Print

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

[Daryl Fawcett]

Respectful discussion only please and thank you.

[GrandmaNettie]

Because systems are about self preservation, not common sense, integrity and ethics. However, when whistleblowers stand up, frequently they find many others will stand with them and you develop the Enron affect: the "system" is brought to justice in time.

Someone just has to take that very first step...and you certainly know what that is all about, don't you, Johann...Linda has much to thank you for or we would not be where we are today without your efforts...too bad Linda doesn't recognize that and do us the justice of supporting the effort!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Okay, I notice that a couple other members have asked you for clarification on the meaning of your statement about Linda not supporting the effort for justice.  Instead of a straight and transparent answer, which I thought was what we were striving for here, you and Johann are, instead, playing word games.  Can we step aside from those for just a moment Gailon?  Please?

I know you are under enormous pressure presently.  You've got all that you are doing to meet the physical and financial demands of the law suit, you've got your bankruptcy case, and, per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated from your wife of many years.  Those are all tremendous stressors.  Now you are making it sound like you are being let down by Linda, that she is fighting against your efforts towards justice.  Is this the case?  Is this the message  you are meaning to shout to the watching world?  Nobody is trying to speculate, Gailon.  At least I don't believe so from the questions that I have seen posted.  It appears to me that there are some, probably many, who would simply would appreciate clarificaton for your huge statement about Linda so speculation can be nipped in the bud.

[Doodle]

Because systems are about self preservation, not common sense, integrity and ethics. However, when whistleblowers stand up, frequently they find many others will stand with them and you develop the Enron affect: the "system" is brought to justice in time.

Someone just has to take that very first step...and you certainly know what that is all about, don't you, Johann...Linda has much to thank you for or we would not be where we are today without your efforts...too bad Linda doesn't recognize that and do us the justice of supporting the effort!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Okay, I notice that a couple other members have asked you for clarification on the meaning of your statement about Linda not supporting the effort for justice.  Instead of a straight and transparent answer, which I thought was what we were striving for here, you and Johann are, instead, playing word games.  Can we step aside from those for just a moment Gailon?  Please?

I know you are under enormous pressure presently.  You've got all that you are doing to meet the physical and financial demands of the law suit, you've got your bankruptcy case, and, per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated from your wife of many years.  Those are all tremendous stressors.  Now you are making it sound like you are being let down by Linda, that she is fighting against your efforts towards justice.  Is this the case?  Is this the message  you are meaning to shout to the watching world?  Nobody is trying to speculate, Gailon.  At least I don't believe so from the questions that I have seen posted.  It appears to me that there are some, probably many, who would simply would appreciate clarificaton for your huge statement about Linda so speculation can be nipped in the bud.

That is true as far as I can tell, and from my POV.

Thank you, for rephrasing and clarifying what I in my limitted manner tried to.

[Johann]

Another psychic? or an alleged Christian who claims to  know motives and intents?

Eithor, or? Doesn't matter, it's apparently accompanied by a refusal, and lack of willingness to answer honest questions.

 

-- a disgusted doodle

Dear disgusted doodle,

Only God can read motives and intends, so please do not refer to the psychic, which has no place in this discussion.

Since you seem to be new here, you  may not have noticed how some of Danny defenders have twisted and spinned my words again and again, even more on BSDA, to make it very difficult for me to tell my story. They seem to be trying to plant a doubt in people's minds by questioning what I state as my personal experience in this matter.

I have given my story on a number of occasions, and this is what they seem to fear, that it will become public knowledge, and be accepted.

Much is at stake. This is why it will, in some cases, be more expedient I explain to the judge and jury what I have experienced, than to give a reply here where they have the possibility of sowing doubt and do some spinning of any reply I give to your honest question. A book seems unavoidable, to give the true story.

Whether disgusted or not, you are welcome here to doodle. Just make your doodling clear and distinct.

I will not reply to questions I feel are irrelevant at he moment, even though some are curious to know. If I feel the question is applicable right here and now, I will not hesitate. I am learning that many of the questions asked by some people here are not relevant and are asked in their attempt getting me out on weak limb where they think I will drop down. I can only tell you what I know from own experience, and not try to answer questions I have no way of knowing.

Gailon Arthur is doing his work completely independent of me. He has probably dug deep in things I know nothing about. So I cannot say yes or no to certain questions asked about what he says. That would be deception from my side. But those folks are trying to force a split between us by prying questions. Just don't you be one of them, and accept if I chose not to give an answer. The real hearing is not here on this net.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Well stated Pastor Johann.

[ImaAnt]

Considering your previous outstanding contributions I'd be tempted to discover to what extend you are capable of spinning a "yes" and also to see your tremendous missiles launched to explode any "no" I'd muster. I must admit those wishes
evaporate as I consider the possibilities of experiencing your reactions to my refusal to given any reply to your question. You are a great artist and I look forward to watch your colorful verbal splattering on the Sheltonian horizon. My question is how much light and understanding they will reveal this time. 

Johann,

I am tempted to merely reply with an "okey dokey."  However, I would like to correct the impression you seem to have concerning my possible response to your non-answer so it is not necessary to speculate.  I respect your right not to answer the question.  My sincerest apology that I did not include that as an option in my post. 

I am disappointed that you view any post of mine as spin or an attempt to do so as that has never been my agenda or intent.  Clarification of what a poster has said but never spin as i try to objectively look at the various issues presented on these boards and the agendas and motivations that underlie every post whether subtle or seemingly hidden.  I wish you well in your journey in these matters as I have never doubted your sincerity, loyalty and belief in the truth of what you personally experienced. 

[Snoopy]

For the record, I am disapointed in your lack of a response to what was asked of you, and  I cannot believe I am alone in that.

You injure yourself, and your own cause(?) here as far as I can tell.


-- Just a doodle

Respectfully, Doodle, I have asked many questions of the Dan Shelton supporters that have not been answered but instead are rebutted with ugly retorts.  Do you think the potential for injury goes both ways?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Okay, I notice that a couple other members have asked you for clarification on the meaning of your statement about Linda not supporting the effort for justice.  Instead of a straight and transparent answer, which I thought was what we were striving for here, you and Johann are, instead, playing word games.  Can we step aside from those for just a moment Gailon?  Please?

I know you are under enormous pressure presently.  You've got all that you are doing to meet the physical and financial demands of the law suit, you've got your bankruptcy case, and, per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated from your wife of many years.  Those are all tremendous stressors.  Now you are making it sound like you are being let down by Linda, that she is fighting against your efforts towards justice.  Is this the case?  Is this the message  you are meaning to shout to the watching world?  Nobody is trying to speculate, Gailon.  At least I don't believe so from the questions that I have seen posted.  It appears to me that there are some, probably many, who would simply would appreciate clarificaton for your huge statement about Linda so speculation can be nipped in the bud.

Anyone who knows me, and you certainly know me well enough, knows that I am relatively immune to "stressors"...however, I was quite bemused by your declaration of my seperation from my wife
...but I got the biggest kick out of the many calls of "tongue in cheek" condolences!!! Unfortunately, My wife was not as amused and requested your contact information. I will spare you the indignity!!!

As to your query, why would you require a response from me? You have connections on both sides of the isle and could, and most probably have, most certainly found an answer to your inquiry.
As for myself, I have already gotten the response I was looking for...and if I had wanted to simply "give" you an answer, would I not have done so? THerefore, you are left to your own inquiry and discovery!!!

Tell us the conclusion to your query and we can all be enlightened.  I already am bemused by your extrapolations...remember, we are at war...could it have been motivated by our frequent need of good intelligence???!!!

By the way, Grandma Nettie, if you go to Pacer for the Minnesotta case you will find exhibited the rest of the Miller documents that you have taken such exception to in the past. That and the other 31 exhibits are just a taste of what will be presented at trial, and why Miller is such an important "third party" to that process. Compare those letters to the letter that PB got from Miller that so perfectly defined him as an "adversarial witness". Then give me your take on his ethics and his integrity. Would you trust him with your religious freedoms? I grant you a sincere and honest Thank-you for your great service to us and to the Seventh-day Adventist Church... Keep up the great work!!!
https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt

Gailon Arthur Joy



 

[Gregory]

Gailon, please check your cited URL.  It does not work.

[Johann]

You will notice that I edited Gailon's post, but that was only the formatting so that Grandma Nettie's post would show clearly.

I have also tried to take a look at the PACER website, and I don't get in. Hope we can get the right URL.

[Bob Pickle]

Gailon, please check your cited URL.  It does not work.

One has to login to PACER and pull up the case before a link similar to that would work.

[GrandmaNettie]

Okay, I notice that a couple other members have asked you for clarification on the meaning of your statement about Linda not supporting the effort for justice.  Instead of a straight and transparent answer, which I thought was what we were striving for here, you and Johann are, instead, playing word games.  Can we step aside from those for just a moment Gailon?  Please?

I know you are under enormous pressure presently.  You've got all that you are doing to meet the physical and financial demands of the law suit, you've got your bankruptcy case, and, per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated from your wife of many years.  Those are all tremendous stressors.  Now you are making it sound like you are being let down by Linda, that she is fighting against your efforts towards justice.  Is this the case?  Is this the message  you are meaning to shout to the watching world?  Nobody is trying to speculate, Gailon.  At least I don't believe so from the questions that I have seen posted.  It appears to me that there are some, probably many, who would simply would appreciate clarificaton for your huge statement about Linda so speculation can be nipped in the bud.

Anyone who knows me, and you certainly know me well enough, knows that I am relatively immune to "stressors"...however, I was quite bemused by your declaration of my seperation from my wife
...but I got the biggest kick out of the many calls of "tongue in cheek" condolences!!! Unfortunately, My wife was not as amused and requested your contact information. I will spare you the indignity!!!

Yes, I have gotten to know you quite well over the last 1.5 years. I have clearly seen how you have treated those who you feel are questioning your actions in this investigation.  It is why I have chosen to have little further communication with you.  I have made exceptions recently and your statement against Linda Shelton drew another out of me.  I did attempt to find an answer behind the scenes but was less than successful.

I have bolded and highlighted in red the preface to my statement about your legal separation from your wife.  It was not an assumption or an extrapolation.  I read it in black and white in court documents over a month ago.

You and others can find the document in question, GJBankdoc5081407.pdf(40.08k) in fallible humanbeing's post of January 22, 2008.

"Part II. CALCULATION OF MONTHLY INCOME.... " has the box by b checked which states:

b. Married, not filing jointly with declaration of separate households.  By checking this box, debtor declares under penalty of perjury: "My spouse and I are leagally separated under applicable non-bankruptcy law or my spouse and I are living apart other than for the purpost of evading the requirements of (symbol) 707(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code." Complete only column A ("Debtor's Income") for Lines 3-11.

As to your query, why would you require a response from me? You have connections on both sides of the isle and could, and most probably have, most certainly found an answer to your inquiry.
As for myself, I have already gotten the response I was looking for...and if I had wanted to simply "give" you an answer, would I not have done so? THerefore, you are left to your own inquiry and discovery!!!

Tell us the conclusion to your query and we can all be enlightened.  I already am bemused by your extrapolations...remember, we are at war...could it have been motivated by our frequent need of good intelligence???!!!

By the way, Grandma Nettie, if you go to Pacer for the Minnesotta case you will find exhibited the rest of the Miller documents that you have taken such exception to in the past. That and the other 31 exhibits are just a taste of what will be presented at trial, and why Miller is such an important "third party" to that process. Compare those letters to the letter that PB got from Miller that so perfectly defined him as an "adversarial witness". Then give me your take on his ethics and his integrity. Would you trust him with your religious freedoms? I grant you a sincere and honest Thank-you for your great service to us and to the Seventh-day Adventist Church... Keep up the great work!!!
https://ecf.mnd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt

Gailon Arthur Joy

I queried you about the statement against Linda's lack of support because you are the one who made it.  I do not require an answer but  I hoped for one so I could understand the reasoning behind your statement about Linda's lack of support of the cause.  How would any of my "contacts on both sides of the aisle"(I take it you are referring to my friend FHB who trades nature photographs, music, anecdotes about parenting with me, discusses current world and political events with me, and who doesn't see eye to eye with me on this 3abn situation but sometimes we discuss it anyway?) know what was in your mind that was the motivation for your statement.  The person I approached, one firmly on your side of the aisle, urged me to ask you, so I did.

As for the rest of  your statement, if you are comfortable demonstrating to all readers how you are gleefully willing to use and manipulate people to reach your goals that is fine by me.  I don't feel used because I wasn't.  Had you asked me directly to contact Nick Miller to ask his permission to post his email before it met all of the conditions for posting, I would have been happy to do so.  If you needed to use a form of trickery to ascertain that he was an adversarial witness, I'm happy that I could oblige because it also made it a bit more clear to me who you are and what you are willing to do in your pursuit of information. I guess that makes it a win-win situation.

If Mrs. Joy still wishes to contact me, please feel free to allow her to do so.  I will be happy to read the document to her over the phone so she can understand why I made the statement I did.

Jeanette

[GrandmaNettie]

I make no pretense of being one who has any great understanding of things legal, but I can see that my stating "per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated" was potentially inaccurate since choice "b" also states "or my spouse and I are living apart other than for the purpose of evading the requirements of (symbol) 707(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code."  I should have not included "legally" in my statement.

Either way, legally separated or living apart other than for the purpose of evading the requirements of the bankruptcy code, isn't the point of checking box "b" to show that the married couple is separated and that the other spouse's income should not be considered in the bankruptcy case because of that separation?

If the separate living quarters is just a case of personal preference, like Woody Allen and Mia Farrow lived for years, that would not preclude the income of Mrs. Joy from being considered in the bankruptcy, would it?

[Snoopy]

I make no pretense of being one who has any great understanding of things legal, but I can see that my stating "per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated" was potentially inaccurate since choice "b" also states "or my spouse and I are living apart other than for the purpose of evading the requirements of (symbol) 707(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code."  I should have not included "legally" in my statement.

Either way, legally separated or living apart other than for the purpose of evading the requirements of the bankruptcy code, isn't the point of checking box "b" to show that the married couple is separated and that the other spouse's income should not be considered in the bankruptcy case because of that separation?

If the separate living quarters is just a case of personal preference, like Woody Allen and Mia Farrow lived for years, that would not preclude the income of Mrs. Joy from being considered in the bankruptcy, would it?

Jeannette,

I have been trying very hard to refrain from responding to this last series of posts, but I find myself being overcome by disappointment.  Knowing you as well as I thought I did, I fail to see the point in your bringing this information here at all with the exception of casting aspersions on him and satisfying a certain amount of vindictiveness...  What on earth does Mr. Joy's marital status have to do with anything that you are trying to accomplish??

Ducking and running but still sad,

Snoopy

[GrandmaNettie]

I make no pretense of being one who has any great understanding of things legal, but I can see that my stating "per your bankruptcy documents you are legally separated" was potentially inaccurate since choice "b" also states "or my spouse and I are living apart other than for the purpose of evading the requirements of (symbol) 707(b)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code."  I should have not included "legally" in my statement.

Either way, legally separated or living apart other than for the purpose of evading the requirements of the bankruptcy code, isn't the point of checking box "b" to show that the married couple is separated and that the other spouse's income should not be considered in the bankruptcy case because of that separation?

If the separate living quarters is just a case of personal preference, like Woody Allen and Mia Farrow lived for years, that would not preclude the income of Mrs. Joy from being considered in the bankruptcy, would it?

Jeannette,

I have been trying very hard to refrain from responding to this last series of posts, but I find myself being overcome by disappointment.  Knowing you as well as I thought I did, I fail to see the point in your bringing this information here at all with the exception of casting aspersions on him and satisfying a certain amount of vindictiveness...  What on earth does Mr. Joy's marital status have to do with anything that you are trying to accomplish??

Ducking and running but still sad,

Snoopy

You know I adore you, Snoopy, and you do know me as well as you thought you did.  I hate to feel that I have disappointed anyone because I am human and relish affirmation and acceptance, but you know you would be disappointed with me if I didn't speak my mind here and there, if I didn't continue to search for truth and understanding. 

What was I trying to accomplish? I was trying to understand why Gailon made that statement against Linda.  As I said in my post to him, I can imagine the pressure he is under and then I had the bankruptcy document that had the "b" in Section II checked showing that he and his wife of so many years were separated.  All of these factors made me wonder if he had gotten so frustrated by all of the pressures that, perhaps, he was showing some of the frustration here when he was expressing his displeasure about Linda not supporting the cause.  His statement against Linda shocked me, Snoopy.  I didn't want to jump to conclusions so I tried to find out what the story was.  As I said, my behind the scenes attempts failed and the person I was discussing this with suggested it would be best to ask Gailon, so I did.