Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Artiste]

I appreciate the more intelligent response today versus a few days ago on another thread, Ian. 

Perhaps Bob can address some of your concerns.

[Cindy]

I appreciate the more intelligent response today versus a few days ago on another thread, Ian.  

Perhaps Bob can address some of your concerns.

Thank you, but that is not necessary. I am very familiar with Bob's claims and views. I was talking to you, and asking for your independent thoughts and reasoning here.

But perhaps, another time...

[Bob Pickle]

Good news! The last few days Simpson has written me several times, even though I did not make the retraction he requested, though he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue.

Simpson's threat of January 10, 2010, included the following:

I will not respond to any efforts by you to communicate with me unless you first issue the retraction.

Guess he's changed his mind.

He wanted me to retract where I said on AdventTalk that he was a child molester. But I couldn't retract that since I never said it. And I don't know of anyone else here who has said such a thing.

So he was going to sue me here in Minnesota for defamation, for calling him a child molester, and then I was going to file a motion for summary judgment since I said no such thing.

[Artiste]

Good work, Bob!

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

And I was so looking forward to that lawsuit. I would have expected to become a party defendant and get yet another
opportunity to spar with our old mentor!!!! But, then who knows, he has a few months yet!!!

May I express my supreme disappointment and my sympathies are with you, Bob!!!

Waiting impatiently!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Cindy]

Good work, Bob!

What work was good?? What did he do that you are applauding here?

In addition, what are you even going on, have you even seen Bob quote Simpson, or quote what Simpson took exception to, or quote any of their discussions he is talking about, or seen any kind of evidence in regards to this topic? If so, what? If not, why are you giving Bob kudos?

And NO, in reference to an earlier post of yours here (# 16) I am not interested in Bob's answer here. You posted "Good work, Bob!" here, so I am asking YOU to explain that...

[Cindy]

Good news! The last few days Simpson has written me several times, even though I did not make the retraction he requested, though he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue.

Simpson's threat of January 10, 2010, included the following:

I will not respond to any efforts by you to communicate with me unless you first issue the retraction.

Guess he's changed his mind.

He wanted me to retract where I said on AdventTalk that he was a child molester. But I couldn't retract that since I never said it. And I don't know of anyone else here who has said such a thing.

So he was going to sue me here in Minnesota for defamation, for calling him a child molester, and then I was going to file a motion for summary judgment since I said no such thing.

Where is the email where he said what you claim, Bob? Where is the quote referencing what it was he actually asked you to retract? That would have been required in court, and it really is required here.

I have read enough here on this forum to know you have claimed he is the equivalent of a child molester.Iow, you have claimed he has protected a sexual abuser of children, and that he has covered up allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have even read more than several posts where you are questioning his salvation, and essentially say he is damned. (It really makes me feel sick.) Will you now claim you have done and said none of these things?

And You SAY "he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue."?

What issue, Bob, and for what? If you won't say and can't support what you are saying, what possible ethical and moral reason could you have to accuse him or even bring up and claim you are being threatened?

[Bob Pickle]

I have read enough here on this forum to know you have claimed he is the equivalent of a child molester iow, you have claimed he has protected a sexual abuser of children, and that he has covered up allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have even read more than several posts where you are questioning his salvation. (It really makes me feel sick.) Will you now claim you have done and said none of these things?

Where did I ever say that Simpson was the equivalent of a child molester?

Simpson has definitely tried to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, and that is an horrendously despicable thing for any lawyer to do while representing a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

As far as questioning his salvation goes, I am not omniscient. I have no idea who will repent and who will not. But I reject the heresies that someone doesn't have to repent of known sin in order to be saved, that one can be saved in sin, that breaking any of the 10 Commandments is not sin, that lying is not a sin, and that Rev. 21 and 22 are wrong when they say that all liars will be outside the New Jerusalem in the lake of fire.

It is easy for any liar is this whole scandal to be saved: All they need to do is repent and confess their sin, and Jesus' blood covers it. But according to the Word of God, repentance and confession are an absolute requirement.

And if anyone doesn't like that, they can take it up with the Judge who made the rules.

[Cindy]

I have read enough here on this forum to know you have claimed he is the equivalent of a child molester iow, you have claimed he has protected a sexual abuser of children, and that he has covered up allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have even read more than several posts where you are questioning his salvation. (It really makes me feel sick.) Will you now claim you have done and said none of these things?

Where did I ever say that Simpson was the equivalent of a child molester?

 I never claimed you said those words and you are intelligent enough to understand that especially as I explained what I meant "iow" in the balance of the sentence. See bold text above. And no, you aren't omniscient and don't know who will repent or who will not, but you certainly have no problem assuming guilt, and jumping up on the judgment seat of Christ and pronouncing who needs to repent and why as if you are.

But,  I really feel you ought to respect me and others enough to answer the ontopic questions asked of you before you start asking your own questions.

In case you didn't see them, here are all 5 again.

Where is the email where he said what you claim, Bob? Where is the quote referencing what it was he actually asked you to retract? That would have been required in court, and it really is required here.

...

And You SAY "he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue."?

What issue, Bob, and for what? If you won't say and can't support what you are saying, what possible ethical and moral reason could you have to accuse him or even bring up and claim you are being threatened?

[Bob Pickle]

Where is the email where he said what you claim, Bob? Where is the quote referencing what it was he actually asked you to retract? That would have been required in court, and it really is required here.

The email is on my computer, and the quote is in that email.

There is no rule here requiring me to post his email by a certain date.

And You SAY "he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue."?

What issue, Bob, and for what? If you won't say and can't support what you are saying, what possible ethical and moral reason could you have to accuse him or even bring up and claim you are being threatened?

The ethical and moral reason to say that Simpson threatened me is that it is true that he once again threatened me, and there is nothing barring me from stating the truth.

He threatened to seek sanctions if I filed a motion to file under seal, which I did over a week ago, and thus far he hasn't sought sanctions. When I asked him what his legal basis would be for seeking sanctions, he didn't state any.

We seem to have a track record here: He threatens and doesn't follow through. He said he would sue me and hasn't. He said he wouldn't communicate with me again unless I retract, and has communicated with me anyway. He told us he would seek a motion compelling us to consent to the return of the MidCountry records and never did. He told the judge in our Sept. 11, 2008, status conference that he was going to seek sanctions but never did. But in that last instance, we made it pretty clear to him that we had the goods on him on that one. We have regretted more than once that we didn't pursue sanctions over his shenanigans back then.

It is incredible how many times we've been threatened. When Jerrie Hayes sent us the non-confidential Rule 26(a)(1) materials, and we found in them Attorney James Greupner's confidential financial info, and we told Jerrie Hayes that we had found that, she threatened us, even though it was her fault, not ours, and we were kind enough to tell her what we had found.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Bob, I love threats, particularly from members of the bar...did you know that can be a violation of the DR's?

We have no alternative but to be prepared for this "defamation" case at any moment as no member of the
bar would ever make an idol threat. To do this would create a basis for a claim against the counsel.

As to Ian's fascination, may I suggest you continue your pattern of going directly to the source and get a
copy from your "insiders". Otherwise, you may wait like the rest of us for that inevitable service of complaint
and it will then become public record for al to see.

I also love the public record...it allows people to weigh the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion
that best suites them...just like IAN.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter