that the information, materials and documents requested are made available to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs' counsel Jack Carey and (ii) the confidential materials, information and documents of the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, are only provided to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' counsel, and certain specifically enumerated parties whose possession and review of said confidential materials, information and documents are necessary.

3. The information, materials and documents requested, if made public, may cause the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, irreparable harm because (i) the requested materials and documents contain confidential, sensitive information pertaining to the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, or (ii) contains information that Respondent in Discovery, JMM, is required by law or contract to keep confidential.

4. The Respondent in Discovery, JMM, shall designate as "confidential" all or any part of the requested materials, information or documents produced by the Respondent in Discovery, JMM. When designating any of the requested materials, information or documents as "confidential", the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, represent that said materials, information or documents are confidential and subject to protection in accordance with federal, Missouri or Illinois law.

5. The designation shall be made with respect to the requested materials, information or documents by marking the word "CONFIDENTIAL" on them before they are produced. Materials, information and documents designated as confidential shall at all times be kept in the possession of attorneys for the parties or the persons specified in paragraph 10 hereof. All the above-described documents received by and through any legal process or voluntary submission by the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, shall be segregated in the party's file who has possession of the same and shall be marked as "Confidential Records" so as to ensure their disclosure shall not be inadvertently made.

6. Attorneys for Plaintiffs or the persons specified in paragraph 9 hereof shall not disclose any confidential materials, information or documents or use any confidential materials, information or documents provided by the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, in any manner other than in connection with this civil action and consistent with this Stipulation and Protective Order.

7. The Respondent in Discovery, JMM, shall further designate as "for attorneys eyes only" all or any part of the requested materials, information or documents produced by the Respondent in Discovery, JMM.

8. Materials designated for attorneys eyes only shall not be disclosed without further Order of this court to any other person or entity except counsel for the Plaintiff.

9. Confidential materials, information or documents produced by the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, in connection with this action shall not be disclosed to any other person or entity except as follows: parties to this action; legal counsel to the parties to this action and employees of said legal counsel; and his/her employees.

10. Any person, besides legal counsel for Plaintiffs and employees of legal counsel for Plaintiffs, to whom confidential materials, information or documents are disclosed shall sign a copy of this Stipulation and Protective Order to acknowledge that he or she has read, understands, and agrees to be bound by its terms. Before disclosing confidential materials, information or documents to any person other than an employee of legal counsel for Plaintiffs assisting in this action, legal counsel for Plaintiffs shall secure the signature of such person on a copy of this Stipulation and Protective Order, and legal counsel for Plaintiffs shall retain the signed copy pending further Order of this Court or final disposition of this action.

11. If legal counsel for either party intends to present or make reference to confidential materials, information or documents to the Court, included in, attached to, or discussed in briefs, memoranda or other documents filed with the Court or as exhibits in a hearing, which are not filed under seal, legal counsel for any party shall give the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, written notice at least twenty (20) days before the briefs, memoranda or other papers are filed with the Court at the following address:

Michael James King
Winters & King, Inc.
2448 East 81st Street, Suite 5900
Tulsa, OK 74137

Copies of the confidential materials, information or documents shall be attached to the notice, but the notice shall not be filed with the Court, unless filed under seal.

12. If legal counsel for Plaintiffs objects to a designation of materials, information or documents as confidential or attorneys eyes only, counsel shall serve written notice on the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, setting forth the basis of the objection. The Respondent in Discovery, JMM, shall respond in writing within five (5) days after service of the notice by either (a) withdrawing the designation of confidentiality or attorneys eyes only, or (b) refusing to withdraw the designation of confidentiality or attorneys eyes only and stating the basis for such refusal. If the
Respondent in Discovery, JMM, fails to respond within five (5) days, the designation of confidentiality or attorneys eyes only shall be deemed withdrawn. If the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, refuses to withdraw the designation, counsel for all interested parties shall meet and confer, either in person or by telephone, to attempt in good faith to resolve the dispute. If the dispute cannot be resolved, legal counsel for the objecting party may file a motion with the Court to remove the designation of confidentiality or attorneys eyes only within five (5) days after such meeting. If the objecting party fails to file a motion to remove the designation of confidentiality or attorneys eyes only within five (5) days after the meeting, the objection shall be deemed withdrawn. At the hearing on the motion to remove the designation of confidentiality or attorneys eyes only, the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, shall bear the burden of establishing that the designated materials, information or documents are confidential. Until the Court renders its decision, the materials, information or documents shall remain confidential in accordance
with this Stipulation and Protective Order.

13. This Protective Order does not limit the rights of any parties to assert claims of privilege and confidentiality during the remainder of any proceedings herein.

14. Any party who receives from a non-party a Subpoena or other process purporting to require disclosure of the above-described confidential information, shall immediately provide notice to all other parties and to the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, and their counsel. No disclosure of the above-described confidential information shall be made pursuant to any such Subpoena without written permission of counsel for the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, or an order of this Court authorizing said disclosure.

15. The provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order shall continue in effect after the conclusion of this action. At the conclusion of this action, all confidential materials information and documents including attorneys eyes only information or documents (and signed copies thereof) which are in possession of Plaintiffs, their counsel, Jack Carey, or their agents or employees shall be delivered to the counsel for the Respondent in Discovery, JMM, Michael James King at Winters and King, Inc., 2448 East 81st Street, Suite 5900, Tulsa, OK 74137-425
 
Greetings LindaDanette,

You wrote:
>>To try to hide information to prevent a scandal could backfire and THAT would be a fatal error<<

I personally don't find JMM attempting to hide information, just saying that "We want to help, but we ask these things which we feel are in alignment with wisdom, propriety and the law." I think they are working in a timely fashion. So far, I am impressed -- we'll see how this continues.

You wrote:
>>It appears to me that JMM is utilizing the confidentiality agreement to prevent the attorneys from releasing information to the press. . .<<

I think there is great wisdom in requesting that sensitive information requested for one specific purpose not be released for any other purpose than that for which the information was requested and gained. The attorneys in this case are supposed to be focussed on a wrongful death suit, that is what they were hired for, that is why they are requesting information and that would be why they are gaining it. If they cannot comprehend or align with that which was written in the document, IMO, it only says to me that they have ulterior motive. If the latter be the case, they should state their motive in the documents requesting information.
 
Wrinkles, I agree - with the caveat that I gave above. . . If JMM doesn't have anything to hide but names and addresses, let them specify the nature of the information they want held in confidence. However, if JMM is privy to information that could expose another person(s) potentially criminal actions, then it is not wisdom but CYA that is the driving force behind this request. How can the attorney make that distinction without first having access to the information?
 
Lindadanette said:
Wrinkles, I agree - with the caveat that I gave above. . . If JMM doesn't have anything to hide but names and addresses, let them specify the nature of the information they want held in confidence. However, if JMM is privy to information that could expose another person(s) potentially criminal actions, then it is not wisdom but CYA that is the driving force behind this request. How can the attorney make that distinction without first having access to the information?
Click to expand...

The scenario you propose would be purposeful obstruction of justice.

It is not unusual to ask for some degree of confidentiality in discovery... the internet has many resources on the subject.
 
Wrinkles said:
Whenever I have worked with attorneys (admittedly not very often), there is a "working together" that they try to maintain, and an "ain't gonna happen" sounds to me to be quite strident and not in the spirit of working together to get things moving.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that statement--especially if it were expressed in writing and not just transcribed from something Carey said--sounded kind of sharky to me, as well as ungrammatical. Carey seems to be working some anger or indignation into the mix, and it could backfire on him. Joyce might get back at him somehow if she feels attacked. If he displays aggressiveness, she might take the you-ain't-a-gonna-abuse-me-mister stance, to the cheers of her supporters. Just speculating.
 
The thing with this confidentiality agreement is that, at least to me, JMM does not have any proprietary licensing information that they are trying to protect. Such proprietary licensing information might be, as an example, a specific recipe for a food or beverage, formula, or trade secret for a marketable product.

The only thing other than names and addresses that JMM could be seeking to protect with this confidentiality agreement, that I can see, would/could be the employee's handbook/contract.

If JMM is trying to protect an EMPLOYEE from potential prosecution for any complicity in these murders, then JMM would be committing a crime.
 
UPDATED at 12:10 p.m. with judge delaying decision

A judge delayed a decision on whether Joyce Meyer Ministries can respond in secret to a civil suit sought by Sheri Coleman's family.

The delay happened because Ron Coleman, the father of Chris Coleman, who is also a respondent in discovery, is in the process of changing attorneys.

Jack Carey, the Belleville lawyer representing Sheri Coleman's family, said the attorneys are just trying to delay the process.

"We're not going away," Carey said.

Attorneys for the ministry agreed to show documents requested by Carey on July 20. But Carey can only use the material or make it public if a judge agrees.

An Oklahoma attorney representing Joyce Meyer Ministries attended the hearing today, along with a man identified as the ministry's "risk manager."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/ne...75EB00529DFA?OpenDocument#tp_newCommentAnchor
 
I have to wonder if that OK attorney is associated in some way with Oral Roberts' family or with the college? He/she would have plenty of experience in handling matters of "confidentiality" and ministries. It is known that JM has been associated with the Roberts in the past.
 
Sheesh!
Dumb.gif


Why don't these leaders just be OPEN with the information and stop hindering the spreading of the love of Jesus with suspicions?
gnome.gif
 
SeriouslySearching said:
I have to wonder if that OK attorney is associated in some way with Oral Roberts' family or with the college? He/she would have plenty of experience in handling matters of "confidentiality" and ministries. It is known that JM has been associated with the Roberts in the past.
Click to expand...

OMG before I even read your post I said the exact same thing to myself. I wonder which attorney it is? I happen to know a few in the area...
 
The law firm of Winters & King, Inc. was founded in 1983 to meet the diverse legal needs of people just like you. We represent people and businesses across northeast Oklahoma, as well as churches, ministries, and other non-profit organizations in all 50 states.

http://www.wintersking.com/

http://www.wintersking.com/index.cfm?id=4&thepartnerid=5

Another attorney represents JM as a literary agent:

http://www.wintersking.com/index.cfm?id=48&theparentid=40'

Another one is associated with ORR:

Jean has her B.A. from Mills College, and J.D. from State University of New York at Buffalo. Jean has been a motor carrier lawyer, an administrative law judge, and associate professor of law at Oral Roberts University.

http://www.wintersking.com/index.cfm?id=4&thepartnerid=10
 
I am a bit annoyed by the fact that an organization such as JMM wants to keep anything confidential as their operation should be completely transparent, IMO. Then again, we don't know exactly what information has been requested.

That being said, I DO have a problem with JMM insisting on being the entity that determines what is or is not pertinent to the case. I believe that should be entirely up to the court. JMHO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 215 more.
Total: 2,328 (members: 216, guests: 2,112)

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
2,112
Total visitors
2,328
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,341
Messages
18,094,742
Members
230,851
Latest member
kendybee
Back
Top