Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Long ago a conference official recommended that I contact an elder in his conference who had training with Peace Makers, a non-Adventist ministry. So I did. The program and approach they offer sounded great.

An Adventist ministry of that sort is run by Charlie Brown, his real name. I had a long chat with him as well.

These ministries emphasize settling differences upon biblical principles rather than using lawsuits, courts, and worldly lawyers. The elder told me that one thing they try to do is persuade the individuals to admit where they were wrong, which is what 1 Jn. 1:9 is all about.

The times that Simpson and I have talked about settling, I've emphasized the absolute necessity that it be based on biblical principles. I've even talked to him about 1 Jn. 1:9, and how that's required before any of us can get into heaven. At one point he said that these kinds of things are out of his realm.

So you want to know another reason why Danny Shelton and 3ABN moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit? Because they are in apostasy. They refused to settle the matter based on biblical principles. They consciously chose to reject the very biblical principles they claim to be preaching to the world. What rank hypocrisy.

And to think that Danny Lee Shelton (aka "Moses" aka "John the Baptist") and 3ABN hired worldly lawyers like Simpson (who know how to lie but think that settling on biblical principles is too foreign an idea) to harass and persecute people who think that covering up child molestation allegations and taking donor funds is wrong!

[Gregory]

Bob said:

Now does this sound like 3ABN working behind the scenes to get us to dismiss the suit they filed?

* * *

Now Gregory had told me before sending this that this would be a proposal that would allow the suit to end without anyone winning. Yet since the suit was filed to shut us up, if we agreed to shut up, how would that mean that no one would win? That makes no sense.

 Bob, of course 3-ABN would not be working behind the scenes to get you to dismiss the lawsuit that 3-ABN had filed.  That would be nonsense.  There was a time when 3-ABN was woking behind the scenes to see if an agreement would be reached with you by which they would dismiss their lawsuit.  Part of my involvement with one of these attempt was by telephone with you.  In that conversation you clearly understood that the issue was that of an agreement with you for the terms by which they would dismiss their lawsuit.  You not only understood that but you responded with comments as to what it would take for you to agree to such.  As I consider that conversation to be private, I do not intend to comment further on this issue.  You can say whatever you want about that conversation. 

No, Bob, even if you "shut up," there would be no winners, in my estimation.  You do not have to agree with me.  But I see the issue much more complex than that.  There has been much more involved, in my thinking than simply shutting you up.  But, you can hold whatever opinion that you chose to hold.  I will not attempt to chage your mind.

[Gregory]

Let me be very clear, Bob.  As far as I know, Ronie Shelton never had any contact with me at any time.  If he did it must have been under circumstances where I did not know it was him.

Further, no one associated with either Danney or 3-ABN ever contacted me and warned me that I   might become a defendent in a lawsuit.

I have publicly stated that I was once contacted by an attoney who represented Danny.  That was long before a lawsuit was ever in disucssion.  That attorney did not threaten me in any way, shape, form or manner.  I have publicly stated the content of that conversation.

Yes, there were several people whom I did not believe were acting on behalf of either Danny or 3-ABN who did warn me that I might become the subject of a lawsuit.  I believe that both you and Gailon warned me.  Perhaps I am wrong and I am not 100  per-cent ceertain.  In any case, I did not associate either you or Gailon as being the "henchmen" of Danny/3-ABN, or of acting on their behalf.  Please correct me if you were doing so.

As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation:  A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law.  For that you should seek the advice of a competent attorney.  I am not such.  I do not intend to fill the role of teaching you law.

As to your comments about you taking a shower and attempting to charge for it:  My first comment came directly from a document filed with the court that bore your signature.  My second came from a doucment filed with the court that bore the signature of an attormen for 3-ABN.  At the time I made that comment both docuemnts were available to the public.  I stand by what I said.

Following that I asked a question in regard to whether or not you might file a statment with the court that you would not have taken a shower if  you had not been involved in litigation.  It was a question.  I know nothing as to how often you shower, or if you do.  My comment was tongue in cheek.  I did not imply that you do not clean your body in an approprite time and manner.  I do not think that anyone would ever draw any conclusions from my question that you do not clean your body in a timely manner.
Bob, I do not owe you an apology.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, of course 3-ABN would not be working behind the scenes to get you to dismiss the lawsuit that 3-ABN had filed.  That would be nonsense.

Thank you for responding, Gregory.

I am glad we agree on this point. So then I misunderstood you when you wrote, "It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit."

There was a time when 3-ABN was woking behind the scenes to see if an agreement would be reached with you by which they would dismiss their lawsuit.  Part of my involvement with one of these attempt was by telephone with you.

Is that the same time you sent the proposal that said, "Please keep in mind as you ponder this, I can provide no verification that what my contact told me is accurate or truthful. My contact did not ask me to contact you or even suggest that I do anything. ... It could be an elaborate set-up to check on the flow of information or simply the wishful thinking of someone desperately tired of this saga"?

Or are you referring to another time?

[Bob Pickle]

As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation:  A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law.  For that you should seek the advice of a competent attorney.  I am not such.  I do not intend to fill the role of teaching you law.

Would you please knock it off with such condescending, offensive comments.

As to your comments about you taking a shower and attempting to charge for it:  My first comment came directly from a document filed with the court that bore your signature.  My second came from a doucment filed with the court that bore the signature of an attormen for 3-ABN.  At the time I made that comment both docuemnts were available to the public.  I stand by what I said.

Following that I asked a question in regard to whether or not you might file a statment with the court that you would not have taken a shower if  you had not been involved in litigation.  It was a question.  I know nothing as to how often you shower, or if you do.  My comment was tongue in cheek.  I did not imply that you do not clean your body in an approprite time and manner.  I do not think that anyone would ever draw any conclusions from my question that you do not clean your body in a timely manner.
Bob, I do not owe you an apology.

Mat. 5:23 suggests otherwise.

Your comment provided an opportunity to ridicule. That was wrong.

And what does Simpson's ignoring of the payment for the MidCountry Bank records and concentrating on a $6 shower really mean? That somehow truckers across this country who buy showers at truck stops rather than paying for rooms at motels are somehow on a lower level than lawyers who bill at $300 an hour.

[Bob Pickle]

Let me be very clear, Bob.  As far as I know, Ronie Shelton never had any contact with me at any time.  If he did it must have been under circumstances where I did not know it was him.

Further, no one associated with either Danney or 3-ABN ever contacted me and warned me that I   might become a defendent in a lawsuit.

I have publicly stated that I was once contacted by an attoney who represented Danny.  That was long before a lawsuit was ever in disucssion.  That attorney did not threaten me in any way, shape, form or manner.  I have publicly stated the content of that conversation.

So if you were on their hit list, Gregory, why didn't you get sued?

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, of course 3-ABN would not be working behind the scenes to get you to dismiss the lawsuit that 3-ABN had filed.  That would be nonsense.

Thank you for responding, Gregory.

I am glad we agree on this point. So then I misunderstood you when you wrote, "It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit."

To be crystal clear in what I was saying, I apologize for misunderstanding your statement.

[Bob Pickle]

As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation: A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law.

You wrote:

In an interesting development in this case, Bob Pickle has filed a motion in Federal Court in which he requests that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton compensate people for dropping the lawsuit against he and Gailon Joy.

Where did I ever request 3ABN and Danny Shelton to compensate people for dropping the lawsuit? And what statutes or cases ever put it that way?

[Gregory]

Bob said:

And what does Simpson's ignoring of the payment for the MidCountry Bank records and concentrating on a $6 shower really mean? That somehow truckers across this country who buy showers at truck stops rather than paying for rooms at motels are somehow on a lower level than lawyers who bill at $300 an hour.

Bob, of course not.  As a matter of fact, truckers are able to deduct the cost of a $6.00 shower, so are $300 per hour attornies, and so could you have done so if you had done it right.  The ridicule came from the 3-ABN attorney not me.  The redicule came because you submitted a document to the court that did not claim expenses, in part (I do not say in the whole.) in the correct manner that would have been acceptable to the court.

NOTE:  I am NOT making any statement in regard to the issue as to whether or not statute and case law allowed you to collect compensation.  I do not know whether or not you are allowed any compensation.  I do not claim to know such.

Because you did not claim expenses in the correct manner, the 3-ABN attorney was able to have some fun with you.  You set yourself up for his doing so.  If you had claimed that expense correctly, he could have challenged your clailm, but he would have been unable to have made fun of your claim.

My comment that I am not here to teach you law is a statement to fact.  There are laws that prohibit me, as one who is not a licensed attorney from doing anything that might be considered the practice of law.  If I were to tell you exactly how you should have claimed the expense of a shower someone might accuse me of practicing law.  So, I did not do so.

But, it does not constitute the practice of law for me to tell you that truckers are able to decuct and/or claim as an expense the money that they paid for taking a shower.  I can tell you as I did, that you should have done it in the same manner. But, I refrained from the practice of law by not commenting on the underlying issue as to whether or not you are entitled to compensation in any manner.  I am not competent to make such statements. So, I did not.  If you are entitled to compensation then there is a manner to claim your shower.  If you are not entitled to compensation no manner of claiming that expense will get you paid.  The underlying issue governs, not the manner in which you claimed it.


So, for that reason, I say again get your questions answered from someone competent to answer them and that person is not me.   I do not practic law. 

[Bob Pickle]

If what you say is true, then it shows how low Simpson and Shelton have stooped. Just because I didn't do or word something exactly right, they stoop so low as to quibble over a $6 shower? After wasting my time the last year and a half with their frivolous, unconstitutional, anti-Adventist lawsuit?

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory,

You mentioned "compensation" again. Have you seen any statutes or cases that use that term for this kind of situation? Typically, that term in everyday English suggests a paycheck received for employment.

Also, you indicated familiarity with case law and statutes dealing with this general topic. Did you get any assistance in that from anyone who is not a licensed attorney?

[Fran]

As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation:  A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law.  For that you should seek the advice of a competent attorney.  I am not such.  I do not intend to fill the role of teaching you law. 

Would you please knock it off with such condescending, offensive comments.

I also find that comment extremely offensive!  Greg, tell us where you have had to defend yourself because you had no insurance or could not afford an attorney?  Where did you get all your legal experience?  Since when did you feel you would be qualified to give anyone legal advice?  Of course, those of us who have read your posts know you have legal insurance and would never have to defend yourself!  I guess you would have funds to buy legal services if needed?  How would you do against the legal force that is against Bob and Gailon?  I find your comments very offensive! 

I believe Bob has made himself very clear!  Yes, I understood the expense about that shower when I read it.  It takes a very small person to ridicule someone else in such a manner!

You said you were saying what was said in documents in public domain.  Yet, did you use quote marks?  Did you cite the documents?  Did you say who you were quoting?  No you did not.  Thus, what you wrote would be taken as your comments!  Get real.

As to your comments about you taking a shower and attempting to charge for it:  My first comment came directly from a document filed with the court that bore your signature.  My second came from a document filed with the court that bore the signature of an attorney for 3-ABN.   At the time I made that comment both documents were available to the public.  I stand by what I said.

Following that I asked a question in regard to whether or not you might file a statement with the court that you would not have taken a shower if  you had not been involved in litigation.  It was a question.  I know nothing as to how often you shower, or if you do.  My comment was tongue in cheek.  I did not imply that you do not clean your body in an appropriate time and manner.  I do not think that anyone would ever draw any conclusions from my question that you do not clean your body in a timely manner.
Bob, I do not owe you an apology.

Greg, Next time maybe you should cite thee documents from which you are quoting?  When reading your comment, I had read the documents, but since you did not quote them, I took it to mean you agreed with the comments you stated.  And now, I am sure they are your opinion also since you stand behind them!

Mat. 5:23 suggests otherwise.

Your comment provided an opportunity to ridicule. That was wrong.
And what does Simpson's ignoring of the payment for the MidCountry Bank records and concentrating on a $6 shower really mean? That somehow truckers across this country who buy showers at truck stops rather than paying for rooms at motels are somehow on a lower level than lawyers who bill at $300 an hour.

Good question, Bob.

[Gregory]

Fran and Bob:

I am looking for the post that I made but I have not found it.  So, I will go to the post from Bob and here is what he said:

On Nov. 29, 2008, Gregory also wrote:


Quote
As a point of interest, at one point they say: "In the annals of jurisprudence, it is doubtful that anybody ever sought reimbursement for a shower as a litigation cost. . . .Presumably he [Bob Pickle] would have showered anyway." Perhaps Bob will file a rebuttal which states that he would not have showered if he had not been involved in litigation?

We filed our response I believe on Dec. 8. It is now Dec. 21. How come Gregory has not yet corrected the obvious error in the above statement?

PLease note th following from Bob's post:

1) I said, "they say."  That surely indicates that I am quoting from someone else.

2) Bob placed part of my post in quotation marks.  Note the quotation mark as follows:  "In the annals. . .  [and]  . . . showered anyway."  I believe that I was quite clear to anyone who would have read my post with any kind of carafullness.  I was quoting from another document.

[Bob Pickle]

The issue I had was not whether you were quoting Simpson. The issue was that your comment after your quotation left the impression that you were joining Simpson in his ridicule of those who may try to economize more than an attorney does who bills at $300 an hour.

[Fran]

Exactly!