Print

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

1) Linda, not 3ABN, bought the ticket from Delta Airlines.

0 (0%)

2) 3ABN, not Linda, bought the ticket from Delta Airlines at Brenda's request.

1 (10%)

3) Same as 2, except that Linda then bought the ticket from 3ABN.

0 (0%)

4) Same as 1, except that Linda bought the ticket after Brenda opposed the trip.

0 (0%)

5) Same as 2, except that 3ABN bought the ticket after Brenda opposed the trip.

1 (10%)

6) Same as 3, except that the ticket was bought after Brenda opposed the trip.

0 (0%)

7) Same as 1, except that Linda bought the ticket before Brenda opposed the trip.

2 (20%)

8) Same as 2, except that 3ABN bought the ticket before Brenda opposed the trip.

2 (20%)

9) Same as 3, except that the ticket was bought before Brenda opposed the trip.

4 (40%)

Total Members Voted: 9

[Bob Pickle]

Back on September 8, 2008, an affidavit was filed in Three Angels v. Joy citing on p. 3 a recording of a conversation Brenda had in which she claimed that Linda Shelton had bought tickets for the two of them to go to Florida against Brenda's wishes. However, Brenda's email to Dee Hilderbrand of March 4, 2004, which was also filed in court, proves that it was Brenda, not Linda, that reserved the tickets, and that Brenda instructed Dee to pay for them within 24 hours.

Both the receipt for Brenda's ticket and the receipt for Linda's ticket were printed out from Mollie Steenson's computer account, confirming that 3ABN, not Linda, bought these tickets, which were for personal vacation travel.

The affidavit also states that Brenda claimed that Linda's ticket was used, and this corresponds to a notarized statement in which she states on p. 3 that Brenda told her that Linda did go to Florida as planned to rendezvous with Arild Abrahamsen. Yet Delta Airlines, the airline the tickets were bought from, states that Linda's ticket was never used, and has provided the paperwork to prove it.

[Bob Pickle]

Can anyone explain these discrepancies?

A key witness against Linda Shelton has been Brenda Walsh, who has alleged all kinds of horrible things. But obviously, what she said about who bought the tickets, that they were bought against her wishes, and that Linda's ticket was used cannot possibly be true.

Junebug, since you are so adamant that Danny can't possibly lie, could you take a stab at explaining this? How about you, Cindy?

Junebug, after your comments about whether Kevin paulson correctly heard Danny say that Brandy had been chasing him for 17 years, I would like to see if you question whether the affidavit correctly transcribes what Brenda Walsh said.

[anyman]

Back on September 8, 2008, an affidavit was filed in Three Angels v. Joy citing on p. 3 a recording of a conversation Brenda had in which she claimed that Linda Shelton had bought tickets for the two of them to go to Florida against Brenda's wishes. However, Brenda's email to Dee Hilderbrand of March 4, 2004, which was also filed in court, proves that it was Brenda, not Linda, that reserved the tickets, and that Brenda instructed Dee to pay for them within 24 hours.

Both the receipt for Brenda's ticket and the receipt for Linda's ticket were printed out from Mollie Steenson's computer account, confirming that 3ABN, not Linda, bought these tickets, which were for personal vacation travel.

The affidavit also states that Brenda claimed that Linda's ticket was used, and this corresponds to a notarized statement in which she states on p. 3 that Brenda told her that Linda did go to Florida as planned to rendezvous with Arild Abrahamsen. Yet Delta Airlines, the airline the tickets were bought from, states that Linda's ticket was never used, and has provided the paperwork to prove it.

Let’s begin with the fact that you are asking others to interpret a recording that they have not heard either in part or in entirety. In other words, you are asking people asking to comment based on your word, as opposed to the actual recording. That appears, at the least, to be a manipulative endeavor.

However, let us go ahead and look at the segment of the purportedly recorded conversation as it is presented by you. For purposes of this response we will have to assume that it is accurate and that it hasn’t been unduly edited for the purposes of creating a different meaning than originally intended (you have not provided the recording, unedited or otherwise for review and you are known to edit content in order to render a different interpretation than would be drawn from an unadulterated reading or listening).

                     I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of
                          this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy
                          my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket
                          because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

It is just as logical to look at this and come to a different conclusion. Brenda may very well have tasked Dee Hilderbrand with securing the tickets (the 24 hour time frame is irrelevant as it comports to the idea of standards in the industry for holding tickets, after said time the price is no longer guaranteed); however it would be reasonable to assume that 3ABN was reimbursed the cost of those tickets. The fact that Dee Hilderbrand made the purchase and a receipt was purportedly printed from Mollie Steenson’s computer does not necessarily lead to your assertion that 3ABN paid for the tickets. The content of the tape recording indicates that it is very likely Linda did exactly as Brenda has said by providing the funds for the tickets back to 3ABN. That fact pattern, and reasonable assumptions, would then mean that Linda did purchase Brenda’s ticket. It is also known to be true that Linda approached Brenda about accompany her on this trip to Florida. It was Linda’s idea to go and Brenda originally agreed with the intent of working on a book. The portion of the transcript you have edited out also indicates that Brenda is talking about a point in time after the tickets had been purchased and after the alleged rendezvous between Linda and Arlid had been discovered. It had become obvious to Brenda some time after the purchase of the tickets that there was a conflict arising from the trip and she indicated that she was not going to be part of it.

On to your next contention, that Linda’s ticket was not used. Your documentation seems to indicate there is factual basis for this. However, your interpretation of events fails to consider a course of events where Linda may have purchased a second ticket, unbeknownst to Brenda, and did in fact take a trip to Florida at around the same time. This of course would lead Brenda to reasonably assume that the original ticket was the one Linda traveled on. Have you bothered to subpoena records from Delta and other major airlines to determine if Linda did in fact travel to Florida in April of 2004?

Your have failed to pursue all possible analysis of the facts, events, and claims in your rush to vilify 3ABN, Danny, and those associated with him.

anyman

[Bob Pickle]

(you have not provided the recording, unedited or otherwise for review and you are known to edit content in order to render a different interpretation than would be drawn from an unadulterated reading or listening).

I believe Mollie made a similar claim in court in May 2007. But since she has failed to provide any examples since then, we can conclude that there are none.

Brenda may very well have tasked Dee Hilderbrand with securing the tickets (the 24 hour time frame is irrelevant as it comports to the idea of standards in the industry for holding tickets, after said time the price is no longer guaranteed); however it would be reasonable to assume that 3ABN was reimbursed the cost of those tickets.

When Danny and 3ABN were invited to file evidence to that effect, they refused to do so. Thus we can conclude that there was no such reimbursement. But that is irrelevant.

The fact that Dee Hilderbrand made the purchase and a receipt was purportedly printed from Mollie Steenson’s computer does not necessarily lead to your assertion that 3ABN paid for the tickets.

Sure it does. Even if 3ABN was reimbursed, that does not negate the fact that 3ABN paid for the tickets, and that they were not bought against Brenda's wishes.

The portion of the transcript you have edited out also indicates that Brenda is talking about a point in time after the tickets had been purchased and after the alleged rendezvous between Linda and Arlid had been discovered.

Thus, you have listened to the recording, though you left the impression earlier that you had not.

It had become obvious to Brenda some time after the purchase of the tickets that there was a conflict arising from the trip and she indicated that she was not going to be part of it.

I think you are evading the obvious. Brenda said that Linda bought the tickets against her wishes.

On to your next contention, that Linda’s ticket was not used. Your documentation seems to indicate there is factual basis for this. However, your interpretation of events fails to consider a course of events where Linda may have purchased a second ticket, unbeknownst to Brenda, and did in fact take a trip to Florida at around the same time.

And perhaps she bought a third ticket and rendezvoused with Arild in Antarctica. And perhaps she bought a fourth ticket and ....

What shred of evidence do you have that there were any additional tickets? What dates are you suggesting that she flew on? And if this be the case, why did Danny and 3ABN tell the court that they don't care if Linda went to Florida, and they don't care if Arild was there or not, and they have never considered the Florida trip as a basis for their accusations against Linda of adultery?

This of course would lead Brenda to reasonably assume that the original ticket was the one Linda traveled on. Have you bothered to subpoena records from Delta and other major airlines to determine if Linda did in fact travel to Florida in April of 2004?

Danny and 3ABN opposed any such subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before we could obtain leave of the court to issue such a subpoena. In their opposition, they capitulated on the entire issue.

You weren't aware of that?

[anyman]

(you have not provided the recording, unedited or otherwise for review and you are known to edit content in order to render a different interpretation than would be drawn from an unadulterated reading or listening).

I believe Mollie made a similar claim in court in May 2007. But since she has failed to provide any examples since then, we can conclude that there are none.

“Failure” to provide you with anything is not a reasonable basis for the conclusion you draw. You have no evidence to substantiate your contention. The fact that someone is not willing, much less obligated, to provide you with information proves nothing other than they do not hold you as trustworthy to be fair or honest. You have, somewhere along the way, falling under the delusion that your demand requires acquiescence.

Brenda may very well have tasked Dee Hilderbrand with securing the tickets (the 24 hour time frame is irrelevant as it comports to the idea of standards in the industry for holding tickets, after said time the price is no longer guaranteed); however it would be reasonable to assume that 3ABN was reimbursed the cost of those tickets.

When Danny and 3ABN were invited to file evidence to that effect, they refused to do so. Thus we can conclude that there was no such reimbursement. But that is irrelevant.

See above response. Your conclusion is only one of many options – and therefore subject to the opinions in regard to your reliability as a presenter of the facts.

The fact that Dee Hilderbrand made the purchase and a receipt was purportedly printed from Mollie Steenson’s computer does not necessarily lead to your assertion that 3ABN paid for the tickets.

Sure it does. Even if 3ABN was reimbursed, that does not negate the fact that 3ABN paid for the tickets, and that they were not bought against Brenda's wishes.

This is a beautiful example of your dance of semantics. You completely negate the fact that 3ABN could have been, and reasonably was, reimbursed. The idea of paid, as you use it, is designed to insinuate (thereby prejudicing the casual reader) that 3ABN was the financier of the trip to Florida. That simply is not the case, your circular logic not withstanding. You do this out of hand all the time as if you held some type of magical grip on the analysis of language. My posit, is equally as plausible as yours – I know you can’t accept that, but it is never-the-less the case. Additionally, no where in the brief transcript you provided the court does Brenda say that the tickets were purchased “against her wishes.” Take a look again, Robert.

I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy
my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

She refused to go. It appears you confuse that with the idea the tickets were purchased “against her will.” That is dangerously, faulty logic. You do not seem to be able to make your argument within the context of the actual truth. You constantly add your speculation to content in order to render new meaning out of it. That is at the lease dishonest, at its worst malicious.

The portion of the transcript you have edited out also indicates that Brenda is talking about a point in time after the tickets had been purchased and after the alleged rendezvous between Linda and Arlid had been discovered.

Thus, you have listened to the recording, though you left the impression earlier that you had not.

As I said earlier, My response was based solely on your affidavit and your post. The answer to your question is, No, I have not heard the recording. Additionally, I have not talked to Brenda. My response is to your words and your words alone.

It had become obvious to Brenda some time after the purchase of the tickets that there was a conflict arising from the trip and she indicated that she was not going to be part of it.

I think you are evading the obvious. Brenda said that Linda bought the tickets against her wishes.

I had to chuckle at the way you started that response. Evasion is something you have, close to, perfected. You have yet to answer the vast majority of questions put to you. That aside, please read the response above as, based on the transcript you provided, it is obvious she did not make any such assertion.

On to your next contention, that Linda’s ticket was not used. Your documentation seems to indicate there is factual basis for this. However, your interpretation of events fails to consider a course of events where Linda may have purchased a second ticket, unbeknownst to Brenda, and did in fact take a trip to Florida at around the same time.

And perhaps she bought a third ticket and rendezvoused with Arild in Antarctica. And perhaps she bought a fourth ticket and ....

What shred of evidence do you have that there were any additional tickets? What dates are you suggesting that she flew on? And if this be the case, why did Danny and 3ABN tell the court that they don't care if Linda went to Florida, and they don't care if Arild was there or not, and they have never considered the Florida trip as a basis for their accusations against Linda of adultery?

Can you, by providing documentary evidence, eliminate this possibility? Can you conclusively remove it from possible consideration? I doubt it, therefore, it remains as a reasonable possibility – equally as reasonable as yours. If you can not, would not this qualify as reasonable doubt in regards to your own speculative theory? The references to comments of “don’t care” are beyond irrelevant for this discussion. Please, leave out the superfluous content and focus in on the point. As to whether or not this particular incident was the reason for the divorce, there was no pinpoint, only a totally of acts that resulted in the estrangement.

This of course would lead Brenda to reasonably assume that the original ticket was the one Linda traveled on. Have you bothered to subpoena records from Delta and other major airlines to determine if Linda did in fact travel to Florida in April of 2004?

Danny and 3ABN opposed any such subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before we could obtain leave of the court to issue such a subpoena. In their opposition, they capitulated on the entire issue.

You weren't aware of that?

Again, you elicit a chuckle. When has the opposition of Danny Shelton or 3ABN ever had any effect on your aggressive modus operandi in regards to subpoenas? Your wild suppositions that normal efforts to keep you in check are indicative of the negative are inane. As expected, you completely ignore the validity of the alternate interpretation presented. Your efforts to ignore other valid interpretations do not negate their validity. To think otherwise is rather Pope-ish on your part.

[Bob Pickle]

“Failure” to provide you with anything is not a reasonable basis for the conclusion you draw. You have no evidence to substantiate your contention. The fact that someone is not willing, much less obligated, to provide you with information proves nothing other than they do not hold you as trustworthy to be fair or honest. You have, somewhere along the way, falling under the delusion that your demand requires acquiescence.

I don't recall making any such demand, unless it was in my requests to produce. But your reply doesn't make sense. Mollie's mere assertion isn't going to get anywhere in court.

And you are rather rude to accuse of such conduct without evidence, and then expect us all to take your word for it.

See above response. Your conclusion is only one of many options – and therefore subject to the opinions in regard to your reliability as a presenter of the facts.

Given Danny and his attorneys' desire to crush us, one would expect them to file proof of reimbursement when invited, but they refused to do so.

Moreover, one or both of my requests to produce asked for such proof of reimbursement. None were produced. What better way to show carefulness in use of donor funds than to produce proof of reimbursement. But they refused to produce such.

This is a beautiful example of your dance of semantics. You completely negate the fact that 3ABN could have been, and reasonably was, reimbursed.

Why are you stating the speculation of reimbursement as being fact?

I haven't negated anything.

The idea of paid, as you use it, is designed to insinuate (thereby prejudicing the casual reader) that 3ABN was the financier of the trip to Florida.

False. That is a collateral issue. The primary point is that Brenda said that Linda bought the tickets against her wishes when in reality 3ABN bought the tickets at Brenda's request.

My posit, is equally as plausible as yours – I know you can’t accept that, but it is never-the-less the case.

It is not equally plausible at this point, since you haven't provided any evidence to support your speculation.

Additionally, no where in the brief transcript you provided the court does Brenda say that the tickets were purchased “against her wishes.” Take a look again, Robert.

I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy
my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

Maybe you're the one who needs to take a look again. Brenda said that she wasn't "doing this," and after that, Linda "did buy my ticket." How is that not buying the tickets against her wishes?

The portion of the transcript you have edited out also indicates that Brenda is talking about a point in time after the tickets had been purchased and after the alleged rendezvous between Linda and Arlid had been discovered.

Thus, you have listened to the recording, though you left the impression earlier that you had not.

As I said earlier, My response was based solely on your affidavit and your post. The answer to your question is, No, I have not heard the recording. Additionally, I have not talked to Brenda. My response is to your words and your words alone.

Have we caught you in a fib, anyman? Above you stated what the portion of the transcript says that was edited out. How would you know what the part that was edited out says if you haven't listened to it?

And perhaps she bought a third ticket and rendezvoused with Arild in Antarctica. And perhaps she bought a fourth ticket and ....

What shred of evidence do you have that there were any additional tickets? What dates are you suggesting that she flew on? And if this be the case, why did Danny and 3ABN tell the court that they don't care if Linda went to Florida, and they don't care if Arild was there or not, and they have never considered the Florida trip as a basis for their accusations against Linda of adultery?

Can you, by providing documentary evidence, eliminate this possibility?

Neither can I eliminate the possibility that Linda bought a ticket to Mars, or bought insurance against alien abduction.

You brought up the possibility. Now find some evidence for it. The burden for that is on you, not me.

As to whether or not this particular incident was the reason for the divorce, there was no pinpoint, only a totally of acts that resulted in the estrangement.

No, based on Danny and Walt's statements, the trip to Florida and other alleged "vacations" were one of the primary reasons for the divorce.

This of course would lead Brenda to reasonably assume that the original ticket was the one Linda traveled on. Have you bothered to subpoena records from Delta and other major airlines to determine if Linda did in fact travel to Florida in April of 2004?

Danny and 3ABN opposed any such subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before we could obtain leave of the court to issue such a subpoena. In their opposition, they capitulated on the entire issue.

You weren't aware of that?

Again, you elicit a chuckle. When has the opposition of Danny Shelton or 3ABN ever had any effect on your aggressive modus operandi in regards to subpoenas?

Huh?

As of September 11, 2008, we couldn't issue a subpoena without leave of the court. When we asked for leave, Danny and his attorneys claimed that the Florida trip was never a basis for the accusation of adultery against Linda. And that contradicted what Danny and his cronies had said before.

[anyman]

“Failure” to provide you with anything is not a reasonable basis for the conclusion you draw. You have no evidence to substantiate your contention. The fact that someone is not willing, much less obligated, to provide you with information proves nothing other than they do not hold you as trustworthy to be fair or honest. You have, somewhere along the way, falling under the delusion that your demand requires acquiescence.

I don't recall making any such demand, unless it was in my requests to produce. But your reply doesn't make sense. Mollie's mere assertion isn't going to get anywhere in court.

And you are rather rude to accuse of such conduct without evidence, and then expect us all to take your word for it.

Oh Robert, you are so sensitive. My words, “You have, somewhere along the way, falling [sic] under the delusion that your demand requires acquiescence.” is a broad statement and not isolated to any particular comment or issue. The fact that I used the singular “demand” was not intended to restrict my commentary to a singular, specific linguistic instance. It would have helped you, I assume, to use the plural “demands” so that you wouldn’t have to dig deeper. It might be as applicable to point out that your assertions are no more reliable in court, than you consider Mollie’s.

Rude? You are in no position to make that accusation.

See above response. Your conclusion is only one of many options – and therefore subject to the opinions in regard to your reliability as a presenter of the facts.

Given Danny and his attorneys' desire to crush us, one would expect them to file proof of reimbursement when invited, but they refused to do so.

Moreover, one or both of my requests to produce asked for such proof of reimbursement. None were produced. What better way to show carefulness in use of donor funds than to produce proof of reimbursement. But they refused to produce such.

Crush you? Another chuckle. Is that why they filed a motion to dismiss? Because they wanted to “crush” you? Come on Robert, you are grasping at straws again. I am sure I mentioned this before, but your request to produce is not a Papal edict. No one has to obey you Robert. Good “lawyering” will result in efforts to end your egregious attempts at discovery. I find it amazing that you haven’t realized that you don’t get your way just because you throw a tantrum.

Now, you raise an interesting issue, donor funds. Have you been transparent in the donations to your “cause?" I haven’t seen it. Also, how about publishing your 1040 and associated schedules to support your claim that you have been absent an income for the past two years? By the way, where is Gailon? Will he publish his tax documents for the past few years as well?

This is a beautiful example of your dance of semantics. You completely negate the fact that 3ABN could have been, and reasonably was, reimbursed.

Why are you stating the speculation of reimbursement as being fact?

I haven't negated anything.

Speculating? Oh please, Robert. That is all you are doing. I didn’t speculate, I posited an alternative to your manufactured one. It certainly raises questions in the minds of those not bewitched by your theories. I did not state anything was fact – that is the difference between you and I. I see my speculation as a possible theory and you, you see the spark of idea in your mind as irrefutable fact. Let’s dissect my statement, “You completely negate the fact that 3ABN could have been, and reasonably was, reimbursed.” Did you notice the “could have been”? It is a “fact” that it “could have been” and you have nothing to negate that – nothing you say, think, or feel can negate the possibility that you are wrong and I am right.

The idea of paid, as you use it, is designed to insinuate (thereby prejudicing the casual reader) that 3ABN was the financier of the trip to Florida.

False. That is a collateral issue. The primary point is that Brenda said that Linda bought the tickets against her wishes when in reality 3ABN bought the tickets at Brenda's request.

No, it isn’t a collateral issue – and your claiming it is doesn’t make it so. You are going to have to get used to the reality that your edictorial way of looking at the world does not make your theory reality. At the end of the day, your theory is nothing more or less than your theory. Brenda never “said” anything of the sort. The evidence proves you are lying or oblivious to the facts.

The segment of transcript you isolate does not, never did, nor will it ever say or insinuate that Brenda claimed the tickets were bought “against her wishes” or her will or her desire or her request or anything else. It only says what it says. Here it is again, as you seem to not be able to see it for what it is:

                     I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of
                     this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy
                     my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket
                     because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

What it does say, is:
•   That the tickets were bought by Linda
•   That Brenda refused to go
•   That Brenda did not use her ticket
•   That Brenda believed Linda used her ticket

There you have it, nothing more, nothing less.

My posit, is equally as plausible as yours – I know you can’t accept that, but it is never-the-less the case.

It is not equally plausible at this point, since you haven't provided any evidence to support your speculation.

Well, Robert, it is. You have only provided your speculative interpretation of edited communications. You don’t have support for the majority of your accusations and that which you claim supports the other is tenuous at best.

Additionally, no where in the brief transcript you provided the court does Brenda say that the tickets were purchased “against her wishes.” Take a look again, Robert. (Brenda’s quotation omitted)

Maybe you're the one who needs to take a look again. Brenda said that she wasn't "doing this," and after that, Linda "did buy my ticket." How is that not buying the tickets against her wishes?

Robert, you can claim that 2 + 2 = 5, but it will never be so. You have evidenced your propensity to manufacture your “facts.” Now, remember we are only going by your edited version of the recorded phone call. (Caveat: Don’t waste our time any more trying to claim that I have heard the recorded content. I have not. My argument is based solely on your words: your posts and your affidavit. Nothing more, nothing less.) Brenda did say, “I’m not doing this” and “she did buy my ticket.” Your extenuation that those comments “mean” she said the tickets were bought against her wishes is conceptually unavailable. The plain and simple facts are that, on their face, no reasonable human being would make the extrapolated determination you have.

The portion of the transcript you have edited out also indicates that Brenda is talking about a point in time after the tickets had been purchased and after the alleged rendezvous between Linda and Arlid had been discovered.

Thus, you have listened to the recording, though you left the impression earlier that you had not.

As I said earlier, My response was and is based solely on your affidavit and your post. The answer to your question is, No, I have not heard the recording. Additionally, I have not talked to Brenda. My response is to your words and your words alone.

Have we caught you in a fib, anyman? Above you stated what the portion of the transcript says that was edited out. How would you know what the part that was edited out says if you haven't listened to it?

No Robert, as much as that would be a windfall for you, I did not fib or lie or tell an untruth. I based my statement on your behavior and the fact that there affidavit is rife with ellipses which evidence editing. You have done this over and over again, that is fact. No reasonable human, with a telephone, would consider that the entirety of a conversation. It is a reasonable assumption you edited this out to suit your purposes.

And perhaps she bought a third ticket and rendezvoused with Arild in Antarctica. And perhaps she bought a fourth ticket and ....

What shred of evidence do you have that there were any additional tickets? What dates are you suggesting that she flew on? And if this be the case, why did Danny and 3ABN tell the court that they don't care if Linda went to Florida, and they don't care if Arild was there or not, and they have never considered the Florida trip as a basis for their accusations against Linda of adultery?

Can you, by providing documentary evidence, eliminate this possibility?

Neither can I eliminate the possibility that Linda bought a ticket to Mars, or bought insurance against alien abduction.

You brought up the possibility. Now find some evidence for it. The burden for that is on you, not me.

Another chuckle. When presented with irrefutable argument, you resort to the inane. I don’t need to find evidence to support a logical theory. You need to present irrefutable evidence to eliminate it. Until you can eliminate it – it remains as a possible explanation.
Too bad it renders your position weak and tenuous.

As to whether or not this particular incident was the reason for the divorce, there was no pinpoint, only a totally of acts that resulted in the estrangement.

No, based on Danny and Walt's statements, the trip to Florida and other alleged "vacations" were one of the primary reasons for the divorce.

Thank you for making my point. The trip to Florida was an element in the totality of acts that resulted in the estrangement. The flu has many symptoms that it exists – a divorce has many elements that underlie its existence.

This of course would lead Brenda to reasonably assume that the original ticket was the one Linda traveled on. Have you bothered to subpoena records from Delta and other major airlines to determine if Linda did in fact travel to Florida in April of 2004?

Danny and 3ABN opposed any such subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before we could obtain leave of the court to issue such a subpoena. In their opposition, they capitulated on the entire issue.

You weren't aware of that?

Again, you elicit a chuckle. When has the opposition of Danny Shelton or 3ABN ever had any effect on your aggressive modus operandi in regards to subpoenas?

Huh?

As of September 11, 2008, we couldn't issue a subpoena without leave of the court. When we asked for leave, Danny and his attorneys claimed that the Florida trip was never a basis for the accusation of adultery against Linda. And that contradicted what Danny and his cronies had said before.

The conditions you found yourself constrained by are the result of your own course of action. No one else is to blame for the court putting a bridle on you, except you.

[Murcielago]

IMO fundamentally what you have directed at Bob applies equally to you. You are speculating, not producing documented proof, what you state is simply your biased interpretation of things that you have no first hand knowledge of, you are not one of the principals, and your information has nothing to back it up other than the words of biased people who can't be trusted.

[Snoopy]

My, my, my...  There was quite a bit of legalese in that last outburst, anyman....   Or, ahem, should I say "anywoman"...

You really should watch yourself.  You are sounding an awful lot like a legal type...maybe an attorney...or maybe an EX-attorney...maybe one recently held in contempt of court...  Not enough to do these days?

[Murcielago]

Anyman, your legalese paints you as an attorney. I don't know if you are, if you are not, or if you are a former attorney, but your education in law (if you have such) does not negate your ignorance in the area of this specific case. Bob obviously has access to confidential documents that you are not privy to and therfore has information upon which to base interpretation that you can't know. His interpretation is based upon ducumentation, but as far as we know, yours is simply based on speculation, rumor and second and third hand information.

What are your bonafides?

[Cindy]

False. That is a collateral issue. The primary point is that Brenda said that Linda bought the tickets against her wishes when in reality 3ABN bought the tickets at Brenda's request.

No, it isn’t a collateral issue – and your claiming it is doesn’t make it so. You are going to have to get used to the reality that your edictorial way of looking at the world does not make your theory reality. At the end of the day, your theory is nothing more or less than your theory. Brenda never “said” anything of the sort. The evidence proves you are lying or oblivious to the facts.

The segment of transcript you isolate does not, never did, nor will it ever say or insinuate that Brenda claimed the tickets were bought “against her wishes” or her will or her desire or her request or anything else. It only says what it says. Here it is again, as you seem to not be able to see it for what it is:

                     I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of
                     this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy
                     my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket
                     because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

What it does say, is:
•   That the tickets were bought by Linda
•   That Brenda refused to go
•   That Brenda did not use her ticket
•   That Brenda believed Linda used her ticket

There you have it, nothing more, nothing less.

My posit, is equally as plausible as yours – I know you can’t accept that, but it is never-the-less the case.

It is not equally plausible at this point, since you haven't provided any evidence to support your speculation.

Well, Robert, it is. You have only provided your speculative interpretation of edited communications. You don’t have support for the majority of your accusations and that which you claim supports the other is tenuous at best.

Additionally, no where in the brief transcript you provided the court does Brenda say that the tickets were purchased “against her wishes.” Take a look again, Robert. (Brenda’s quotation omitted)

Maybe you're the one who needs to take a look again. Brenda said that she wasn't "doing this," and after that, Linda "did buy my ticket." How is that not buying the tickets against her wishes?

Robert, you can claim that 2 + 2 = 5, but it will never be so. You have evidenced your propensity to manufacture your “facts.” Now, remember we are only going by your edited version of the recorded phone call. (Caveat: Don’t waste our time any more trying to claim that I have heard the recorded content. I have not. My argument is based solely on your words: your posts and your affidavit. Nothing more, nothing less.) Brenda did say, “I’m not doing this” and “she did buy my ticket.” Your extenuation that those comments “mean” she said the tickets were bought against her wishes is conceptually unavailable. The plain and simple facts are that, on their face, no reasonable human being would make the extrapolated determination you have.

The portion of the transcript you have edited out also indicates that Brenda is talking about a point in time after the tickets had been purchased and after the alleged rendezvous between Linda and Arlid had been discovered.

Thus, you have listened to the recording, though you left the impression earlier that you had not.

As I said earlier, My response was and is based solely on your affidavit and your post. The answer to your question is, No, I have not heard the recording. Additionally, I have not talked to Brenda. My response is to your words and your words alone.

Have we caught you in a fib, anyman? Above you stated what the portion of the transcript says that was edited out. How would you know what the part that was edited out says if you haven't listened to it?

No Robert, as much as that would be a windfall for you, I did not fib or lie or tell an untruth. I based my statement on your behavior and the fact that there affidavit is rife with ellipses which evidence editing. You have done this over and over again, that is fact. No reasonable human, with a telephone, would consider that the entirety of a conversation. It is a reasonable assumption you edited this out to suit your purposes....

Anyman,

Of course Brenda never said the tickets were bought against her will. That is another ridiculous and unsupportable claim by Bob. (but I am sure he will continue to argue that as long as has breath to do so...)

Anyway,  last night as I was reading this thread, and the affidavit Bob referred to I read this:

Doc 100 Affidavit of Robert Pickle

2. On April 16, 2004, Linda Shelton replied to an email from Johann and Irmgard Thorvaldsson. That reply contained Linda Shelton’s account of the saga to that point in time, and included her account of a planned trip to Florida over spring break with Brenda Walsh (hereafter “Walsh”) at a time when Dr. Arild Abrahamsen (hereafter “Abrahamsen”) would be there, a trip which she claims was later canceled. That reply is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

 I remembered reading that letter before and that of course Linda herself confirms that the trip was brought up by her to Brenda and that Brenda agreed, and then later changed her mind when she became aware of what was going on. This confirms what you are saying and discounts the version Bob is trying to present here with his much edited and truncated quote.

 I found and reread the letter on Bob's 3abnvsjoy website last night at this link: http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/  by clicking on exhibit A attached to Doc 100.

This morning when I went back to copy the pertinent part, I found that the link to that letter on his website has either been removed or disabled ( You might want to fix that, Bob...)

Anyway, as I also have the document and exhibits uploaded on the other forum I copied it from there. Here is Linda's version:


Exhibit A Letter from Linda Shelton Johann and Irmgard Thorvaldsson. Bold text provided by me to emphasize sequence of events.

At some point in February I was sharing with the doctor about how busy we were at 3ABN with traveling and schedules and he said, "You know, I’m going to Florida over spring break, and you ought to think about going down there to get some rest." I just changed the subject because I thought it would never fit into my schedule anyway.

A few days later I mentioned to Brenda what the doctor had said. Her response was "Oh, I think that would be fun, let’s go!" A week later when the doctor returned from Africa, I mentioned to him that Brenda and I thought we’d go to Florida. He had totally forgotten anything about it. But he agreed to go and he offered to provide his condominium as a place for us to stay.

 Brenda and I innocently thought this was no different than scheduling a trip with "Uncle Bob." We thought, "What’s the difference between staying at the doctor’s house in Norway, or staying at his condominium in Florida. YES, hindsight is much better than foresight. This was an enormous mistake, especially considering our positions at the ministry. But our hearts were pure and nothing diabolical was planned.

Additionally, at the time of scheduling our tickets, Dan was not in a good mood, so I did not mention to him that the doctor would be in Florida at the same time. However about two weeks later after Brenda talked with Dan, she came to me and said "Dan is getting pretty irate about you talking to the doctor. We better cancel him." I immediately agreed. However, he offered the condo for us to stay in although he wouldn’t be there. But we had remedied this Florida vacation situation way before Dan found out about it. And as it turned out, the entire trip was canceled.

The following also confirms that it was later on that Brenda changed her mind and decided not to go, this is alleged to be Brenda's version which of course is different than Linda's. In addition it may offer further insight into why the tickets were purchased through 3abn to start with.

Exhibit H also attached to Pickle's affidavit is a Letter from Ida Smith in which she relates what she alleges that Brenda Walsh told her in a phone conversation after allegedly receiving a letter Ida Smith had sent to her:

"When they got home [from Norway]Linda wanted Brenda to go to Florida and take their lap-top computers so they could get alot of work done on the books they were both writing. Then Brenda found out that Dr Abrahamsson was going to be there also and Brenda asked Linda what Dan thought about the Dr going to be there. Linda hadn't told Dan. Linda went by herself to Florida and stayed in a house the Dr owned. Of course the Dr was there also. Brenda thought Dan had a right to know these things so Brenda told him"

..ian

[Bob Pickle]

Thanks you, Ian, for drawing attention to yet another discrepancy.

On April 16, 2004, Linda Shelton wrote the email to Johann and Irmgard, and her account has Brenda knowing up front that Arild would be in Florida.

But much later, Brenda in the conversation with Smith claimed that she did not know up front that Arild would be in Florida.

I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of  this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

And back to the main points: Brenda claimed Linda bought Brenda's ticket when 3ABN bought it at Brenda's request. And the word "did" as well as when in the conversation Brenda referred to the purchase of the ticket leaves the impression that the ticket was bought after Brenda's opposition to the trip.

[Cindy]

Bob please try to keep in mind that "bought" can and often just means "paid for". All these gymnastics you do with meanings and interpretations of the evidence to make things say and mean what you want them to say and mean, must be simply exhausting.

Nothing imo should be this complicated or difficult to understand.

What is really being accomplished here or on the other forum? The reality is that most outside of those still writing or reading here have moved on, or never cared about all of this to begin with.

Your poll may prove who agrees with you on this forum, and make you feel better. (and if the majority of your small group of followers do that will not be a surprise to me, or probably anyone else.)

It will not and can not change any evidence or facts much as you would like it to, nor can a poll establish what the truth of a situation is.

[Bob Pickle]

Danny and 3ABN's capitulation on this whole matter was in this filing by Kristin Kingsbury:

Defendants claim the above information is relevant to determine whether a certain Dr. Abrahamsen from Norway visited Linda Shelton. Defendants argue that this information sought from Delta will be relevant to determine whether Linda Shelton actually vacationed with a Dr. Arild Abrahamsen in Florida around April of 2004. Defendants imply this information will substantiate that no adultery occurred between the two in Florida at that time and that the pregnancy test described by Defendants could not possibly have been intended to determine whether Linda was pregnant (as purported circumstantial evidence of adultery). Instead, Defendants attempt to illustrate that the pregnancy test (the subject of substantial discussion on Defendants’ website) was actually planted by Linda Shelton as a joke, of which she intended for Danny Shelton to find.

None of this information is relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims. It is therefore also irrelevant to Defendants’ defenses. The alleged trip to Florida was never considered by Plaintiffs to constitute a factual basis supporting any claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ complaint. In the end, Plaintiffs do not care whether Linda actually went to Florida or not. Defendants will prove nothing with the information they seek – whether Linda Shelton traveled to Dr. Abrahamsen’s condo or not, and whether Dr. Abrahamsen was present at that time or not.

Thus, the finding of the pregnancy test and the alleged trip to Florida were never a factual basis for Danny's divorce and Linda's firing.

Of course, that's what many have thought all along.

[anyman]

Thanks you, Ian, for drawing attention to yet another discrepancy.

On April 16, 2004, Linda Shelton wrote the email to Johann and Irmgard, and her account has Brenda knowing up front that Arild would be in Florida.

But much later, Brenda in the conversation with Smith claimed that she did not know up front that Arild would be in Florida.

In the conversation Brenda does not claim that she did not know up front. What is evident is that she did not realize that the trip would not sit well with Danny. Again, your practice of reading into content, that which is not there is rather evident and disturbing - it would render you unreliable as a source of information. To interpret content on its face is one thing. To place reasonable assumptions along side to fill in the story is acceptable – though it in no way should be considered fact. A clear reading of the conversation snippet below evidences no where that Brenda claimed what you suggest she did and can not be reasonably interpreted to mean such.

I said ..., “I’m not going, I said, if if Danny, if ... doesn’t approve of this.” ... “I’m not doing this.” But I refused to go. And she did buy my ticket, and I refused to go. And I still have a copy of my ticket because it’s still unused. But her ticket is used.

"At some point in February I was sharing with the doctor about how busy we were at 3ABN with traveling and schedules and he said, "You know, I’m going to Florida over spring break, and you ought to think about going down there to get some rest." I just changed the subject because I thought it would never fit into my schedule anyway. A few days later I mentioned to Brenda what the doctor had said. Her response was "Oh, I think that would be fun, let’s go!" A week later when the doctor returned from Africa, I mentioned to him that Brenda and I thought we’d go to Florida. He had totally forgotten anything about it. But he agreed to go and he offered to provide his condominium as a place for us to stay. Brenda and I innocently thought this was no different than scheduling a trip with "Uncle Bob." We thought, "What’s the difference between staying at the doctor’s house in Norway, or staying at his condominium in Florida. YES, hindsight is much better than foresight. This was an enormous mistake, especially considering our positions at the ministry. But our hearts were pure and nothing diabolical was planned. Additionally, at the time of scheduling our tickets, Dan was not in a good mood, so I did not mention to him that the doctor would be in Florida at the same time. However about two weeks later after Brenda talked with Dan, she came to me and said "Dan is getting pretty irate about you talking to the doctor. We better cancel him." I immediately agreed. However, he offered the condo for us to stay in although he wouldn’t be there. But we had remedied this Florida vacation situation way before Dan found out about it. And as it turned out, the entire trip was canceled."

And back to the main points: Brenda claimed Linda bought Brenda's ticket when 3ABN bought it at Brenda's request. And the word "did" as well as when in the conversation Brenda referred to the purchase of the ticket leaves the impression that the ticket was bought after Brenda's opposition to the trip.

Robert, at least you are honest in pointing out that the email (currently unavailable from your web site) is Linda’s account, which would render it less than definitive and certainly does not make Brenda’s phone conversation dispositive. Would it be potentially true that Linda had a vested interest in maintaining an appearance of innocence with someone she believed to be one of her staunchest supporters? It is plausible that her email was written in such a way as to generate a certain belief on the other end?

You have, time and again, claimed Danny Shelton engaged in efforts to create perceptions about himself. It is equally as likely that Linda could have been engaged in perception creating as well. What is evident from the recorded phone conversation (Did you ever inquire as to its admissibility in court?) is that Linda purchased the tickets. As for the occurrence of comments within the stream of a conversation, it is a given that extemporaneous conversation does not flow in a linear pattern. Natural conversation can weave itself backward and forward as the brain sorts through thought and transfers it out of the mouth . . . thus the phrase, “But, I digress . . . .”

Here is what is clear from the snippet of the phone conversation and the email:
•   In February, Arlid Abrahamson suggested a rendezvous in Florida to Linda
•   Linda proffered the idea to Brenda
•   Brenda agreed in the initial conversation
•   Linda purchased the tickets
•   Linda intended to keep the presence of Arlid Abrahamson a secret from Danny
•   At some point after the trip was planned, Danny found out that Arlid Abrahamson would be in Florida also
•   That particular trip, the one including Linda and Brenda, did not occur

Here is what is clear from your affidavit:
•   3ABN facilitated the purchase of the tickets (you offer no indication to whom the credit card referenced belongs, either it is damaging to your claim, or you don’t know to whom it belongs)
•   An account associated (though this claimed association is not explained) with Mollie Steenson printed the receipt of the tickets

What can reasonably be assumed in the reading of snippet of the phone conversation, the email, and your affidavit:
•   Linda and Brenda researched and located tickets and found a price that would appear to have been agreeable to both and the price was good for 24 hours
•   Linda purchased the tickets ultimately, though 3ABN may have facilitated the process up front
•   Linda did indeed go to Florida at some time close to the original trips expected dates

You have nothing to support the claim Linda never went to Florida. You haven’t bothered to substantiate that alternative readings of the content are not plausible. You have made your decision that what you believe is true – and it may be for you. However, as long as other alternatives are equally as plausible your position remains weak. An unspoken expectation that everyone defer to your interpretation of the events and analysis of the words is shaky ground.

Plausible interpretation B (giving you the Plausible interpretation A classification):

Arlid Abrahamson suggested that Linda Shelton join him in Florida for some rest and relaxation. Initially, Linda did not think it would work into her schedule. After floating the idea past Brenda, she decided to go and made the requisite arrangements with Arlid Abrahamson. At that point Linda and Brenda or possibly Linda alone, located flights at an acceptable rate and reserved them for a 24 hour time frame. Linda called Brenda and told her that it probably wouldn’t be a good idea for her to purchase the tickets as it would raise red flags with Danny. She convinced Brenda to run the tickets through 3ABN and Linda would, at a later date, reimburse 3ABN for the cost of the tickets - thus buying the tickets. Someone, possibly, but not provably Mollie, printed the receipts and got them to Linda and Brenda.

In the time between the purchase of the tickets and Danny became aware that Arlid Abrahamson would also be in Florida on the trip and became upset by this fact. Brenda, potentially unaware that Arlid Abrahamson’s presence in the Shelton’s marriage was as destructive as it was, communicated to Linda that her mind had changed and she would not be going to Florida. Linda, realizing that the red flags indeed did rise cut her loses and did not travel on that ticket or exact dates. After the cancellation of the original plan, she devised a plan B and traveled to Florida.