Print

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

[vestedinterest]

Just wondering -
I can only speak for myself - I did not know of a 3rd underage victim, but thought there was a report of an "adult" who wished to remain anonymous.

[Alex L. Walker]

I am going to respond to truths snide remark about me published over at the site of sinful destruction.

First "Truth" I don't care what you think, ok? So get over yourself.

Second, don't take my word for it...call the Fairfax county Police Department and ask for the Detective who was over the case. She will inform you that another one besides us two did contact her.

[Alex L. Walker]

Alex, will the 3rd  victim ever consider, coming forward, if it would help convict Tommy? I understand if he/she won't.

My understanding is that the victim has talked to authorities.

[JustWondering]

Just wondering -
I can only speak for myself - I did not know of a 3rd underage victim, but thought there was a report of an "adult" who wished to remain anonymous.

Vested Interest,
In reading at blacksda, at the start of the VA allegations there were three people; one minor and two adults.

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11633&st=45

12/3/2006
Three instances of misconduct on the part of Tommy Shelton while he served as pastor at the Community Church of God, Dunn Loring, Virginia, have been reported to me in the brief time I have served as pastor of this congregation.

The most egregious of these instances involved a male who was a minor at the time.

Further down the page at the link above, the following is stated:

12/3/2006
 It was not until after Tommy Shelton left the pastorate here at the Community Church of God, Dunn Loring, Virginia, in 2000, that while vacationing my wife and I were spending some time with a former "confidant" of Tommy's in the congregation in Virginia and this individual informed us of misconduct on Tommy's part while serving at the Community Church of God. This alleged misconduct was believable but unsubstantiated and is unrelated to the three instances which have been brought to my attention in the past year.

So, as of December 2006 there were a total of four allegations of misconduct, including one by a minor.  Then adding in the two additional allegations by minors that Pickle heard about in June 2007, there have been allegations by six people of misconduct.  Of course this is in addition to all of the allegations in IL.  The more that I read, the worse it gets.  Much prayer is needed.

[Bob Pickle]

I'm sorry, JustWondering, that I don't remember the details from back then. I think Dryden told me at some point that there was another possible victim over there, but it's been too long since I was told by whomever, and I don't recall ever having an actual name.

However, Dryden and I did talk about the time that Alex came forward, so he very well could be who told me. But whoever told me did not give me any names.

By the way, in looking over my notes, I did run across a name of a boy I was told that Tommy allegedly made an advance toward maybe 10 years before Brad Dunning. If that actually occurred, it might explain why Danny told Walt in 2003, according to Walt, that the allegations were 27 or 30 years old.

Who knows how many there are.

[Bob Pickle]

So, as of December 2006 there were a total of four allegations of misconduct, including one by a minor.  Then adding in the two additional allegations by minors that Pickle heard about in June 2007, there have been allegations by six people of misconduct.  Of course this is in addition to all of the allegations in IL.  The more that I read, the worse it gets.  Much prayer is needed.

As of December 2006, Dryden's 2003 letter referenced 6 boys, and the new victims in VA made the total 7 minors and 2 adults. We also had allegations involving Tommy's adopted son being victimized, and an advance toward an adult Shelton family member around 1991. That would then make 8 minors and 4 adults.

Then around Jan. 1, 2007, Duane Clem came forward. Then Mom in Pain #1's son. That's 9 minors and 4 adults. Then Alex around June 2007, making 10 minors and 4 adults.

And of course someone else's list may be longer or shorter, and my list may become longer if I remember more names.

Oh, the one I mentioned before Brad Dunning. That would then make it 11 minors and 4 adults, assuming the boy was a minor at the time.

One name I was told about as a possibility, I gave the guy a call and he freaked out. I doubt he would have done that if nothing had happened.

[Alex L. Walker]

I must take a moment and respond to "Nikolas" who made a direct attack at the other site.

First: Nikolas I am confident that I will win at trial as is the other victim.

Second: you mention a possible law suit against me if there isn't a "guilty" verdict. All I have to say is your threat and "Court Information" as you like to call it does not scare me. If I and/or the other victim does not get a guilty verdict we will be ready to fight  with all our available means at any attempts to collect court cost.

[Alex L. Walker]

I must take a moment and respond to "Nikolas" who made a direct attack at the other site.

First: Nikolas I am confident that I will win at trial as is the other victim.

Second: you mention a possible law suit against me if there isn't a "guilty" verdict. All I have to say is your threat and "Court Information" as you like to call it does not scare me. If I and/or the other victim does not get a guilty verdict we will be ready to fight  with all our available means at any attempts to collect court cost.

If anyone was wondering what post I was referring too it's this one:


Court Information
by Nikolas » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:57 pm UTC

1. Fact: Tommy Shelton rejected another plea deal from his attorney.

2. Fact: Tommy Shelton has chosen to go to Court.

3. Fact: When what Alex has told in Court is proven to be lies, Tommy will have no choice but to sue for his court expenses.

4. Fact: There has been some talk that Tommy Shelton's attorney advised him to sue.

This came from friends.





I am not at all worried to have to testify at the trial. I look forward to it! As I told one certain news reporter when he asked me about the judge accepting the deal. I said I was "fine" with it. That still remains my feelings today.

As I stated I am not at all intimidated by this it is a tactic to intimidate the victims to back down. Like a friend of mine use to say... If you feel froggy jump.  If Tommy's attorney's have advised him to sue either myself or the other victim if tommy get's a "not guilty" good for them. As I further stated we will meet that challenge when or IF it comes.

I will end with this quote:

"Wars are not won by evacuations."
~ Winston Churchill

Edited to Add more Thought.

[Gregory]

I can not help myself, I just have to reply to that post:

Yes, I have stated that if TS goes to trial, it will not be a slam-dunk.  TS might be found guilty and he might be found not guilty.

So, if he is found not guilty, can he sue those who have accused him?  Yes, one can file a suit for just about any reason at all.  However, the mere filing of a lawsuit does not mean that it will ever go to trial and to judgement.  [NOTE: One of the first motions in a trial is often to dismiss the lawsuit.  Sometimes the litigation is dismissed without going to trail.]  If it goes to trial, it does not mean that a favorable verdict will be obtained.

In my opinion:  If TS is found Not Guilty, he will have almost zero chance of collecting anything from those who have accused him on the basis of anything which involves that trial--the charges and/or sworn testimony are included in my statement.  1) The thought that a jury would award TS damages against the plaintifs reveals, in my mind a fundamental misunderstanding of what juries are likely to do in such cases.  2) The plaintifs are represented by competent council.  Those attornies would not allow anything to happen. connected to the trail, that would make their clients subject to such damages.

Is there any way that TS might collect damages from someone?  Yes, I think that there is a way.  Perhaps TS could collect from someone on the basis of posts made in this forum!

However, there are two issues associated with that:  1)  As I read TS,  I do not beleive that he would want to be involved in such litigation.  2)  TS could only collect if the person had the means to pay the judgement.
 

[Alex L. Walker]

I can not help myself, I just have to reply to that post:

Yes, I have stated that if TS goes to trial, it will not be a slam-dunk.  TS might be found guilty and he might be found not guilty.

So, if he is found not guilty, can he sue those who have accused him?  Yes, one can file a suit for just about any reason at all.  However, the mere filing of a lawsuit does not mean that it will ever go to trial and to judgement.  [NOTE: One of the first motions in a trial is often to dismiss the lawsuit.  Sometimes the litigation is dismissed without going to trail.]  If it goes to trial, it does not mean that a favorable verdict will be obtained.

In my opinion:  If TS is found Not Guilty, he will have almost zero chance of collecting anything from those who have accused him on the basis of anything which involves that trial--the charges and/or sworn testimony are included in my statement.  1) The thought that a jury would award TS damages against the plaintifs reveals, in my mind a fundamental misunderstanding of what juries are likely to do in such cases.  2) The plaintifs are represented by competent council.  Those attornies would not allow anything to happen. connected to the trail, that would make their clients subject to such damages.

Is there any way that TS might collect damages from someone?  Yes, I think that there is a way.  Perhaps TS could collect from someone on the basis of posts made in this forum!

However, there are two issues associated with that:  1)  As I read TS,  I do not beleive that he would want to be involved in such litigation.  2)  TS could only collect if the person had the means to pay the judgement.
 

Thank you Gregory. I have sent that post to my attorney's  and I  can say this without breaking attorney/client privilege. We are not worried!

[Gregory]

Alex:

You should not be worried about any litigation against you, as I understand the way the courts work in the U.S.

[JustWondering]

I must take a moment and respond to "Nikolas" who made a direct attack at the other site.

First: Nikolas I am confident that I will win at trial as is the other victim.

Second: you mention a possible law suit against me if there isn't a "guilty" verdict. All I have to say is your threat and "Court Information" as you like to call it does not scare me. If I and/or the other victim does not get a guilty verdict we will be ready to fight  with all our available means at any attempts to collect court cost.

If anyone was wondering what post I was referring too it's this one:

Court Information
by Nikolas » Fri Dec 03, 2010 10:57 pm UTC

1. Fact: Tommy Shelton rejected another plea deal from his attorney.

2. Fact: Tommy Shelton has chosen to go to Court.

3. Fact: When what Alex has told in Court is proven to be lies, Tommy will have no choice but to sue for his court expenses.

4. Fact: There has been some talk that Tommy Shelton's attorney advised him to sue.

This came from friends.

I am not at all worried to have to testify at the trial. I look forward to it! As I told one certain news reporter when he asked me about the judge accepting the deal. I said I was "fine" with it. That still remains my feelings today.

As I stated I am not at all intimidated by this it is a tactic to intimidate the victims to back down. Like a friend of mine use to say... If you feel froggy jump.  If Tommy's attorney's have advised him to sue either myself or the other victim if tommy get's a "not guilty" good for them. As I further stated we will meet that challenge when or IF it comes.

I will end with this quote: "Wars are not won by evacuations."  ~ Winston Churchill

Edited to Add more Thought.

Alex, Hang in there!  Their only defense is to try to intimidate the victims.  That is all they have to work with.  They will do whatever they can do in an attempt to keep TS from going to prison.  If TS had been remorseful the judge may have accepted the plea deal and he would have avoided prison.  The more they fight the worse it may end up being for TS and he may end up with a longer prison sentence.  The more they fight, the more God will bring into the light.

[Johann]

I am not at all worried to have to testify at the trial. I look forward to it! As I told one certain news reporter when he asked me about the judge accepting the deal. I said I was "fine" with it. That still remains my feelings today.

As I stated I am not at all intimidated by this it is a tactic to intimidate the victims to back down. Like a friend of mine use to say... If you feel froggy jump.  If Tommy's attorney's have advised him to sue either myself or the other victim if tommy get's a "not guilty" good for them. As I further stated we will meet that challenge when or IF it comes.

I will end with this quote:

"Wars are not won by evacuations."
~ Winston Churchill

    

[Alex L. Walker]

Again: I'm posting to respond to someones obvious misinformation; Pat Williams.

First Pat states this:

"Alex maintains it doesn't bother him that he has to go to court now, but I tend to disbelieve him."

---Pat, I don't care what you believe or don't believe. I mean what I said. It does not at all bother me to go to court. I'm glad you people think so, but you're in for a suprise!


Second it states this: -note I say "it" because they talk trash, but don't identify themselves.

---He makes references to the evidence that the prosecutor may or may not have. The prosecutor along with my attorney's believe there is enough evidence in both trials to get a conviction. You further talk about the prosecution having no witnesses...are you sure about that?

Third it talks about inconsistent statements made by both victims:

---I will not respond to that, but am not worried that they will have an effect.

Fourth it states this:

"Tommy, may I remind all, has lost his home, his retirement and much more in all of this."

---In this he is talking about a possible law suit against Tommy's accusers. Let me remind you all he's fabricating the truth. Especially on the home being sold. My sources tell me that Tommy was planning on selling his home far before his arrest. So to say that any victim is the cause of this is a complete lie. Also, I have been told by my people that Tommy had enough money to buy a home in Mississippi. I can assure you he has not lost that home.  I also get sick of seeing that he has lost all of his money. That is not an excuse. Tommy could have asked to have been represented by a Public defender free of charge. This is another attempt at sympathy.

Fifth it talks about perjury; another scare tactic that they are now tossing out. They noticed that being threatened with a possible law suit didn't bother me so they are going to use this. Let me assure them: I’M NOT WORRIED!!!!
Lastly, it states this:

"I'm sure some will freak out, like Alex already did, saying I am trying to intimidate him. That's OK, I'm not. I am just saying one should consider all. The courts will decide fairly, God willing.”

--- LOL! I did not freak out. Yes I'm going to say you're trying to intimidate me because that is exactly what it is. You are correct the courts will decide not you Pat Williams.

[Alex L. Walker]

I wasn't going to respond again to Pat Williams, but I must.


First Pat says this:

"Alex has just replied to my last post above over on Pickle's forum. Most of it imo is not worth replying to or repeating here. I would like to respond to two things however as I don't want to give the impression I have some inside scoop, or inside source feeding me information as the yokels over there are fond of claiming. I was merely commenting based on the information which has been made publicly available."


---Pat the reason you say "most of it is not worth repeating here" is because you know it's truth. Just as I pointed out the lies addressed by you to the fact that Tommy has lost everything because of his accusers. You know it's truth and you didn't deny it in your second smut post.

Second:

"It really makes no difference to me, but for what it's worth, my opinion is based on your own previous decision to accept the plea bargain with significantly reduced charges with only probation and no prison or jail time, after being told the risks of going to trial. It was also based on your own words about never pressing charges, and the testimony of your own family:"

CanI say liar..liar? Obviously it makes alot of difference to you or you would shut up. I don't care, Pat. These things do not bother me and I am not afraid to testify! Leave it alone. You can post whatever your smut heart desires but it don't bother me! End of story.

Third:

"I believe that it was also posted that a family member of yours said that you told them after Tommy's arrest that you were going to try and get out of the case as you didn't want to be involved... "

Again I say liar, liar. I am so sick of this lie I could puke.  Let me clear this up:

I NEVER said I was hiring attorney's to not be involved. I do recall having a conversation about wanting them because at that time I was getting hounded by the media. I also wanted to make sure my name was not being released. That is what I said.

Lastly:

"I feel no need to argue with you about it. I merely posted my own opinion based on the prosecutor's own words on two different occasions in court to the Judge. Witnesses for you were never mentioned. She said, and I quote: "There were no corroborating witnesses." and "she said she did not want to submit her two victims, each almost 30 years old, to potentially grueling trials with the possibility of acquittals."

I refuse to argue as well....I can just say you're in for a suprise. I do know that there is a key witness. A person that one of the Shelton's confided in.