Print

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

[Artiste]

I am going to start a new thread entitled "Johann's tales"

ADMIN HAT ON

Warning:  Respect for the administrator of the site is required at this forum.

ADMIN HAT OFF

[Nosir Myzing]

Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.

I have a real problem with the above statement.  It's implication is that Linda was convicetd by secret evidence taht is not open to review.   Such is against what is commonly thought to be the American way of life--evidence is presented in an objective court with full opportunity for the devendent and his/her defenders/representatives to review, evaulate and to challenge.  In that objective court, those who testify may be subject to criminal sanctions if they testify falselly, or doctor the evidence.

Satements such as the above, in my thinking, imply that LInda has been convicted behind the scenes, in secret, and without the opportunity for her defenders and representatives to challege the claimed evidence.

In my opinion, no one who has been given access to such secret evidence should allow such secret evidence to play a part in determining Linda's guilt.  No matter how damning the evidence is, without the opportuith to challenge, in my opinion, it should not be used to convict.

And I have a real problem with your statements. You are an intelligent man, but this is not an intelligent argument, Gregory. It is not "secret evidence", but it is not "Public evidence" either. Nor is it the world's business.

Employers can and do fire employees, and it doesn't take a court case or a "conviction" to do so. Nor do they, nor should they make all public, correct? If they do, they may be sued. [ In fact Linda threatened that early on through her junkyard lawyer. That was what she called him when he litigated against her.] If the employee feels they are wrongfully terminated they may file a grievance or even a lawsuit with the proper agencies. A ex employees friends and defenders don't get to take on the Employer or it's board in the real world. If they wish to support the terminated friend, they may do so, if they have anything relevant to say in a court of law they may testify.


Churches also handle things privately, what happens in regard to board meetings about members is not announced to every Tom, Dick, or Gregory. Especially justt because they jump up and accuse them of acting like a secret tribunal and of not allowing them to represent their friend or challenge the evidence.  Only those personally involved get to speak, or get questioned. You know this. Church counseling and reasons or evidence leading to discipline is always private within that Church, and rightfully so.

Some may say:  Well, if Linda will agree not to litigate in a court of law, we will show it to her and her defenders/representatives.  Sorry. In my opinion such is not fair.  If the secret evidence is challenged as "doctored,"  those who did such should face legal sanctions.

The one side has claimed a right to litigate against Pickle and Joy.  I do not have a problem with that claim.  The courts are a proper place to resolve some issues.  And, for those who defend the litigation against Pickle and Joy, in my opinion, they should defend the rights of Linda to litigate against those who have provided her with a legal basis to litigate.  IOW, Linda should have the same right to litigate as those who have litigated against PIckle and Joy.

 Before having a knee jerk reaction and beginning to argue it is always good to read what you are replying to.
If you had you wouldn't be whining it's not fair, and acting like I said Linda doesn't have that right to litigate. I said: "If Linda, or Johann, or Mundall thinks they have a case, let them sue them. " I meant it. She has that right. She should go for it if she feels she needs to do that. Alright?

But if you think she doesn't already know what the evidence is? I believe you've been snowed big time.

[Gregory]

Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did. They will answer God, and you my dear, will answer to Him also for calling them all liars and second guessing their informed judgments and maligning them.

The reference to Chruches, Boards, Minstries, Conference Presidents, etc., takes it out of a simple termination of an employee.

If you want to cite labor law I am well prepared to match you.  Federal law applies in some cases.  In the majority of cases it is State law that governs and is other cases there is other law that governs and in some cases the governing document is a contract and not a statute.  In a number of States in the United States the governing law is simply put that an employee may be termilnated at the will of the  employer and no reason has to be given.  End of discussion.  The employer does not have to justify why the employee was fired.

The majority of the litigation that has taken place and the majority of the discussion has not involved the question as to whether or not 3-ABN had the legal reight to terminate the employement of Linda.  The litigation and the discussion has involved other issues.

Linda has been branded (See THE SCARLET LETTER) as having an inappropriate relationshilp with a man not her husband.  As I understand the posts, it has been implied that there is secret evidence of her misconduct.  I will say that in my opinion, no person should be "covicted" by a secret tribunal by evidence that is secret.

Let us say for the purpose of my arguement (you would probably agree that what I say next does not exist) that someone took a vido of Linda and Dr. A having sexual intercourse on a public beach.  Let us say that such a video has been shown to denominational officials who were convinced by the video that the charges against Linda were true.  I would still say that no such denominational offical, in my opinon, should hold LInda to be guilty in a situaiton where Linda and her supporters/representatives were allowed to examine, evaulate and challenge the video.  And, in such a situation, those who produced such a video should be subject to litigation if it  could be proved that they had doctored the product--the video.

Yes, you do have a point in that those who had such a video in their possession should not simply relaease it to the general public and/or post it on a public   website.  However, it should be released to whomever Linda wanted to have it and if Linda or one of her representatives, or someone to whom she gave it, released it to the public, so be it.

My comment was not related to the simple issue of 3-ABN firing Linda.  I addressed the larger picture.

[Gregory]

Churches also handle things privately, what happens in regard to board meetings about members is not announced to every Tom, Dick, or Gregory. Especially justt because they jump up and accuse them of acting like a secret tribunal and of not allowing them to represent their friend or challenge the evidence.  Only those personally involved get to speak, or get questioned. You know this. Church counseling and reasons or evidence leading to discipline is always private within that Church, and rightfully so.

1)  In standard denominational practice it is NOT a Chruch Board that makes a decision as to discipline of a member.  Rather it is the membership of the local congregation as a whole who makes the decision as to discipline and they should only do that on the basis of the evidence given them.

2) Previous comments which were related to "Confernce Presidents" and denominational officials suggest that the attempt to "tar" Linda has departed from that local congregation and has extended to people who did not have a need to know.

3) Yes, it is not every "Tom, Dick and Gregory" who should be given access to the evidence.  I agree with you on that.  Simply becasue one attemts to defend Linda does not mean that they have a right to the evidence.  The right to examine and challenge the evidence belongs to Linda and all those that she authorizes to recieve it.

4) As I thilnk you know, my issue has never been 3-ABN, Danney Shelton and how evil they are.  My issues has been silmply that of fairness and justice to Linda.  I have not been critical of Dr. Thompson, as a person and I have publicly stated that he is a good man who has served a church that he loved for many years.  I have not accused him of malice against Linda and I do not believe that he acted with malice in the decisions that he made as this mess began.  But, I do believe that as this mess has unfolded Linda has not been treated with the fairness and justice that she has deserved.

5) While I do not charge you with evil intent toward Linda, you posted a comment that casued me to decide to respond, which I do not do often.

[Nosir Myzing]

Churches also handle things privately, what happens in regard to board meetings about members is not announced to every Tom, Dick, or Gregory. Especially justt because they jump up and accuse them of acting like a secret tribunal and of not allowing them to represent their friend or challenge the evidence.  Only those personally involved get to speak, or get questioned. You know this. Church counseling and reasons or evidence leading to discipline is always private within that Church, and rightfully so.

1)  In standard denominational practice it is NOT a Chruch Board that makes a decision as to discipline of a member.  Rather it is the membership of the local congregation as a whole who makes the decision as to discipline and they should only do that on the basis of the evidence given them.

You are right.

2) Previous comments which were related to "Confernce Presidents" and denominational officials suggest that the attempt to "tar" Linda has departed from that local congregation and has extended to people who did not have a need to know.

Well we may have to just disagree. I think that in a normal situation that would be true. In this particular situation it's not. It wasn't about tarring Linda. In this situation, it all was being complained about publicly by those who decided to defend Linda. Mailing were being sent to conference officials and presidents and pastors.
DS, the 3ABN board and others were being criticized and accused and it was they who were being tarred. Like it or not the SDA organization is hierarchical and 3ABN although independent has an agreement with them, so when those above others said what is the deal? It was their right to ask and be told, and when 3ABN said here's what we decided and did and here's why, it should be understood why they would attempt to  explain to those who had a right to inquire to avoid the appearance of evil and show they were accountable.

3) Yes, it is not every "Tom, Dick and Gregory" who should be given access to the evidence.  I agree with you on that.  Simply becasue one attemts to defend Linda does not mean that they have a right to the evidence.  The right to examine and challenge the evidence belongs to Linda and all those that she authorizes to recieve it.

Here again we will have to disagree I am thinking. For if someone privately threatened me that if I revealed evidence they would sue me, [evidence that normally employers don't hand out] and then demanded publicly that I reveal that same evidence? If they also claimed that me asking them to sign a promise not to sue if I did as they demanded was unfair and wouldn't sign one? Well it seems you'd want me to hand the evidence over, but I would not. I would consider that a bone headed move. I would consider that the equivalent of handing them my head on a platter.

4) As I thilnk you know, my issue has never been 3-ABN, Danney Shelton and how evil they are.  My issues has been silmply that of fairness and justice to Linda.  I have not been critical of Dr. Thompson, as a person and I have publicly stated that he is a good man who has served a church that he loved for many years.  I have not accused him of malice against Linda and I do not believe that he acted with malice in the decisions that he made as this mess began.  But, I do believe that as this mess has unfolded Linda has not been treated with the fairness and justice that she has deserved.

5) While I do not charge you with evil intent toward Linda, you posted a comment that casued me to decide to respond, which I do not do often.

I do not have a problem with you responding. You appear to know how to disagree civilly and not keep changing the topic.  I understand how you feel about Linda, but I believe that Danny and 3abn have not been treated with the fairness and justice they deserve either. This internet no holds barred public bash fest is just not right.


Good-night.

[Gregory]

I have decided to comment on the law, legal rights as they intersect with churches and so on.  I am not an attorney.  I do not practice law.  I acknowledge that the law is complex enough that should the comments I make be accurate, there would be exceptions in which my comments would not apply.

There seems to be a feeling that certain aspects of a potential disciplinary action against Linda must be kept secret in order to protect the Church and/or certain people acting on behalf of or in concert with the church from adverse litigation.  When church discipline is done right, this, in my opinion is not an issue.   Under the provisions of the First Amendment there is a large body of case law that limits the ability of government and/or the courts to become involved in church issues.  Linda was a member of the Thompsonville SDA Church.  As such, I believe that the courts would resist becoming involved in a situation where the Thompsonville congregation was attempting to discipline Linda in accord with denominational procedures.  I also believe that the courts would likely refuse to determine whether or not Linda was disciplined according to denominational procedures.  I believe that the courts would refuse to become involved in any discipline that the Thompsonville congregation gave to Linda.  In short, I do not believe that the Thompsonville congregation was in major danger as to any discipline that it might have given Linda.  In general this pertains, in my opinion, to any evidence that might have been a factor in her discipline.

Of course the ability of the Thompsonville congregation to discipline Linda change once they exited her from their membership.

However, in my opinion, I do not believe that what I have said above applies 100% to alleged evidence.  I can think of a hypothesis under which litigation could take place against certain people—probably not the Thompsonville congregation itself.  In such a case, the evidence, even if accurate, might to said to be tainted or compromised.  I have a gut level feeling that is not based upon any evidence, that this is the case—there is “secret” alleged evidence against Linda that has been tainted or compromised.  That is the reason it is kept secret.  Could I be wrong?  Of course.  I will likely never know as I expect such to be kept secret

[Gregory]

Nosir:

Evidence that cannot be made available for LInda (let us say that it cannot) and/or her representative to review and challenge should not be used to convict her.  It is as simple as that.

[Nosir Myzing]

Nosir:

Evidence that cannot be made available for LInda (let us say that it cannot) and/or her representative to review and challenge should not be used to convict her.  It is as simple as that.

She has not been "convicted". She wasn't even fired for adultery. In fact when this all began you were all criticizing 3abn for not explaining in more detail why she was gone. It wasn't until the first Adventist Today article appeared referring to her defenders and friends and her website and claims she did not have sex with that man, and had been falsely accused, that 3ABN said anything more.

 Evidence could and would have been made available for review or challenge in the ASI fiasco, but that didn't work out as you know, as Linda's team apparently didn't want to just deal with Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and the ASI people complained that she wouldn't ever answer or say anything. Too bad as at least that could have been over with by now.

It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...

IMHO this constant insistence that Linda's representatives be allowed to examine and challenge the evidence her former job and church had is strange. Joe civilian is not ever going to be able to do that unless Linda takes official steps to make that happen, and then gives it to them. I feel quite positive in saying that.


If she wants that, she can file a lawsuit, and legal representatives can examine and challenge whatever they feel is warranted and she can share it with you for your two cents, or joy, or Pickle or to infinity and beyond.

[Johann]

How can you be certain your ship of arguments will not be blown out of the water? Unless you prove that Linda knows the "evidence" these secret documents contain, your discussions are futile.

She has not been "convicted". She wasn't even fired for adultery. In fact when this all began you were all criticizing 3abn for not explaining in more detail why she was gone. It wasn't until the first Adventist Today article appeared referring to her defenders and friends and her website and claims she did not have sex with that man, and had been falsely accused, that 3ABN said anything more.

 Evidence could and would have been made available for review or challenge in the ASI fiasco, but that didn't work out as you know, as Linda's team apparently didn't want to just deal with Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and the ASI people complained that she wouldn't ever answer or say anything. Too bad as at least that could have been over with by now.

It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...

IMHO this constant insistence that Linda's representatives be allowed to examine and challenge the evidence her former job and church had is strange. Joe civilian is not ever going to be able to do that unless Linda takes official steps to make that happen, and then gives it to them. I feel quite positive in saying that.


If she wants that, she can file a lawsuit, and legal representatives can examine and challenge whatever they feel is warranted and she can share it with you for your two cents, or joy, or Pickle or to infinity and beyond.

[Gregory]

Linda not convicted:  In the legal sense, you are correct.  In the court of public opinion, it is divided.  In the minds of some she stands (or sits) convicted.  In the minds of others, she has not been convicted.

I wonder, if Linda were to file a lawsuit requesting the evidence, to what extent would it be resisted, how long would it be fought and in what (how many) courts?

I do not know.

[Nosir Myzing]

Huh?

Whether she does or not has no relevance here that I can see, but do you really believe that Danny never even mentioned the evidence to her or talked to her about it and that she remains clueless to this day? Alright... but even if that scenario is true it would still change nothing about what I said in the post you are replying to, Johann.

Did you by any chance ever watch Star Trek - the Next Generation?

Johann of Borg: " Your argument ship is blown up. Your discussions are futile. You will be assimilated."

Sorry, but

How can you be certain your ship of arguments will not be blown out of the water? Unless you prove that Linda knows the "evidence" these secret documents contain, your discussions are futile.

She has not been "convicted". She wasn't even fired for adultery. In fact when this all began you were all criticizing 3abn for not explaining in more detail why she was gone. It wasn't until the first Adventist Today article appeared referring to her defenders and friends and her website and claims she did not have sex with that man, and had been falsely accused, that 3ABN said anything more.

 Evidence could and would have been made available for review or challenge in the ASI fiasco, but that didn't work out as you know, as Linda's team apparently didn't want to just deal with Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and the ASI people complained that she wouldn't ever answer or say anything. Too bad as at least that could have been over with by now.

It could still be made available if she goes through a legal channels. Will she do so? Probably not. So far she has been a no show at any place or situation where the evidence would be discussed and she could give her side. The 3ABN board meeting, the Church business meeting, ASI, and even Pickle and Joy's lawsuit...

IMHO this constant insistence that Linda's representatives be allowed to examine and challenge the evidence her former job and church had is strange. Joe civilian is not ever going to be able to do that unless Linda takes official steps to make that happen, and then gives it to them. I feel quite positive in saying that.


If she wants that, she can file a lawsuit, and legal representatives can examine and challenge whatever they feel is warranted and she can share it with you for your two cents, or joy, or Pickle or to infinity and beyond.

[Nosir Myzing]

Linda not convicted:  In the legal sense, you are correct.  In the court of public opinion, it is divided.  In the minds of some she stands (or sits) convicted.  In the minds of others, she has not been convicted.

I wonder, if Linda were to file a lawsuit requesting the evidence, to what extent would it be resisted, how long would it be fought and in what (how many) courts?

I do not know.

I do not know if it would be, or not; but, speculation is futile, you will be assimilated.

We can probably agree it would  be better if the court of public opinion wasn't as big or as vocal as it is, and that it would have been better had nothing been said publicly beyond what was strictly necessary, by either side, from day one.

Enjoy your day. I have things to go do.

[Johann]

Huh?

Whether she does or not has no relevance here that I can see, but do you really believe that Danny never even mentioned the evidence to her or talked to her about it and that she remains clueless to this day? Alright... but even if that scenario is true it would still change nothing about what I said in the post you are replying to, Johann.

Did you by any chance ever watch Star Trek - the Next Generation?

Johann of Borg: " Your argument ship is blown up. Your discussions are futile. You will be assimilated."

Sorry, but

So is this but a Star Trek adventure to you with no regards to how Linda was treated? Are you trying to convince your adience that it should not make any difference to Linda if she is falsely accused or not? Linda still insists she has never been presented, privately or in public, with any evidence of the adultery she has been accused of because there is none. Since you are repeating that accusation here it is your duty to present the evidence for your claim before you present any other claim on this forum.  Else "Your argument ship is blown up. Your discussions are futile. You will be assimilated."

[Bob Pickle]

Seven, count them 7!! years later, no phone records, no airlines ticket receipts, no PI pictures produced in no court of law(remember, at BSDA they weren't posting their eveidence there, but saving it for court and a slam sunk divorce settlement, or lack thereof).

They sued us over, in part, the alleged lie that Danny was trying to hide the royalties for Ten Commandments Twice Removed from the marital property case.

But it appears to me that the strategy in that case may have evolved. If before they tried to maintain that the manuscripts for TCTR and Antichrist Agenda didn't exist before the divorce, they are instead now maintaining that these books weren't published or contracted for until after the divorce.

In other words, it appears that they are tacitly admitting that the manuscripts existed prior to the divorce. But they are still obstructing discovery in Linda's marital property case.

Sound familiar?

[Bob Pickle]

How would you know if they have, or have not been presented in Linda's property suit against Danny? You don't, that case is under seal.

Utterly false. The case is not under seal. Stop by the Franklin County Courthouse and you can look through all 5 folders of the case. You can then ask a clerk to photocopy whatever you want for $1 for the first page, and 50 cents per page thereafter.

There are some things within the case that are filed under seal. There might be 3 to 6 manila envelopes marked sealed or confidential, I don't know for sure how many. Those envelopes contain a very small amount of the paper in the case.

Further, I can't imagine why any of these envelopes would contain anything pertaining to alleged adultery. Certainly they didn't contain audio or video tapes. They likely only contain things pertaining to assets or book royalties or affidavits pertaining to Danny's books.

Those whose business it was, Churches, Boards, Ministries, Conference Presidents, and officials, saw it all and more to begin with, and yes, they got rid of Linda, or they confirmed the reasons of those who did.

Do you not recall that Illinois Conference President Ken Denslow told me on October 30, 2006, over lunch that he had never heard the audio tape that Hal Steenson told me that conference presidents had listened to was so sick?

So Evil Surmizing, please list for us the specific evidence you are referring to, and the names of those who saw it, the dates they saw it, and their positions at that time. Otherwise, your claims are as hollow as Hal Steenson's.