Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

What point would there be in removing the web page? The subject material has been a part of court record about two years now. It's public record in at least three courts now, I believe.

And, based on the fact that 3ABN included Nick Miller material in with their Rule 26(a)(1) materials, 3ABN intended to bring up the matter in the litigation.

Further, Nick states above:

But they would not, in my experience, undermine or go contrary to basic principles of Christian respect and courtesy in dealing with others in doing so.

While Nick at the time he wrote this may have believed it to be true, how can it possibly be true? Neither Walt Thompson nor any other board member that I am aware of ever contacted any of the alleged molestation victims of Tommy Shelton. The failure to do so certainly went contrary to basic principles of Christian respect and courtesy.

[Cindy]

The subject material has been a part of court record about two years now. It's public record in at least three courts now, I believe.

Hey Bob, before I reply further on this issue, I have a question.

You have been claiming since you, as webmaster of save-3abn,  first published Nick Millers letter that it was a matter of public record in the court case. Your earliest posts claiming this were during the first week in August of 2007 on BSDA. I have gone through all of the court filings up till a week after that and can't find it, or any reference to it.

I am sure you must know where it is, or can find it quickly as not too much was filed by either party at that time.

Could you supply a 3abnvjoy link to it, or to any reference to it, or as an alternative tell me where it is in the court records before August 2 2007, so I know where to look on Pacer and can find it easier?

Thank you,
..ian

[Pat Williams]

What point would there be in removing the web page?

You have ignored something here, Mr Pickle.

You have published his letter without his permission, labeling it "A Save-3ABN exclusive" complete with your own published commentary, and have ignored his requests to remove it. That You are attempting to justify, I get that even while I disagree with you ends justify the means rationalizations.

But, and more importantly as you and Gailon Joy claim to be reporters, WHY have you not included his second letter on your website? Is that ethical, or resposible and balanced reporting? Is it even honest? What is your reason for only reporting half, and what can you possibly say to try and justify that?

The subject material has been a part of court record about two years now. It's public record in at least three courts now, I believe.

You have claimed since Aug 07 that it was part of the public record. I am part of the public and I haven't ever seen this record. Where is it? And who made it public?
 That question has been tabled by you since it was first asked of you years ago and inquiring minds want to know.

And, based on the fact that 3ABN included Nick Miller material in with their Rule 26(a)(1) materials, 3ABN intended to bring up the matter in the litigation.

 You don't know what 3abn intended, you aren't God, nor are you a prophet who can tell the future. Nicholas Miller was an Attorney for 3abn, and a 3abn board member, his name is in or on many materials. In any case, you are saying that what you think 3abn might have done in the future, justifies what you did 3 yrs ago? Weak, weak, weak, Mr Pickle!

Further, Nick states above:

But they would not, in my experience, undermine or go contrary to basic principles of Christian respect and courtesy in dealing with others in doing so.

...[deleted Argumentum ad nauseam]....

3D

[Bob Pickle]

It looks to me like it was first put on PACER on Feb. 25, 2008, in the District of Minnesota. See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mnd-08mc00007/mnd-08mc00007-doc-24-31.pdf. That would be about two years now, and thus my statement was accurate as to it being part of the public record about that long.

I believe we filed it also in Illinois, and of course in Massachusetts.

What point would there be in posting Nick's second letter? He was threatened with a lawsuit. That could have affected the wording of his second letter. But even if that were not the case, what exactly would it add to the picture?

3ABN would never have given us those materials in their Rule 26(a)(1) materials if they had not intended to deal in the litigation with the forcing of Nick Miller to resign. They certainly didn't want us to have anything substantive.

[Cindy]

It looks to me like it was first put on PACER on Feb. 25, 2008, in the District of Minnesota. See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mnd-08mc00007/mnd-08mc00007-doc-24-31.pdf. That would be about two years now, and thus my statement was accurate as to it being part of the public record about that long.

That wasn't what I asked, Bob. You have been making this claim for longer than that. You, and Joy, have been making it since you threw your source Nick Miller under the bus in 2007. Were those statements accurate and truthful?

Let's try again.

Hey Bob, before I reply further on this issue, I have a question.

You have been claiming since you, as webmaster of save-3abn,  first published Nick Millers letter that it was a matter of public record in the court case. Your earliest posts claiming this were during the first week in August of 2007 on BSDA. I have gone through all of the court filings up till a week after that and can't find it, or any reference to it.

I am sure you must know where it is, or can find it quickly as not too much was filed by either party at that time. Smiley

Could you supply a 3abnvjoy link to it, or to any reference to it, or as an alternative tell me where it is in the court records before August 2 2007, so I know where to look on Pacer and can find it easier?

Thank you,
..ian

[Bob Pickle]

So what claims were made by Gailon or myself in 2007? And were those claims ever amended?

You can say I said such and such, but did I say it?

Remember also that at the time the story was published, Danny was after our hard drives. If Danny can alter billing records, he could just as easily find information on our hard drives that was never ever there.

That was a very serious concern of mine at the time, and Nick Miller's story illustrated that my concern was not uncalled for.

[Bob Pickle]

Here's three of the seven editions of 3ABN's corporate bylaws. 3ABN gave us all seven editions as part of their Rule 26(a)(1) materials, declaring them to be confidential.

3ABN gave us the seventh a second time in response to our requests to produce, again calling it confidential. What a joke!

Now if Simpson's threat wasn't bogus, he will promptly file a motion to hold me in contempt of court for publishing these. But I don't think it would be wise for him to do that.

What "confidential" document should I publish next?

[Bob Pickle]

Above was posted #1 and #5 of the seven versions of the corporate bylaws. Here is #7.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

The subject material has been a part of court record about two years now. It's public record in at least three courts now, I believe.

Hey Bob, before I reply further on this issue, I have a question.

You have been claiming since you, as webmaster of save-3abn,  first published Nick Millers letter that it was a matter of public record in the court case. Your earliest posts claiming this were during the first week in August of 2007 on BSDA. I have gone through all of the court filings up till a week after that and can't find it, or any reference to it.

I am sure you must know where it is, or can find it quickly as not too much was filed by either party at that time.

Could you supply a 3abnvjoy link to it, or to any reference to it, or as an alternative tell me where it is in the court records before August 2 2007, so I know where to look on Pacer and can find it easier?

Thank you,
..ian

I had discovered the Miller docs as part of our voluntary discovery that included over 7,000 e-mails and other documents in the fall pf 2007. just didn;t beleive that we should with-hold a thing and were discovered on CD's at the time.

In any event, there were clear circumstances that I felt required the elucidation of the facts as best made by Miller himself. I also had a need to elucidate specific loyalties at the time and "leaking"  the specific documment to include Nicks request served a very specific purpose. I authorized the release and did so against Mr. Pickles advise. I do not and never will regret disclosing a lawyers statement. And that goes double for Nick Miller. We knew what he knew before I interviewed him and it was a "contentious" interview. He knew the truth and served as a member of the board while serving as counsel. He knew what Justice required and fell victim to his own failure to clear up the issues with which he was so familiar with. Justice required his outrage and resignation long before he was thrown out by the intrigue of the very man he protected in sin.

What goes around comes around!!! I have no loyalty or respect for the likes of Nicholas Miller, Esq.

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter