I’ll chime in here in that I found the question striking as well.  Whether intentional or not, the tone of Tom’s ask was suggesting some inappropriate conduct on John’s part, which when made against an attorney can be interpreted to be particularly insulting.  The docket entries John sent us, and indeed of any federal court, are available to anyone who logs in, being an attorney or not.  Anyone member of the public, not only lawyers, can set up a PACER system account to check any federal court docket anywhere, not just the Third circuit.

 

I just checked the same docket entries to make sure and found the same listing John sent around. It is public as I would expect.  Notice that he did not send any document from the list and most certainly could not access the confidential entry.  Only the attorney formally associated with the case can log in those and only for certain documents at that.   Having tried several third circuit cases over the years, including very recently, it would be immediately apparent to me (and other experienced lawyers) that the confidential entry is for the almost mandatory mediation program of the Third Circuit. Such orders are typically issued before any briefing schedule in the event a matter can be settled without more expense.   Otherwise, no document would be locked absent very special orders dealing with certain discovery handling or the like – not present in an appellate court.  These mediation entries and the mediation position memo required to be filed are not provided to the other side either, are provided only to the assigned mediator and are confidential.  The Third Circuit court has three full-time (in house) lawyers –mediators who are employed by the court for the purpose.  The local rules and the mediation program are published, have been around for some time, and anyone familiar with the Circuit Court would know all this.  The program is similar to many other Circuit Courts around the country and ours here in the third circuit (coving three states) is very successful.

 

  A moment of levity to break the tension perhaps.  The chief third circuit mediator is Joe Torregrossa.  His last name literally means “Big Tower” in Italian.  He was the mediator for the DePolo ham antenna case. (The town and opponents refused to mediate at all in that case though asked by the court prior to a decision).

 

So, Tom’s reaction or assumption was just one of misinformation or interpretation of what the PDF document was.  I would have suggested calling the lawyers first to inquire myself.   The law firm referenced will no doubt set this issue straight in that regard.  If you like Tom, you are invited to call me anytime, office or home.

 

 

Bob Famiglio, K3RF

Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division

610-359-7300

 

www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF

 

 

 

From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of John Bellows
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:56 PM
To: JRS
Cc: arrl-odv
Subject: [arrl-odv:26236] Re: Ames v. ARRL, et al — Mediation — You Have One Hour

 

JRS:

 

I understand that you have suggested my "elevator "...doesn't reach the top floor",  but it would be helpful if you would explain how Mr. Gallagher's word "ask" constitutes an order. Additionally, I suspect we would all appreciate an answer to his apparently reasonable question.

 

Jay, K0QB

Sent from my iPad

On Feb 15, 2017, at 12:41 PM, JRS <jrs@hamradio.us.com> wrote:

Mr. Gallagher

    I will extend a courtesy to you that I seldom extend to adversaries, fools or tools — I will wait, before responding, to provide you the opportunity to publish your apology to me on the ODV for the insinuations in the email below.

    I extend the courtesy both individually and in my capacity as a Vice Director because you are an employee and may be following orders. I also extend it, although you are not a Member of the Board, in the spirit of the ARRL Policy On Board Governance and Conduct Of Members Of The Board of Directors And Vice Directors 5.c.

    Of course, rather than following orders you may just be an adherent to the philosophy that all animals are equal,but some animals are more equal than others and accordingly believe you have no obligation to display respect to those whom you consider of lesser status.

     It matters not the basis for your disrespectful conduct — I hereby extend the courtesy of an hour in which to apologize.

   

73

-----------------------------------------------------

       John Robert Stratton       
                 
                        N5AUS                      

 

       Office telephone:    512-445-6262
       Cell:                         512-426-2028
                      PO Box 2232
            Austin, Texas 78768-2232

-----------------------------------------------------

 

On 2/15/17 10:53 AM, Gallagher, Tom, NY2RF wrote:

John:

 

thanks for your ODV message. I am aware of the procedure since I am, personally, a defendant in Ames’ suit and therefore a party of interest. However, I ask, how did you become aware of the mediation process? In the Docket Record which you refer to as being on page 3 of the PDF, “the case was sent to mediation.” But there is no reference to mediation anywhere on any page of the document as far as I can see. Moreover, the PDF attachment you included, contains a warning that the document is restricted:

 

Notice to Counsel. The attached document is restricted. To view document, click on the document

number link in the NDA (Notice of Docket Activity). In order to access this document, you must be

the attorney of record using your individual ECF login and password. (TNH)

 

How was the PDF obtained? You are not, so far as I am aware, an attorney of record in this matter. It appears from the PDF file that the docket, 17-1091 Docket, was downloaded on 2/10/17 at 10:15 PM. Ut iterare, how was it obtained?

 

I am also asking Couzen, O’Connor if they can shed some light here, since they are more familiar with Eastern Pennsylvania procedure than I am. As you can imagine, Rick, Jim and I have a clear personal interest in this outcome.

 

Tom

 

 

From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Stratton, John, N5AUS
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2017 7:06 PM
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
Subject: [arrl-odv:26221] Ames v. ARRL, et al — Mediation

 

    In the interest of keeping everyone up-to-date:

    As has been mentioned on this listserve, Mr. Ames appealed the granting of the ARRL's FRCP 12(b)(6) motion to the US Court of Appeals For The Third Circuit.

    From the entry on the enclosed Docket Record (see PDF Page 3), it appears that the case has been sent to mediation in accordance with the 3rd Circuit's Local Appellate Rules.

    Settlement at mediation is not mandatory; mandatory mediation is merely the Court's attempt to offer the litigants the opportunity to resolve their disputes before incurring further expense and rolling the dice for a final outcome. The failure to settle in mediation is not held against any party and has no impact on the final outcome of an appeal.
   

73

-----------------------------------------------------

       John Robert Stratton       
                 
                        N5AUS                      

 

       Office telephone:    512-445-6262
       Cell:                         512-426-2028
                      PO Box 2232
            Austin, Texas 78768-2232

-----------------------------------------------------

 

_______________________________________________

arrl-odv mailing list

arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org

https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

 

_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv