Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

While the title may sound wild, the topic of this thread will be very easy to follow. First, comments by Attorney John Pucci in the May 10, 2007, hearing in our case, with emphasis added:

MR. PUCCI: They have, and I cite now to an affidavit. I cite now in support of our memorandum filed in this Court, which is filed in this Court, we filed a collection of postings from the website, and there is a posting, for instance, that talks about Mr. Shelton purloining book profits, a clear -- from -- from the Three ABN ministry, a clear declaration that Mr. Shelton, you know, is stealing -- stealing the enterprise he has fiduciary obligations to. And that particular e-mail, or posting is under the posting captioned Danny Shelton's book deals. If the Court filters down to Danny appears to confirm the problem, you can see there the allegation that he has been stealing profits from book deals. It's defamation per se. It accuses him of a crime. Under Massachusetts law that's defamation per se, and it accuses his -- it injures his reputation and his business and profession, which again is -- is defamation per se in Massachusetts. Towards the end of that filing, the last posting is captioned by Mr. Joy, Financial allegations against Danny Shelton, and it has a collection of bullet points, one, two, three and four. They're not numbered, but they're bullet points, and each of those bullet points alleges a crime by Mr. Shelton.

Whether Pucci is correct in all his assertions about what we said is not the issue. Here's another one:

The First Circuit cases that look at the issue are generally not defamation cases, and this case is a trademark and defamation case, defamation at the core of the issues before the Court in this impoundment proceeding. And under Massachusetts law -- it's a state tort. Under Massachusetts law, there are two types of defamation, which Mr. Joy has engaged in, which are defamation per se in which damages are presumed, and I would submit at the outset that -- and I cite -- I'm not sure if I can pronounce this -- it's 438 Mass. 627. It's the Massachusetts case, which specifically holds that statements that charge a plaintiff with a crime amount to defamation per se in which the Court would be required to -- to instruct the jury that damages are assumed and not presumed. That case also holds that damages may be presumed where statements are made that prejudice to the plaintiff's profession or business, and certainly the allegations that Mr. Shelton has fleeced his flock by stealing book proceeds and the other allegations set forth under Mr. Joy's own postings about financial impropriety satisfy that test.

[Bob Pickle]

Notice how he claimed that the book deal allegations were defamation per se, and that damages were assumed. His allegations put us at a strategic disadvantage. They didn't have to prove damages, as he pointed out, since damages were assumed. And the burden was to a degree shifted onto us to prove that what we said was true, instead of them having to prove that what we said was false.

[Bob Pickle]

Now for what Attorney Jerrie Hayes said in the status conference of December 14, 2007, with emphasis added.

Our position, frankly, is that both Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle should have conferred to the truth of the statements that they made about 3ABN and Danny Shelton or literally satisfied themselves that the statements weren't false, and so they should already have in their possession whatever documents, statements, materials, and other information that they used in order to allay their own concerns about the truth or falsity of those statements. There's nothing, as far as we're concerned, that they would need more to prove a defensive truth at least, and we feel that it's really nothing more than a blatant attempt to harass and abuse the plaintiffs by trying to dig up some scrap of fact that provides post hoc verification of the statements they've made.

[Bob Pickle]

Okay, here's the point. Danny Shelton's paranoia as far as producing documents go led him to insist that we should have already had as many documents as necessary to prove our case in court before we ever published a thing.

Here in America we have the First Amendment, which guarantees a free press. But Danny's lawsuit launched a war against our free press rights.

Think about it. If every reporter had to be able to prove their case in court before they reported a story, would they ever report a thing?

You can't force the press to have to abide by Federal Rules of Evidence and still have the press be free. The press must have a different standard than the courtroom.

Imagine if every Adventist evangelist and pastor and press and author had to make sure they could prove each point in court before printing or preaching. Is that the kind of world you want?

And thus, because Danny Shelton's lawsuit was such a blatant attack against the free press guarantees of the First Amendment, calling his lawsuit anti-American seems fitting.

[Bob Pickle]

I got a message from anyman. He's been here early today.

There is nothing un-American about the law suit you invited upon yourself. You display a tremendous failure to understand the law and an ever increasing skill at inaccurately citing cases to support your position.

I guess he didn't read closely what I wrote above.

You fail to understand that the freedom to speak one's mind carries with it responsibility (thus laws re: defamation) and there are consequences when one fails to meet the defined responsibility. You failed. You are wrong. The consequence is you have been held to the responsibility, you don't like it, so now you commence the crying game you are carrying on.

No, I never failed to understand. I've always understood that. Speaking one's mind carries with it responsibility.

The issue is discovery, not responsibility. Expecting the press to be able to prove what they say in court, by court standards, without producing requested documents, is wrong, and every organization that promotes First Amendment freedoms would take issue with what Danny tried to do.

Recently an expert on the First Amendment and freedom of speech reviewed your papers of process and simply responded that should you try to make this, in the courts, an issue of speech freedom you will make one appearance and be ushered out of the court for wasting its time.

If Greg's First Amendment "expert" disagrees with what I said above, I wouldn't consider him or her much of an expert.

[Bob Pickle]

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Independent-sources

At the bottom it says: "Famously, the New York Times's minimal standard for directly reporting a fact (rather than attributing it to a certain speaker) is that it be verified by at least two independent sources."

Think you can prove the truth in court of something you said based on two or more anonymous sources? That would be called hearsay.

Thus court and press have different standards, and thus it should be.

[Johann]

This is getting interesting. Keep on! 

[Eduard]

Bob,

So, these are some of Danny Shelton’s attorneys. Well, they seem to be just like him: ignorant, illiterate, arrogant, and vicious. He has probably picked them all from the East River cardboard boxes. John Pucci’s statements to the court are a perfect example of legal mumbojumbo. It is mind-boggling that such individuals arrogate the expertise to teach people about morality, logic, and civic responsibilities when they are not even able to express half of dozen coherent thoughts.


It is a pity that <anyman> doesn’t even take time to read WIKIPEDIA and understand the concept of “whistle blowing.” It is truly pathetic that he doesn’t grasp the notion that “A whistleblower is a person who alleges misconduct” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower).  He seems to be totally amnesic about the dozens of 3ABN employees who have tried for years to expose (that is, whistle blow) all the deception, perversion, embezzlement, and theft that have been taking place under the “leadership” of the “prophet.”  He conveniently forgets that those employees have been harassed, fired, and persecuted by Danny Shelton who has tried to destroy them financially, physically, and emotionally because they have dared to reveal some of the evil things that have been going on for much too long at 3ABN.

<anyman> also talks about responsibility, but certainly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word he uses so liberally in his “legal” comments. He fails to comprehend that whistleblowers come into play when people like Danny Shelton have abused their privileges, that is, they have abdicated their RESPONSIBILITIES, and that whistleblowers feel that it is THEIR RESPONSIBILITY to call those evil doers back to RESPONSIBILITY.


<anyman> has everything upside down. He calls you irresponsible because you dared to blow the whistle on an IRRESPONSIBLE individual. How much more confused could someone be?


Eduard

[Bob Pickle]

Now be careful, Eduard. Danny might sue you.

And if you don't have millions, you might have top represent yourself.

And then you'd have to write legal briefs.

And ... I suppose you wouldn't mind a bit elucidating your thoughts in proper prose that could pass the muster of the scrutiny of a tenured Harvard or Yale English professor.

[Bob Pickle]

But to be fair, I must say that reading the transcript of some of my own comments made me think that I could have worded things better. But imagine what it's like to be talking to a judge with lawyers in the room. It's easy to be a bit nervous and unsure of one's self.

Until you learn that lawyers are just average people with certain letters after their name, and that they make stupid mistakes like everyone else.

[Murcielago]

So, these are some of Danny Shelton’s attorneys. Well, they seem to be just like him: ignorant, illiterate, arrogant, and vicious. He has probably picked them all from the East River cardboard boxes. John Pucci’s statements to the court are a perfect example of legal mumbojumbo. It is mind-boggling that such individuals arrogate the expertise to teach people about morality, logic, and civic responsibilities when they are not even able to express half of dozen coherent thoughts.

Incoherent mumbojumbo can create awe and mystique when delivered with authority.

[princessdi]

Can and does each and every Sabbath and Sunday morning, during political races, etc.

Incoherent mumbojumbo can create awe and mystique when delivered with authority.

[sonshineonme]

Can and does each and every Sabbath and Sunday morning, during political races, etc.

Incoherent mumbojumbo can create awe and mystique when delivered with authority.

LOL!!!

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Mr. Gregory's experts have never proven to be "EXPERTS, PER SE"...damages presumed!!!

And ANYMAN simply refuses to accept the fact that we more than satisfactorilly proved to many a jurist that we had sufficient corroborated information from within 3ABN and from within Remnant Publications, long before the lawsuite was launched, to more than satisfy the highest news editing and reporting standards required.

THE FACT IS THERE IS PROOF PRIMA FACIA THAT DANNY LEE SHELTON WAS ORCHESTRATING THREE WAY BOOK DEALS THAT PUT ROYALTIES IN HIS POCKET FROM ONE SOURCE AND OVER-RITES / KICKBACKS FROM ANOTHER PUBLISHER GOING INTO HIS OWN PERSONAL PUBLISHING ENTITY AND UNDISCLOSED TO THE DIRECTORS, ET AL, ALL MANAGED THROUGH HIS OWN MANUFACTURED FOLLOW-UP ENTITY TO D&L PUBLISHING DEFINED AS DLS PUBLISHING. YUP, Them's the facts and we can PROVE IT!!!

SO, Anyman can bluster, stomp the little feet and live in denial, but the PROOF IS UNDENIABLE, and left PUCCI without a defense...see phase two...to be launched.

Thank you Bob, for reminding me of Pucci's ill fated arguements. Wonder if he has put his Liability carrier on notice of a contingency claim yet???

Mr. Gregory very simply early fell into the trap of saving his own hide to avoid becoming a party and clearly was swayed by "legal experts" not familiar with the evidence or the standards required.

Our confidence from day one was based upon sound sources and supporting evidence that made 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton's case a fraud upon the court from the beginning and we boldly proclaimed it so...but Mr. Gregory quickly avoided us like the plague, played both sides and the middle to no good end, and frankly still is ill advised.

I can recall Mr Gregory's warning statement that two pro se defendants could not defeat a group of professional lawyers and he was partially correct...they invariably defeated themselves by stepping way too close to the edge of the precipice...we simply pushed they and their miscreant clients over the edge!!! And we knew that also would happen because we knew the nature of the beast they represented and they clearly did not. (I admire General Patten and always follow Patten's advice: Know thine enemy).

It is the lawyer's misfortunate misfortune that they were so misinformed regrading the reliability of anything coming from the mouth of Danny Lee Shelton and then parrotted by Dr. Walter Thompson....but then, they did a "thorough background" before they took the case...I wonder who did the background for them...Dr. Walter Thompson??? Or was SAM's Licensed Illinois PI's??? Either way, their misfortune and our fortune.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

I got a message from anyman. He's been here early today.

There is nothing un-American about the law suit you invited upon yourself. You display a tremendous failure to understand the law and an ever increasing skill at inaccurately citing cases to support your position.

I guess he didn't read closely what I wrote above.

You fail to understand that the freedom to speak one's mind carries with it responsibility (thus laws re: defamation) and there are consequences when one fails to meet the defined responsibility. You failed. You are wrong. The consequence is you have been held to the responsibility, you don't like it, so now you commence the crying game you are carrying on.

No, I never failed to understand. I've always understood that. Speaking one's mind carries with it responsibility.

The issue is discovery, not responsibility. Expecting the press to be able to prove what they say in court, by court standards, without producing requested documents, is wrong, and every organization that promotes First Amendment freedoms would take issue with what Danny tried to do.

Recently an expert on the First Amendment and freedom of speech reviewed your papers of process and simply responded that should you try to make this, in the courts, an issue of speech freedom you will make one appearance and be ushered out of the court for wasting its time.

If Greg's First Amendment "expert" disagrees with what I said above, I wouldn't consider him or her much of an expert.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Pardon my disdain, but I would not be concerned about them suing you or anyone else....they have their hands full now, so to speak!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Now be careful, Eduard. Danny might sue you.

And if you don't have millions, you might have top represent yourself.

And then you'd have to write legal briefs.

And ... I suppose you wouldn't mind a bit elucidating your thoughts in proper prose that could pass the muster of the scrutiny of a tenured Harvard or Yale English professor.