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]

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.

It is you folks that are doing the gymnastics when you claim that when Brenda said, "she did buy my ticket," that did not mean that Linda bought the ticket from Delta Airlines.

3ABN bought the ticket at Brenda's direction. But Brenda did not tell her hearer that. She instead left the impression that she hadn't had anything to do with the purchase of the ticket.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

I find it disturbing that you think that "Then Brenda found out that Dr Abrahamsson was going to be there also ...." means that Brenda already knew that before she found it out.

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?

Of course that's possible.

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

No, it is not reasonable to assume such at all. There is presently no basis at all for assuming that Linda reimbursed 3ABN for the tickets, for 3ABN failed to file any such evidence with the court. In fact, they failed to file any affidavits or exhibits at all regarding the issue, and that is very telling. It is much more reasonable to assume that there was no such reimbursement made, for if there had been, then 3ABN would have filed the evidence in order to exonerate themselves.

Secondly, there is no basis presently for assuming that Linda went to Florida at all. Neither Danny nor 3ABN has ever provided any evidence to support such an assumption, not even testimony consisting of an eye witness's memory.

It's reasonable to try to rule out possibilities, but it is not reasonable to assume that such things actually occurred when not a shred of evidence to that effect has been produced.

You have nothing to support the claim Linda never went to Florida.

Perhaps I made the claim somewhere. Can you quote it for me?

As far as your speculations go, find some evidence to support them. But remember, Danny and 3ABN opposed any verification that Linda went to Florida at any time. That they would oppose their potential exoneration is evidence that they knew they wouldn't be exonerated, plain and simple.

[Bob Pickle]

The poll didn't quite make sense, so it has been reset.

[Cindy]

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

Ok, I thought I was done here for the day, but surely you jest?

Please read the bolded text below very carefully.

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.

Try as you may you can not wave your magic word wand and make one thing say another thing entirely, Bob.

3abns affidavit is taking about their lawsuit against you and the claims they filed against you.

This:
The alleged trip to Florida was never considered by Plaintiffs to constitute a factual basis supporting any claims set forth in Plaintiffs’ complaint.

does NOT equal this:

"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.

No, it is not reasonable to assume such at all. There is presently no basis at all for assuming that Linda reimbursed 3ABN for the tickets, for 3ABN failed to file any such evidence with the court. In fact, they failed to file any affidavits or exhibits at all regarding the issue, and that is very telling. It is much more reasonable to assume that there was no such reimbursement made, for if there had been, then 3ABN would have filed the evidence in order to exonerate themselves.

 

Your argument above is totally without sense or logic, and is no more reasonable then your claim above that your quote was a capitulation. (and again you assume just because you haven't seen things it's impossible that they can exist...)

Why would they have filed it when it was not relevant to any of the specific claims they filed against you? or why would they file it to exonerate themselves, Bob? From what? Your accusations here and now? That is absurd.

You just got done quoting where they said the following:

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.





Have a blessed Sabbath and a good weekend all 

..ian

[Bob Pickle]

Cindy,

You thus declare that there are no claims against us in the lawsuit that require that Linda Shelton committed adultery or that she was fired for just cause. But ¶ 50 of the lawsuit is all about that.

Of course, you know that.

The lawsuit accuses us of lying when we allegedly said that Danny did not have grounds to divorce Linda, and that 3ABN did not have grounds to fire Linda.

Danny et. al. claimed that the pregnancy test and alleged trip to Florida was a major part of the basis for the firing and divorce. And thus they were supposed to be a major part of the basis for ¶ 50 in the lawsuit. But Kingsbury nixed all that.

As far as failing to exonerate themselves, they raised the issue in the lawsuit of private inurement, misuse of funds. The receipts for the plane tickets make it appear that there has indeed been a misuse of funds. It would have been so easy and natural to file proof of reimbursement if such exists. Since they didn't file such proof, it is reasonable to assume that no such proof exists, and no such reimbursement was made.

It also explains why Simpson came barreling into court in southern Illinois 60 days late to try to prevent our experts from seeing the auditor's work papers, after he had told me that he was thinking about letting me have them, since the issue of scope of discovery had been resolved. There was probably a lot of things in those work papers that Danny wants desperately to hide.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The most important element of this entire thread is simply that with the clear weight of the evidence against them, IAN and ANYMAN will unreservedly attempt to cover up the sins of Brenda Walsh. Do they have no moral compass???

The evidence clearly demonstrates that Brenda Walsh is one of the most insidious, back-biting and malicious liars in this entire saga, second only to her co-conspirator, Danny Lee Shelton. And they have in tandem profited by that expansion of the great lie!!! And you know what they say in juris prudence...once a liar, always a liar.

I would like to re-emphasize, for the record, that I have stated this as a fact, not that it is alleged, therefore clearly asserting that I am ready, willing and able to defend these statements!!! Oh, my, Bob, I guess we already did that once didn't we?

Well, I for one am ready and willing to do it again!!! In fact, you can count on the fact that another forum for just such an opportunity is not afar off...since Brenda will only talk with a 3ABN attorney present, I relish just such an opportunity!!! They call it depositions and I intend to see to it that Brenda Walsh is deposed under oath!!! Wanna bet the cat gets her tongue and we have to motion for depositon before the bench?

In any event, ANYMAN and IAN continue to demonstrate that their compass is gone awry in the "devil's triangle" and one must wonder just where they will crash land or sink???

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUREPORTER


 

[Nosir Myzing]

The poll didn't quite make sense, so it has been reset.

I myself still can not understand it.

Did you mean to vote for this option?
3ABN, bought the ticket from Delta Airlines at Brenda's request, except that 3ABN bought the ticket after Brenda opposed the trip.

Why would 3ABN buy Brenda Walsh a ticket for a trip she was opposed to taking?

Would it not make more sense to cancel the ticket?

[Johann]

There is a discussion here about a trip to Florida in the month of April 2004. I do have a copy of the document which shows that it was Brenda who ordered the original tickets through 3ABN to Florida for herself and Linda.

I have earlier stated that Dr. Arild Abrhamsen could not have gone to Florida at the time those tickets were valid because my wife, Irmgard, and I spent all of that time with Arild at his home in Norway. But my contact with Arild did not stop there, therefore I know he could not have traveled to Florida during the month of April.

If anyone should doubt my truthfulness or claim that my memory has failed, this can easily be documented and verified by other people.

Furthermore I have checked Dr. Arlid Abrhamsen's passport thoroughly, and there I  have seen the stamps of the American Immigration authorities for his arrival in the US in December of 2003 with a departure in January of 2004. This was when he came to visit us at 3ABN. Then there is no stamp of arrival in the US anywhere in his passport after that until May 2004, and that was the time when he and I traveled together to Thompsonville in an attempt to testify for the 3ABN board.

So if anyone suggests that Dr. Arild Abrahamsen could have been in Florida anytime in April of 2004, such a suggestion has absolutely no foundation. 

Johann M. Thorvaldsson

[Bob Pickle]

The poll didn't quite make sense, so it has been reset.

I myself still can not understand it.

Did you mean to vote for this option?
3ABN, bought the ticket from Delta Airlines at Brenda's request, except that 3ABN bought the ticket after Brenda opposed the trip.

Why would 3ABN buy Brenda Walsh a ticket for a trip she was opposed to taking?

Would it not make more sense to cancel the ticket?

It would have been far better to have several polls rather than one poll. It's too confusing the way it is, I think.

I simply tried to put every possible combination of options into the poll, and didn't worry if some seemed implausible. After all, there are clearly folks around who find plausible what I find implausible.

[Fran]

Do it again with say 3 polls.  The questions are good, but I think I may have voted wrong?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The poll didn't quite make sense, so it has been reset.

I myself still can not understand it.

Did you mean to vote for this option?
3ABN, bought the ticket from Delta Airlines at Brenda's request, except that 3ABN bought the ticket after Brenda opposed the trip.

Why would 3ABN buy Brenda Walsh a ticket for a trip she was opposed to taking?

Would it not make more sense to cancel the ticket?

Are you surmizing...no surmizer??? Must be as we have ZERO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR SURMIZINGS!!!

Would your wild surmizings require some documentary support or are you also exempt from the Rules of Evidence...I know you would like to be, but the weight of the evidence DESTROYS YOUR LUDICROUS SURMIZING.

Better change your name!!! Not that it is worth much!!! It is clearly a misnomer of the highest order!!! Maybe an oxymoron as well!!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUREPORTER

[Bob Pickle]

Do it again with say 3 polls.  The questions are good, but I think I may have voted wrong?

It appears to me that only one poll is allowed per thread. But the poll can be made to allow you to change your vote by removing it and then revoting. Would that help? Or do you think we should break this down into three threads, one per poll?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Do it again with say 3 polls.  The questions are good, but I think I may have voted wrong?

It appears to me that only one poll is allowed per thread. But the poll can be made to allow you to change your vote by removing it and then revoting. Would that help? Or do you think we should break this down into three threads, one per poll?

How about we reduce it to simply four questions:

DID BRENDA WALSH LIE ABOUT THE TICKETS? Yes or No
If SHE DID LIE, WAS DANNY A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE LIE? YES OR NO
WAS LINDA A VICTIM OF THE SEDITIOUS SCHEME AND DID SHE SUFFER RECOVERABLE DAMAGES? YES OR NO
SHOULD LINDA SUE SHELTON SUE BOTH BRENDA WALSH AND DANNY LEE SHELTON FOR MILLIONS? YES OR NO

Now that will seperate the sheep from the goats!!!
And that is a poll worth taking!!!!
And we should "reach out and touch the brethren" with the same inquiry as well as the results!!!

What say ye???

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUREPORTER

[Sam]

Do it again with say 3 polls.  The questions are good, but I think I may have voted wrong?

It appears to me that only one poll is allowed per thread. But the poll can be made to allow you to change your vote by removing it and then revoting. Would that help? Or do you think we should break this down into three threads, one per poll?

How about we reduce it to simply four questions:

DID BRENDA WALSH LIE ABOUT THE TICKETS? Yes or No
If SHE DID LIE, WAS DANNY A CO-CONSPIRATOR IN THE LIE? YES OR NO
WAS LINDA A VICTIM OF THE SEDITIOUS SCHEME AND DID SHE SUFFER RECOVERABLE DAMAGES? YES OR NO
SHOULD LINDA SUE SHELTON SUE BOTH BRENDA WALSH AND DANNY LEE SHELTON FOR MILLIONS? YES OR NO

Now that will seperate the sheep from the goats!!!
And that is a poll worth taking!!!!
And we should "reach out and touch the brethren" with the same inquiry as well as the results!!!

What say ye???

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUREPORTER

At one point recently, pace docs say that you no longer live at the same address.  Were you officially evicted this time or were you fleeing from yet another landlord?

[Murcielago]

At one point recently, pace docs say that you no longer live at the same address.  Were you officially evicted this time or were you fleeing from yet another landlord?

The status of Joy's residence has what bearing on this?