Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Johann on February 17, 2008, 11:40:36 PM
-
The following has just been posted on BSDA:
shadowdancer
post Today, 04:25 AM
Post #1
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Joined: 12-January 08
Member No.: 4,600
Gender: f
Some of you may know that in late 2006, Bob Pickle and Gailon Joy spoke out against Danny Shelton's cover up of the child molestation allegations that had been leveled against his brother, Tommy. In the months that followed they spoke to seven of Tommy's alleged victims as well as their family members, and even an eye witness. Danny Shelton and 3ABN retaliated with a lawsuit in April 2007. The case is slated to go to trial no earlier than March 2009.
Gailon Joy is an Adventist Reporter. Bob Pickle has served the church as a conference pastor and is a respected apologist. The effect of the law suit is to restrict the constitutional freedoms of speech, religion, and press that Adventists hold dear. There has been a constant attempt by Danny Shelton and 3ABN to keep the church and all their viewers in the dark regarding serious allegations of financial and moral improprieties, abuse of power, and corruption.
Danny Shelton and 3ABN are not cooperating with the discovery phase of the lawsuit which requires the handing over of requested documents. Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle have turned over voluminous amounts of material and have yet to receive one single document from Danny Shelton or 3ABN.
Danny Shelton and 3ABN have millions of dollars behind them and have hired very expensive lawyers from as many as six different law firms in three different states to handle their current legal troubles. In all of this Bob and Gailon are trying to be wise stewards of God's funds. They currently have no attorney expenses because they are representing themselves.
Yet there are some non-negotiable costs involved in defending themselves against this frivolous and unconstitutional lawsuit. For example, when they do depositions they must hire a court reporter at a cost of over $1200 per day (appearance fee + hourly fee + per page fee). They estimate that their defense discovery costs will amount to $25,000 to $30,000 before it's over.
But Gailon and Bob simply do not have the millions of dollars behind them that Danny Shelton and 3ABN have. Where are they going to find the few thousands they so desperately need to defend themselves?
Do you appreciate the freedoms we have in America? Do you want pastors, reporters, and laity to be able to continue to stand up against corruption and for conservative family values without fear of a lawsuit aimed at ruining them financially or blackening their reputation? Will you join the battle against those who want to intimidate and retaliate against anyone who expresses genuine concerns?
This is a plea for prayer and donations to help cover the discovery expenses. You can help in this cause by praying, forwarding this e-mail to all of your contacts, and sending a check to:
Bob Pickle - Defense Fund
1354 County Road 21
Halstad, MN 56548-9417
Phone: (218) 456-2568
You also can use your credit card by going to the defense fund link at:
www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm
A full accounting of all money donated and how it is spent will be made. Any excess funds will be used for evangelism.
You can read the whole story that has been published so far at one of several sites available – www.save-3abn.com
You can also go to www.pickle-publishing.com/papers/ to find out more about Bob Pickle and the apologetic work he has done.
Thank you and may God bless you.
This post has been edited by shadowdancer: Today, 04:26 AM
-
Anyone who wishes can put the following code in any email or on any web page they wish:
<a href="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm">
<img src="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/images/defense-fund-1.gif">
</a>
If you want a different speed in the animated GIF, try either of the following. I think they are a little different.
<a href="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm">
<img src="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/images/defense-fund-1-half.gif">
</a>
<a href="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm">
<img src="http://www.pickle-publishing.com/images/defense-fund-2.gif">
</a>
-
We have an immediate need of around $3700.
We have $600 in hand and $1275 on the way.
Thus we still need to raise $1825.
-
Is there still a paypal account? I believe there was one to send donations to Mr Heal when he was acting as your lawyer. Would this still work or can you and/or Mr Joy set up one where they go directly to a new account? If so, could you please post a link?
-
Hi childoftheking.
That old PayPal link would likely still work, but since Attorney Heal is not my attorney anymore, I do not know when the money would actually arrive at my office.
http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm) is a link one can use to make a secure credit card transaction.
Any questions?
-
Someone suggested that we ask the General Conference to audit the fund, and I think that sounds like a good idea.
-
Someone suggested that we ask the General Conference to audit the fund, and I think that sounds like a good idea.
Would they do that? It's an excellent idea if they would cooperate, in more ways than one. That would make the situation more 'real' to them.
-
We have an immediate need of around $3700.
We have $600 in hand and $1275 on the way.
Thus we still need to raise $1825.
$675 in hand and $1575 on the way.
Still need to raise $1450.
-
$2600 in hand and $1575 on the way. That means that if everything comes in that is supposed to, we have met our immediate need of $3700, and are now on our way toward our ultimate goal of $30,000.
As a recap, while we don't have attorney expenses, we do have discovery costs. We have to hire a court reporter when we do depositions, and there is no way around that. There will be various costs involved in procuring documents which simply are non-negotiable.
While we obviously are doing and will do all we can to keep expenses down, there are costs that we simply cannot afford without assistance. And at present we anticipate those costs reaching $30,000.
Why should you care? I was telling a pastor yesterday that his right and privilege to deal with sin in the local congregation is at stake. No Adventist preacher should fear a retaliatory, frivolous lawsuit if they have a sticky situation in their congregation that must be appropriately addressed. Especially if it's child molestation allegations.
We know from Bible prophecy that one day our civil and religious freedoms will be curtailed in America. But who would have expected that an attack on these freedoms would have come from a supporting ministry that is supposedly pledged to defend those freedoms?
Thanks to all who have rendered their support by prayers and/or by gifts.
-
By the way, based on current deadlines set by the court, I think we have to spend that $30,000 by the end of July. I'll have to check.
In other words, the court says we have to have depositions done by such and such a date. That means we have to pay the court reporters by then, and thus have to have the money raised by then. And we have to raise it early enough to plan ahead. I think we might have to give something like 30 days notice before doing a deposition.
-
Bob, can you please set up a PayPal link as well? It doesn't cost you anything, and it may bring in a few more dollars.
One of the really helpful features of PayPal is that it's possible to set up monthly contributions for a stated period of time. The money may come from a credit card or a bank account. The monthly contributions are particularly helpful for those of us on a limited income.
Inge
-
I'd like to stay away from PayPal if I can. If folks let me know, I can do a monthly contribution as well.
When I started out with my online store, I first used PayPal. But eventually I went with my own merchant account.
-
Okay, after several suggestions about offering PayPal, I've resurrected my old PayPal account and have added a button for it under the other form at http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm).
If anyone wants to send someone an email link to the PayPal page, you can use https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=... (https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_donations&business=bob%40pickle%2dpublishing%2ecom&item_name=Support%20the%20Pickle%2dJoy%20Legal%20Defense%20Fund%20%283ABN%20%26%20Danny%20Shelton%20v%2e%20Gailon%20Arthur%20Joy%20%26%20Robert%20Pickle%29%20%28not%20tax%20deductible%29&no_shipping=0&no_note=1&tax=0¤cy_code=USD&lc=US&bn=PP%2dDonationsBF&charset=UTF%2d8). (Copy the link, not the text.) Or send them to http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm (http://www.pickle-publishing.com/defensefund.htm) where they will now have the option of donating using PayPal.
$4,475 on hand, and $700 on the way. Another $900 was pledged earlier, but I don't know when that is coming.
We are well on our way to reaching $30,000 for our discovery costs, but still have quite a bit to go.
Thanks to everyone for your help and support.
-
Well, wonders never cease! :D
-
$85 has come in through PayPal. We now have a total of $6,110 on hand, with another $400 on the way, and another $900 pledged. Praise the Lord! If we hit $7,500, that will be 25% of the goal we have set for our discovery costs.
One gentleman wrote that he thought if we were innocent that the other side will cover all the costs, so he wasn't real sympathetic. But that's not how it works. You've got to come up with the money to pay the discovery costs in order to prove your case, and then when you win you can get your costs reimbursed.
I would like to ask special prayer for one of the individuals who donated a sizable amount. They need to find some employment, perhaps some jobs for their trade. Could you ask the Lord to bless them with work in return for their kindness?
The influence of the widow who gave her two mites is still at work!
-
I won't give minute by minute updates, but another $100 just came in.
-
To keep this topic from getting off track I moved Gailon's post into the What's Happening With The Lawsuit? topic.
-
$6,885.20 on hand, with another $700 on the way, and another $900 pledged to come in at some point.
I will start another thread at some point to post our expenses on, which will include PayPal and credit card discount fees.
-
As it would probably alert more willing people to donate to such an important cause, it's too bad this need wasn't also being advertised on the different Save 3ABN web sites, or is it?
I haven't really noticed it there.
-
$7,454.42 on hand, with another $700 on the way, and another $900 pledged to come in at some point.
Praise the Lord!
-
I believe a discreet notice on some of the copies of the save3abn site would be a good idea.
Inga
As it would probably alert more willing people to donate to such an important cause, it's too bad this need wasn't also being advertised on the different Save 3ABN web sites, or is it?
I haven't really noticed it there.
-
I believe a discreet notice on some of the copies of the save3abn site would be a good idea.
Inga
As it would probably alert more willing people to donate to such an important cause, it's too bad this need wasn't also being advertised on the different Save 3ABN web sites, or is it?
I haven't really noticed it there.
Could this be done please? Seems like a jolly good idea to me.
-
We'll have to look into various ways to get the word out.
For now, $7,880.53 on hand, with another $400 still supposed to come in, and $900 pledged to come in at some point in time.
-
We'll have to look into various ways to get the word out.
For now, $7,880.53 on hand, with another $400 still supposed to come in, and $900 pledged to come in at some point in time.
Time for an update, Bob. Must keep it open and transparent.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
We'll have to look into various ways to get the word out.
For now, $7,880.53 on hand, with another $400 still supposed to come in, and $900 pledged to come in at some point in time.
Time for an update, Bob. Must keep it open and transparent.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Yes please.
-
New month coming. Planning my giving and would like an update to help in making decisions. :dogwag: (love this dog!)
-
Thank you for your patience.
We've had $8,020.42 come in thus far, with PayPal fees of $7.30. We're supposed to still have that $400 and $900 coming in at some point.
I'd say we've had roughly $1000 in discovery expenses thus far, but it will be a little while before I can itemize that for everyone. Got to get a motion done.
-
We haven't had much come in lately. Maybe a $100 or so. And we are starting to spend it. More than half of what has come in has already been spent, as economically as possible.
Feel free to solicit assistance from your friends.
I talked with a pastor this week, and I was surprised to find out that he knew nothing about the lawsuit or any of what has been going on. He knew nothing about the Tommy allegations even. People need to know.
-
We'll have to look into various ways to get the word out.
For now, $7,880.53 on hand, with another $400 still supposed to come in, and $900 pledged to come in at some point in time.
Time for an update, Bob. Must keep it open and transparent.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Perhaps it would be a good idea, in the spirit of openess and transparency, to detail the donations that have come in and how those donated funds are being used so there isn't even the slightest hint of inurement or misuse of funds. I'm sure everyone who has donated funds would be pleased to be able to see that their money is going to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit, right? - and would feel more secure in making further donations with that supporting documentation.
-
Bob has been and will continue to be open and transparent.
-
GrandmaNettie;
Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency. I believe you are just phishing for facts to see the amount of support they have received.
-
... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...
Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.
More to come.
-
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.
GrandmaNettie;
Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency. I believe you are just phishing for facts to see the amount of support they have received.
-
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.
What are your words of wisdom for a vegetarian?
-
Reworded for the vegetarian:
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the cottage cheese loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.
of course if your vegan, then leave out any eggs, cheese and it is as follows:
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the tofu loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.
What are your words of wisdom for a vegetarian?
-
Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I re-read the thread and see that discovery costs is exactly where you said the donations were needed and would be used. I posed part of my post on the Topic title, Defence Fund Needed.
I still maintain that it would be wise to detail where the donations have been spent. Fran stated "Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency." What about potential donors who would like to be confident that their donations would be spent as advertised?
To those who perceive my posts as phishing for facts to see the amount of support received, while you are partially incorrect in your conclusion I do believe that one's perception becomes one's reality so I do not see the value in attempting to change your minds. Where you are correct is that I am, indeed, "phishing" for facts, as I always have been.
... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...
Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.
More to come.
-
Most gracious of you to adjust your comments for those with other lifestyle choices. :ROFL:
I'll take a serving of the vegan nutloaf avec the gravy, please.
Reworded for the vegetarian:
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the cottage cheese loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.
of course if your vegan, then leave out any eggs, cheese and it is as follows:
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the nut loaf as it does on the tofu loaf. Sounds, though, as if you like your loaf sans the gravy.
Oh no, no, no, no dear Fran. There is no need for phishing when one is merely pointing out that gravy works just was well on the goose as it does on the gander. Sounds, though, as if you like your goose sans the gravy.
What are your words of wisdom for a vegetarian?
-
And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?
-
Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away.
Since Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle have made such an issue of "transparency" and "openness" it would seem that when the same question, request, demand is put to them that they would have no problem publishing their receipts, itineraries, and anything else that can show a true and accurate accounting of their expenditure of the funds that have been provided them.
If you truly believe the veracity and integrity of these two, rather than trying to point at 3ABN or Danny, why don't you encourage them to be "open and transparent" to remove all doubt?
As for phishing for information about 3ABN or Danny you might be interesting in the courts latest actions in regards to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle's phishing expeditions. Seems as if their current one is caught in the doldrums with no bait and no wind in sight.
And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?
-
And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?
Very good Johann.
-
The judge in Illinois did not quash our subpoena, and the magistrate in Michigan ordered Remnant to produce documents.
-
Isn't it interesting how you can be honest and dishonest all at the same time.
You are correct Mr. Pickle, the judge didn't quash your subpoena (in the Illinois case where you seek all documents from 1998 forward applying to Danny Shelton and 3ABN). However, he did stay it and he told you, you better come up with some very good, solid, indisputable reasons why he shouldn't quash it on or before July 9. Additional, Atty. Simpson made a rock solid case against your request (in the Minnesota court) based on a few points, including the fact you didn't abide by Local Rule 7.1(g) . . . which requires you to make your case before the judge BEFORE filing the motion, this is clearly an attempt on your part at circumventing the previous court order. You must show "compelling" reason for the court to void its original decree and give you unmitigated access to the documents you so desperately want access to - and Atty Simpson was spot on when he said you are on a fishing expedition - he knows you and Mr. joy have nothing. You didn't make your case to the court before filing your motion and that would be in violation of the Local Rule 7.1(g) - which means you have no grounds >ever< to chastise, criticize, or make fun of (all of which you have done) any attorney you face who doesn't perfectly cross their "T's" and dot their "I's".
In Illinois the court found that your demands were overly broad, overly burdensome, and did not fit with in the scope of the case. And, I am going to guess that your actions in the Minnesota court will result in another set back on your part. It is obvious once again that if you would stop attempting to play an attorney on the Internet and focus on your case you might not make such errors. You may think your smarter than licensed attorneys but it isn't playing out that way. Maybe you can pick up a copy of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures as well as the State regulations in all the states you have now involved in the process, cross reference them, and be able to understand the expectations of you as you attempt to be your own attorney.
As for the Michigan situation . . . let's wait and see what happens Mr. Pickle, those buttons you been a poppin' might need to be sewed back on as they popped prematurely.
The judge in Illinois did not quash our subpoena, and the magistrate in Michigan ordered Remnant to produce documents.
-
Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away.
Since Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle have made such an issue of "transparency" and "openness" it would seem that when the same question, request, demand is put to them that they would have no problem publishing their receipts, itineraries, and anything else that can show a true and accurate accounting of their expenditure of the funds that have been provided them.
If you truly believe the veracity and integrity of these two, rather than trying to point at 3ABN or Danny, why don't you encourage them to be "open and transparent" to remove all doubt?
As for phishing for information about 3ABN or Danny you might be interesting in the courts latest actions in regards to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle's phishing expeditions. Seems as if their current one is caught in the doldrums with no bait and no wind in sight.
And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?
Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days? :oops:
Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc. :dunno:
It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease? :scratch: :rabbit:
-
Your commentary is incorrect, anyman.
Gregory Simpson said he faxed a document on June 6, and he said he mailed it too. I still haven't received either one.
Local Rule 7.1(g) concerns motions to reconsider. I did not file a motion to reconsider.
I do not believe the court in Illinois found any such thing.
-
Isn't it interesting how you can be honest and dishonest all at the same time.
You are correct Mr. Pickle, the judge didn't quash your subpoena (in the Illinois case where you seek all documents from 1998 forward applying to Danny Shelton and 3ABN). However, he did stay it and he told you, you better come up with some very good, solid, indisputable reasons why he shouldn't quash it on or before July 9........In Illinois the court found that your demands were overly broad, overly burdensome, and did not fit with in the scope of the case. ....
Your commentary is incorrect, anyman....I do not believe the court in Illinois found any such thing.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3abnDefended/message/108
Re: New file uploaded to 3abnDefended
The File is more aptly described "Judgment in favor of 3ABN in Illinois subpoena, w/ Pickle ordered to show cause"
What I find interesting is that after GRANTING 3ABN's Motion and STAYING the Subpoena Duces Tecum until further Court order; Judge Gilbert, basically went straight down the list of reasons 3ABN gave in his further order to Pickle and Joy:
"The Court further ORDERS the defendants to SHOW CAUSE on or before July 9, 2008, why the Court should not quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum
because it subjects a third party to undue burden, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(iv),
because it requires disclosing a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(B)(i),
and because it is not tailored to request records relevant or with a nexus to the issues in the underlying litigation."
.......
-
Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away.
Since Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle have made such an issue of "transparency" and "openness" it would seem that when the same question, request, demand is put to them that they would have no problem publishing their receipts, itineraries, and anything else that can show a true and accurate accounting of their expenditure of the funds that have been provided them.
If you truly believe the veracity and integrity of these two, rather than trying to point at 3ABN or Danny, why don't you encourage them to be "open and transparent" to remove all doubt?
As for phishing for information about 3ABN or Danny you might be interesting in the courts latest actions in regards to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle's phishing expeditions. Seems as if their current one is caught in the doldrums with no bait and no wind in sight.
And who will be phishing for facts to discover exactly how much this case is costing Danny Shelton and Co., and how he is getting the funds to pay for it? Wouldn't it also be nice to get the details - just like Bob is asked to do?
Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days? :oops:
Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc. :dunno:
It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease? :scratch: :rabbit:
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
-
Your commentary Mr. Pickle is misleading - but then that isn't a surprise.
The documents filed make it perfectly clear that you have not complied with the Local Rules. The question is did you do so knowingly or were you unaware of the Local Rules?
Sorry, I don't believe that you haven't received the document. Did you turn off your fax machine so you could make this claim? Did the power go out? Quite frankly I have no reason to doubt Atty. Simpson, but tons of reasons not to trust you.
As for the decision in the Illinois court, it doesn't matter what you think as the documents are rather clear. The Court sided with Atty. Simpson on each point he made and ordered you to make your case on or before July 9th. In case you didn't receive that document it is available for you to read, even download at no cost, from 3ABNDefended, go get yourself a copy.
Your commentary is incorrect, anyman.
Gregory Simpson said he faxed a document on June 6, and he said he mailed it too. I still haven't received either one.
Local Rule 7.1(g) concerns motions to reconsider. I did not file a motion to reconsider.
I do not believe the court in Illinois found any such thing.
-
anyman's quote.
"Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away."
This reminds me of a political tactic that was used by both Bushes that eventually got them elected. They both said the same thing of each of their candidates they were running against. Something about the oposing candidate waffled back and forth.
No truth to the statement but said enough times everyone believes the lie. (running for cover since this sounds like an anti-republican statement. I stand on Independent thinking not just blanket republican voting or blanket democrat voting.)
-
I stick to my guns as long as they keep repeating the same misinformation. Anything wrong with that?
-
Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days? :oops:
Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc. :dunno:
It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease? :scratch: :rabbit:
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.
Hadn't you noticed how alike their posts are GrandmaNettie? I would have thought that you'd be more astute than that, as anyman is quoting from what looks like Pacer documents, over at Ian's new site. Maybe, he's just plagiarising the information, without quoting the source? :dunno:
But then... you do raise an intersing question about rule violation. I hadn't thought about that, but now you mention it... I might have a yarn with the Moderators about it. Thanks for mentioning that. It had gone right over the top of my head.
The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
I'm sure that it would have to be a coincidence, as there is but one 'Ozzie' here, although I realise that more folk from the land of Oz have joined recently. :australia:
I've had some people from down-under (the land of Oz) ask me if this is a 'safe' Forum to come to, and at times, it difficult to answer that question. ???
-
anyman's quote.
"Are there really only misdirection plays in your play book Johann? Rather than respond to the questions put forth, you turn it around, over and over and over and over again. The question stands and all your discombobulation isn't going to make it go away."
This reminds me of a political tactic that was used by both Bushes that eventually got them elected. They both said the same thing of each of their candidates they were running against. Something about the oposing candidate waffled back and forth.
No truth to the statement but said enough times everyone believes the lie. (running for cover since this sounds like an anti-republican statement. I stand on Independent thinking not just blanket republican voting or blanket democrat voting.)
Oh dear. No polotics please! :ROFL: You'll either have people running for cover, or else there will be a free-for-all, and gracious me. It's coming up to Sabbath hours, so can't have that there 'ere.
-
:ROFL: :usa: :ROFL: :usa: when you find a good cover let me know I will be joining you... :ROFL: :usa:
-
You can knit all night with that yarn Ozzie and still come up with nothing to wear - kinda like the emperor.
Your suggestion of plagiarism is just another weak and ineffective attempt at misdirection or an attempt to minimize the impact of the truth upon your chosen perspective. Go have a look at the documents - do I use verbiage from them? Yes. Do I make the same points as they do? Yes - and thank you for proving my points. The fact of the matter is this, legal writing is rather formulaic and to discuss it one must do so in the terms appropriated to it. Now maybe it's different down under - but I am thinking not since the US and Aus. court systems both derive, to some significant extent, from the legal tradition of the United Kingdom.
Now you can continue the weak attempts at misdirection (you must be using Johann's play book) by trying to confuse people about anyman and Ian . . . but . . . no, go ahead, check. Ian is Ian and is many, many miles and bodies of water from me. You might want to take the time you would be wasting checking and head on over to 3ABNDefended and read the legal documents, you know, the ones that are written in "leagalease (sic)".
Has anyone noticed how much like Ian's writing Anyman's has become in the past few days? :oops:
Rather strange that it's taken on such a different tone in regard to sentence structure etc. :dunno:
It even has a lot of stuff that looks like it's been taken from Pacer documents. You know, a lot of leagalease? :scratch: :rabbit:
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective.
Hadn't you noticed how alike their posts are GrandmaNettie? I would have thought that you'd be more astute than that, as anyman is quoting from what looks like Pacer documents, over at Ian's new site. Maybe, he's just plagiarising the information, without quoting the source? :dunno:
But then... you do raise an intersing question about rule violation. I hadn't thought about that, but now you mention it... I might have a yarn with the Moderators about it. Thanks for mentioning that. It had gone right over the top of my head.
The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
I'm sure that it would have to be a coincidence, as there is but one 'Ozzie' here, although I realise that more folk from the land of Oz have joined recently. :australia:
I've had some people from down-under (the land of Oz) ask me if this is a 'safe' Forum to come to, and at times, it difficult to answer that question. ???
-
Sorry, I don't believe that you haven't received the document. Did you turn off your fax machine so you could make this claim? Did the power go out? Quite frankly I have no reason to doubt Atty. Simpson, but tons of reasons not to trust you.
And yet you have great difficulty documenting how I can't be trusted.
The fax never arrived. Neither did the copy he claimed he stuck in the mail. It has nothing to do with a fax machine being off, for if it was off, then Simpson's fax machine couldn't indicate that the fax had been sent!
It doesn't seem like you are trying at all to be fair.
As for the decision in the Illinois court, it doesn't matter what you think as the documents are rather clear. The Court sided with Atty. Simpson on each point he made and ordered you to make your case on or before July 9th.
I disagree. How could the court side with Simpson when it hadn't heard our side at all? And if it sided with Simpson on every point, why didn't it quash the subpoena?
-
even a idiot could see that is what you just did gramma. who you tryin to kid?
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
-
Only all of us kidders, Michael Kopper. It wasn't meant to be subtle. But please note that I didn't mention the member ID that seemed so similar to Ozzie's.
even a idiot could see that is what you just did gramma. who you tryin to kid?
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
-
I think it is quite obvious that someone other than the original anyman is using the anyman ID. And it is my opinion that it sounds quite a bit like Ian who is being fed information from someone with a legal background...BTJM...
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
-
Aren't there legal consequences for using confidential information that was obtained illegally?
Only all of us kidders, Michael Kopper. It wasn't meant to be subtle. But please note that I didn't mention the member ID that seemed so similar to Ozzie's.
even a idiot could see that is what you just did gramma. who you tryin to kid?
Ozzie, I trust you aren't indirectly inferring that anyman is Ian. Just remember Artiste's posted decree about such. Now, if you have clear reason to suspect that anyman is allowing Ian to use his ID to post, that would be a clear violation of Forum Rules #17 and #18 and should be reported, right?
However, if it is just a hunch on your part, an observation that anyman and Ian are sounding similar in their sentence structure and content, I guess that is just a matter of perspective. The funny thing is I had such a feeling as I read another member's post quite recently and remarked to myself how similar that member's post looked to yours, especially in the characteristic use of smilies. I'm sure it was merely coincidental though, and would never even think to publically draw the possible comparison.
I would hope that your post isn't a simple ad hominem tactic, attempting to divert attention away from anyman's statements. Varied opinions and POVs make for a much more meaningful discussion, you know.
-
Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I re-read the thread and see that discovery costs is exactly where you said the donations were needed and would be used. I posed part of my post on the Topic title, Defence Fund Needed.
I still maintain that it would be wise to detail where the donations have been spent. Fran stated "Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency." What about potential donors who would like to be confident that their donations would be spent as advertised?
To those who perceive my posts as phishing for facts to see the amount of support received, while you are partially incorrect in your conclusion I do believe that one's perception becomes one's reality so I do not see the value in attempting to change your minds. Where you are correct is that I am, indeed, "phishing" for facts, as I always have been.
... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...
Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.
More to come.
Not that I consider your concerns genuine, Grandma, and in fact wish to make clear I do NOT, but I do believe openness and transparency is in order. Donor names will be protected, but the expenses are simple enough and will be reported soon enough. On te other hand, if you are "contemplating" support, I am sure Bob could give you an impromptu statement.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Then that would be a private matter between the potential donor and the donee. Nobody else's business, including yours!! Why are you so interested in their business since you obvious do not support them? GAJ/BP do not claim to be a tax-exempt organization, a charity, a religious organization, a private foundation or any such legal entity, and they owe no one an explanation except donors who ask, IMO.
Thanks for the clarification, Bob. I re-read the thread and see that discovery costs is exactly where you said the donations were needed and would be used. I posed part of my post on the Topic title, Defence Fund Needed.
I still maintain that it would be wise to detail where the donations have been spent. Fran stated "Only the donors need to be advised of the open transparency." What about potential donors who would like to be confident that their donations would be spent as advertised?
To those who perceive my posts as phishing for facts to see the amount of support received, while you are partially incorrect in your conclusion I do believe that one's perception becomes one's reality so I do not see the value in attempting to change your minds. Where you are correct is that I am, indeed, "phishing" for facts, as I always have been.
... to its intended purpose - to pay for expenses incurred in preparing their defense for the defamation per se law suit ...
Sounds nice, but we haven't advertised it that way. We said it was going to go to pay for discovery costs rather than preparing our defense, the latter which could cover a wider range of expenses.
More to come.