Print

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

[CRYSTAL]

Is it true that 3ABN employees can be fired for:

>Expressing doubts or questioning Danny Shelton in any way at 3ABN?

>Drinking coffee or any caffeinated drink at 3ABN?

>Eating meat at 3ABN?

>Wearing a wedding band or any type of jewelry at 3ABN?

>Favorable or supportive comments about Linda Shelton at 3ABN?

>Having conversations or friendships with persons who have been critical of Danny Shelton or 3ABN?

Does anyone have more information?

[Wendall]

Appears you need to hire a private detective to gather your facts to prove your points.

A few suggestions if you will-separate the questions into where 3abn has broken the law civil or criminal by personal actions or corporate actions. Allowing coffee, eating meat,wearing jewelry are religious issues to some  Adventists including me.  :usa:I believe that people if they have a business can restrict these types of actions on their premises for religious reasons without discrimination. Restricting these uses doesn't make the people bad or inconsiderate of others but is a type of exercising one's freedom of religion and freedom to conduct their own business on their own convictions. If a person must do those types of things then go some were else in a private business and practice them there. Obviously the government cannot make those types of restrictions.

Some people may also want to give the information as requested but are not inclined to do so for different reasons.

[Bob Pickle]

I agree, Wendall. But firing someone over meat or coffee or jewelry, and then not firing Danny who divorced his wife without biblical grounds, or not firing Melody for becoming pregnant out of wedlock, or not firing Tommy, or not firing Danny for laundering hundreds of thousands of dollars through Remnant into his own pocket, does that make any sense?

Jesus said the Pharisees were right in tithing, but complained that they had omitted the weightier matters of the law. What would He say to Danny and his cronies?

[Wendall]

NO SENSE AT ALL ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING WHAT 3ABN IS SUPPOSSED TO REPRESENT-TRUTH AND PURITY. It is confusing.

Is the legal ownership of 3abn actually DS? It appears that he is a dictator or whatever he says is law. I make that conclusion on the statements made on Advent Talk. The board there appears to be a group of people who are impervious to what their wrongdoings can cost 3abn financially. I think that one day when the hammer comes down that some people will come out of the woodwork with their own stories. I still have not heard of any of the people on the programs on 3abn publically denounce the actions at 3abn. Let all of us beware when the wrongs are corrected that certain people will then speak out then about the abuses. Where are they now? To speak out means they are probably removed from 3abn programming.

Nobody has appeared to be strong enough to stand up to DS and 3abn until you and Gailon arrived on the scene. What a position to be in to hold GOD'S TORCH up and be in such a public arena. I think if the people want to support you for one thing they should remember you and Gailon in their prayers that you both remain courageous and full of HIS SPIRIT that HIS WILL be accomplished. PRAISE GOD

Crystal,
I am serious you should consider having people be able to contact you with your requests in other ways beside here. You never know who might want to make a declaration about incidents they personally observed. It seems with all the allegations being presented that their must be some people willing to do so. Things change all the time with people, the person last week that wouldn't consider revealing information could this week tell more than you ever thought possible. If you know of people you could talk to about their personal experience at 3abn and want questions answered like the above you requested, then call or contact them.  They will say no, yes or give you a little information. Sometimes they may call you at a later date and suprise you with alot of information. It is kind of like a private detective.

[princessdi]

Now I don't know much about legal rights, they may vary from state to state, but most private corporations can fire you for whatever reason they see fit. However, it seems that when one is hired by 3ABN that these things are discussed.  As far and meat and jewelry, when not in court 3ABN claims to be an independent ministry which upholds Adventist doctrines and standard.  So that would be consistent with other Adventist institutions.  With jewelry they even get to enforce more than the church because they are not directly tied to the church and the GC policy/doctrine has somewhat changed in that area.

Now aobut Linda, yeah I can see that, too.  Danny and 3ABN have been vindictive and very nasty to her from the beginning.  So I can see them believing any employee supporting her in any way to be disloyal to Danny and 3ABN.  Once again, make sure you know the policies before you start working there.
The have to maintain that which they have stated as theri beliefs as far as Linda in concerned.  Danny and the officers may know it is a lie, but until they are willing to be truthful, they have to treat that lie like it's the truth.  Not saying it is right, just the way it is.

Is it true that 3ABN employees can be fired for:

>Expressing doubts or questioning Danny Shelton in any way at 3ABN?

>Drinking coffee or any caffeinated drink at 3ABN?

>Eating meat at 3ABN?

>Wearing a wedding band or any type of jewelry at 3ABN?

>Favorable or supportive comments about Linda Shelton at 3ABN?

>Having conversations or friendships with persons who have been critical of Danny Shelton or 3ABN?

Does anyone have more information?

[Johann]

Now I don't know much about legal rights, they may vary from state to state, but most private corporations can fire you for whatever reason they see fit. However, it seems that when one is hired by 3ABN that these things are discussed.  As far and meat and jewelry, when not in court 3ABN claims to be an independent ministry which upholds Adventist doctrines and standard.  So that would be consistent with other Adventist institutions.  With jewelry they even get to enforce more than the church because they are not directly tied to the church and the GC policy/doctrine has somewhat changed in that area.

Now aobut Linda, yeah I can see that, too.  Danny and 3ABN have been vindictive and very nasty to her from the beginning.  So I can see them believing any employee supporting her in any way to be disloyal to Danny and 3ABN.  Once again, make sure you know the policies before you start working there.
The have to maintain that which they have stated as theri beliefs as far as Linda in concerned.  Danny and the officers may know it is a lie, but until they are willing to be truthful, they have to treat that lie like it's the truth.  Not saying it is right, just the way it is.

You are in to something that is worth considering. I recall that Nick Miller took an active part in the process with firing Linda. He made it clear to me that he was not Danny Shelton's lawyer, but he was hired by 3ABN, so I guess the advise he gave at the time was only how he felt this would effect 3ABN. I recall him stating something like that the president of a private or independent ministry had the legal right to fire his vice president for any reason, and it was therefore legal for him  to fire Linda, even though she was not guilty.

So apparently that "right" was interpreted as his right to give any reason he could think of for firing her - towards others. ANd whatever reason he invented became the "truth" that he could use towards viewers who might not have accepted his real reason for firing his vice president, who happened to be his wife.

[WillowRun]

Somtimes...you just need say prayer.  Speak your piece and let the chips fall where they man.  God always takes  care of those who stand up for what is right.  When your primary loyalty is to God, everything else is easy.

[princessdi]

The kicker is that ALL of these people really should have remembered that they were christians, and calling themselves the "leaders in christian living".  So it made no difference what man's law allowed them to do, they should have been operating on God's law, His principles.  Instead of co-signing Danny's mess, the board should not have allowed him to use them as a weapon against Linda.  It was purely a marital issue, and the board should have told Danny that, and sidelined them BOTH until it was worked out in the best interest of the MINISTRY, not Danny.  That is what the board is supposed to be do.

[Bob Pickle]

Absolutely, Di.

It's like the retired conference official told me. Tommy should have been put on administrative leave and a proper investigation should have been had. He said he was outraged at how they did that tribute to Tommy instead.

[princessdi]

Actually, Tommy should never have been hired.  Even if there was no complaints to law inforcement, Danny knew, Tommy knew, Tommy's wife knew...the family knew, the church he left knew Tommy had a problem.  They never contested that he didn't have aproblem with sex with young /boysmen.  They should have been responsible enough not to place children in danger, and subjecting Tommy to undue temptation.

Absolutely, Di.

It's like the retired conference official told me. Tommy should have been put on administrative leave and a proper investigation should have been had. He said he was outraged at how they did that tribute to Tommy instead.

[Bob Pickle]

Di,

What's your honest opinion of this statement by Walt Thompson dated August 1, 2007?

"I have no further comments regarding Tommy. I fail to understand how giving Tommy employment may have endangered other victims any more than refusing him employment."

What exactly would lead someone to write a thing like that?

What does it even mean?

Actually, Tommy should never have been hired.  Even if there was no complaints to law inforcement, Danny knew, Tommy knew, Tommy's wife knew...the family knew, the church he left knew Tommy had a problem.  They never contested that he didn't have aproblem with sex with young /boysmen.  They should have been responsible enough not to place children in danger, and subjecting Tommy to undue temptation.

Absolutely, Di.

It's like the retired conference official told me. Tommy should have been put on administrative leave and a proper investigation should have been had. He said he was outraged at how they did that tribute to Tommy instead.

[Bob Pickle]

Di,

What's your honest opinion of this statement by Walt Thompson dated August 1, 2007?

"I have no further comments regarding Tommy. I fail to understand how giving Tommy employment may have endangered other victims any more than refusing him employment."

What exactly would lead someone to write a thing like that?

What does it even mean?

Hey Walt! Read http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_02_27_Zajac_PastStill.htm and you'll find that Edward Paquette was never criminally prosecuted because of the statute of limitations.

Now read http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20081221/NEWS02/81220027 and see how the diocese of Burlington is still out millions and millions of dollars anyway.

See! I was right! Your failure to properly investigate the allegations against Tommy Shelton jeopardized the financial stability of 3ABN. My interest in safeguarding 3ABN by bringing this indisputable fact to the attention of you and others was not misplaced.

So why did you sue me, Walt, when I was right? Why, Walt?

[Bob Pickle]

Hey Walt! Read http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2005_01_06/2005_02_27_Zajac_PastStill.htm and you'll find that Edward Paquette was never criminally prosecuted because of the statute of limitations.

Now read http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20081221/NEWS02/81220027 and see how the diocese of Burlington is still out millions and millions of dollars anyway.

See! I was right! Your failure to properly investigate the allegations against Tommy Shelton jeopardized the financial stability of 3ABN. My interest in safeguarding 3ABN by bringing this indisputable fact to the attention of you and others was not misplaced.

So why did you sue me, Walt, when I was right? Why, Walt?

Hey Danny! Did you read the above articles?

See! Mike Riva and you were dead wrong about the statute of limitations having run out making a difference. If Tommy dared molest any boys since 2001, it wouldn't have mattered one bit whether the statute of limitations had run out. 3ABN could have been out a lot of money, much more than what 3ABN paid 11 lawyers to harass and litigate Gailon and myself.

And because Elder Denslow is on 3ABN's board, because the Illinois Conference was previously aware of the allegations against Tommy, and because Mollie Steenson sits on the conference committee, your reprehensible actions in trying to shut up Glenn Dryden and others about the incredibly sick allegations against Tommy resulted in jeopardizing the financial stability of the Illinois Conference. How dare you do something like that to the cause of God!

Why, Danny, did you sue me since I was right after all? Why, Danny?

[princessdi]

At this point, Bob, they still have to act as if the lies they are telling are truth.  Basically they are locked in, until they decide to trust God at his Word, take the consequences and tell the truth.  So, of course, they have to act as if they could not possibly think of any reason why Tommy should have been hired, exposing all those innocent children.  It is the same as those who kept saying that the law of consent in IL was 17.  That would not work if it was their 17 year old child, but they had to maintain that position.  I don't expect any more or less from them.  Taht is their story and they are coing to stick to it!

We are not going to even get into the point that if charges had been filed against Tommy, and he found guilty, he would have had to register as a sex offender where ever he lived, from NOW ON!  If all of society can see the problem.............then WT and ALL of 3ABN see it, too.  They never said he didnt' do it, just that te boy was 17 and that was the age of consent in IL, and there were no formal charges with the police.  Does that make him any less and molester?...I think not.  But hey, why let all that get in the way of a good lie?    


 

Di,

What's your honest opinion of this statement by Walt Thompson dated August 1, 2007?

"I have no further comments regarding Tommy. I fail to understand how giving Tommy employment may have endangered other victims any more than refusing him employment."

What exactly would lead someone to write a thing like that?

What does it even mean?