Print

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

[Cindy]

anyman, vague assertions are easy. Try being specific.

For example, Cindy asserted that our subpoena of MidCountry was an end run around the confidentiality issues Danny wanted to bring up after I served my requests to produce on him. And yet, according to what his side filed, our subpoena of MidCountry is dated before my requests to produce.

So in what specific way did Cindy win on that point?

My bad. I should know better by now than to try and be done with a topic as you continually bring up and argue about some other or new piece of minutia, instead of moving on and starting a new topic or thread....

First off,  Can we try and keep in mind what is important here? It's not really about winning Bob. It's about HOW you play the game. (sound familiar?) It's not really about you being right, it's not even about me being right, it's about WHAT is right.

In this instance for me, it's about telling the truth, as in the whole truth, and not just telling half the truth like you do. I believe that telling the whole story and being open and honest (regardless of personal pov andjudgments) should come before self (as in you or me winning or you trying to prove you are right to others).

I think it is important when talking to all publicly to present all and let all decide for themselves what to believe, instead of presenting part, or telling them what to think and believe. IMO, your half truths lead others to believe lies. I don't like that. I believe that is wrong.  Furthermore, I believe you know that and believe it too. Half truths in my book are the same as mixing truth with error which is babble and causes confusion (aka Babylon). I know you are well acquainted with that concept so it is hard for me to comprehend how you have gotten so far off the straight and narrow path here and keep running willy nilly down the expressway you are on, constantly trying too justify yourself and prove you are right.

Case in point, your self serving half truth here:

For example, Cindy asserted that our subpoena of MidCountry was an end run around the confidentiality issues Danny wanted to bring up after I served my requests to produce on him. And yet, according to what his side filed, our subpoena of MidCountry is dated before my requests to produce.

I know what I meant and I have stricken out what you say I said and meant above,  here's what I actually said:
"Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena.."

 I meant exactly that. Your subpoena (actually all of them, not just the one to Mid County bank) were an attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in the lawsuit in regards to discovery. Those issues were brought up and discussed back and forth between both parties long before they were forced to file that Motion and ask the court to decide and rule, because you and Joy wouldn't reason together with them, you wouldn't compromise and come to any kind of agreement about confidentiality, and you refused to stipulate to anything, but instead ran out and started issuing subpoenas.

 You were never asked to compromise the truth, you were never refused any relevant materials you needed disclosed to you to argue and settle the case. All they wanted was assurance that you wouldn't make confidential information available to the public. They wanted a stipulated agreement which would afford you that same protection, consideration and respect.

 The U.S District court Judge and the Magistrate Judge in the Massachusetts lawsuit case would have insured that all you needed and that was relevant as far as discovery material in the lawsuit was provided to you and Joy, but you didn't want that, you asked for and wanted all. You know it, and I know it, and you know God knows it and you know that the court documents prove it. Your explanations, sadly, very sadly, are always disingenuous at best and outright sewing of confusion and deception at worst. You want specifics and not vague assertions?

ok.

See my next post where I fill in the blanks you left when you told half the truth. Those blanks reveal another part of your story and support what I just posted above...

I'll be back to post that as soon as I can find the citations to the references and things I am referring to.

[Bob Pickle]

You were never asked to compromise the truth, you were never refused any relevant materials you needed disclosed to you to argue and settle the case.

It's really remarkable that after pontificating about your desire to tell the whole truth, you would make such a clearly false statement. For just one example, consider the fact that they refused to give us the Sept. and Nov. 2004 issues of 3ABN World, documents that were clearly never confidential.

All they wanted was assurance that you wouldn't make confidential information available to the public. They wanted a stipulated agreement which would afford you that same protection, consideration and respect.

At the time they were pushing the confidentiality thing, Gailon told me that what they really wanted was to prevent us from being able to litigate by making it difficult for us to enter stuff in the record. At the time I didn't see, partly because I didn't understand why we neede3d to get stuff in the record, and partly because I didn't see how the confidentiality issue could do that.

But now I understand since they used the confidentiality order to improperly prevent us from filing relevant documents with the court, even under seal.

I know what I meant and I have stricken out what you say I said and meant above,  here's what I actually said:
"Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena.."

I suppose that if you want to make arguments Hayes and Simpson never made, I suppose you can. But it's not an end run and never was.

Remember, Danny Shelton is a very dishonest man. You can't trust him, or his lawyers. Thus, every document he ever produces would potentially have to be challenged. And the only way to realistically challenge any bank statements he produces would be to subpoena them from the bank. I would think it unlikely that Danny could convince a bank to tamper with the documents. What a firestorm that would cause.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.

Personally, George, I think they want to go round and round about nonsense to try to keep us from recognizing what legal blow we need to deliver next, and what deadlines exist for that blow.

[quaddie47]

Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.

Personally, George, I think they want to go round and round about nonsense to try to keep us from recognizing what legal blow we need to deliver next, and what deadlines exist for that blow.

I am absolutely certain you make such statements with complete sincerity but the comic relief such statements provide suggests you take yourself far too seriously, Bob. 

[Pat Williams]

Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.

Personally, George, I think they want to go round and round about nonsense to try to keep us from recognizing what legal blow we need to deliver next, and what deadlines exist for that blow.

I am absolutely certain you make such statements with complete sincerity but the comic relief such statements provide suggests you take yourself far too seriously, Bob.  

It also, IMHO, reveals his propensity to just make things up based on paranoia and
a bent to believe evil of others and thus only look for and only find or see that.


Maybe, Mr Pickle will let us know what the next legal blow was and the time for that  deadline was after it comes to pass? I certainly don't want to overlook it as I have not noticed any legal blows so far. The case hadn't even moved out of the discovery faze or into trial when it was dismissed over a year ago.

[Artiste]

The case hadn't even moved out of the discovery faze or into trial when it was dismissed over a year ago.

I wonder why that was?  (Did you mean "discovery phase", by the way?)

[Bob Pickle]

I think everything is up to date at 3ABNvJoy.com now. Including the objections we filed the other day to the magistrate judge's orders.

Artiste, they asked to have the case dismissed in order to try to prevent us from getting any more material as damaging as the Remnant documents, and to try to insulate themselves from liability for pursing a frivolous case.

It is interesting that the judge stated clearly more than once that he wanted things to move along quickly, but they kept dragging their feet.

[Mary Sue Smith]

So now you can read people's minds Pickle? How could you possibly know "they" were trying to keep you from getting any more information.  I really have my doubts about that scenario.  

The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging. You have offered no proof for this statement and so it would be better not to even say it.   Otherwise, bring forth your proof.

I'd like to think that people work hard all week and like to enjoy quiet evenings with their families? Why should they continue to try to dig up information for you when they have done nothing wrong? It is a waste of their time and waste of time for the Judges and Courts.

****************************************

Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.

[GRAT]

Junebug - Do you have proof for your statement "The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging."   Maybe in the same vain it would be better for you not to say it, otherwise, bring forth your proof.

[Mary Sue Smith]

I sure do have evidence!!! We have many friends at Remnant, including Dwight. They are hard workers for the Lord and doing His will. Their lives testify to the Lord blessings on them. Hundreds of baptisms are the results.

THAT is my evidence.  And THAT is how I know Pickle is wrong.

"That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God."  Col 1:10

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt 5:16

"Blessed are they which do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."  Rev 22:14

[GRAT]

THAT is your opinion, not evidence.  Evidence would be open financial records. 

[Artiste]

...We have many friends at Remnant, including Dwight... Hundreds of baptisms are the results.

So that's the proof...

[Mary Sue Smith]

Let me explain a little further.

1 Tim 5:25 says "Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid."  "They that do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they maylay hold on eternal life." 1 Tim 6:18

2 Tim 3:17 says, "...throughly furnished unto all good works."

1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation..."

James 2:18 "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works and I will show theee my faith by my works."

And Jesus Himself said to those who hated him that if they didn't believe He was the Son of God to at LEAST believe for HIS WORKS SAKE.

I know John Martin and Dwight Hall. They have stayed in my home. These are wonderful friends who are good men. We keep in touch by phone since they've moved further away from us.  They work hard for the Lord. They have published the writings of Mrs. White and sent them out to thousands. They have devoted their whole lives to publish truth. God has blessed their work abundantly!!

The proof is in their very works!  The Bible says our works will follow us (Rev 14:13)  The works of Remnant Publishing are honest and true.   

[GRAT]

None of that is proof that they did not do some financial shady deal with Danny Shelton or 3ABN.  I know a man in our church that most would say the same things about.  Godly man, baptisms, preaches the truth, etc.  I worked with him for 10 years as a business partner.  The rules of the government and God were made for others to follow. ( He would cheat at golf.)

Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks and judges by the heart.  And only He knows what is in the heart.  If God judges the man I am talking about as a goat I am sure he will be shocked.  "But Lord, I worked in Your Name for all those years for Your Church and in independent ministries.  I preached about the evils in the church.  I led many to baptism.  I always had an Ellen White quote to give someone when they had problems."  You know the rest. 

[Johann]

The same kinds of arguments have been around for a long time. In a discussion about 3ABN a few years back (October 2005) I was told the following incident that happened in Africa.  

A "great" evangelist was getting ready for a new campaign where everybody expected he'd be winning at least another hundred souls for Christ. At that point it was discovered that the evangelist had two sets of families in different towns. Yes, he had a wife in each place with whom he had children. It was also discovered the evangelist had been involved in terrible crimes.

When Church authorities wanted to dismiss this man from the ministry he was supposed to have begged them to let him at least finish the planned evangelistic effort where he promised he'd deliver at least a hundred new souls to the church. The church administrators reluctantly agreed to let him do this because it would benefit the Church.

The argument, as it was presented to me by a 3ABN defender, was that if the lord could use a man like that, then he certainly could use a man like Mr. Danny Shelton. Wasn't this a "good"  argument?