Print

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

[Snoopy]

Gregory are you aware that (to me at least) you come accross as very condescending in your manner. This seems to be quite deliberate. Now I may be wrong and it is not your intention to lecture or talk down to us individuals who are mere mortals.  In which case your remarks would be appropriate.

I have felt that way for years, COTK.  I totally agree with you.

[Gregory]

My position:  Bob and Gailon have every right to fight for what they believe in and to defend themselves.  Also, 3-ABN, Danny Shelton and whomever else has every right to defend their interests by means of the judicial system to the same extent that Bob and Gailon have those rights.  On some issues, I believe that 3-ABN had a duty to those who have supported it to defend itself in court.  I donot fault any of the participants in the litigation.

Realisticly, some of the issues that are involved, in my mind are not resolvable outside of the judicial system and probably through no one's fault.

Other issues potentially might have been resolvable, in my opinion, outside of the judicial system.  I have stated my personal opinon, at this time, in a thread that I have titled "Mediation."

O.K. That is where I am.  Perhaps that reflects a bias.  If so, my bias is that everyone has some fault.  You will note that in my thread on Mediation I stated that I have taken some positions that I now believe to have been wroing.

[Gregory]

I have often said:  If people on both sides think that I am wrong in some way, I must be doing something right, even if wrong on some aspects. 

[Bob Pickle]

My position:  Bob and Gailon have every right to fight for what they believe in and to defend themselves.  Also, 3-ABN, Danny Shelton and whomever else has every right to defend their interests by means of the judicial system to the same extent that Bob and Gailon have those rights.  On some issues, I believe that 3-ABN had a duty to those who have supported it to defend itself in court.  I donot fault any of the participants in the litigation.

3ABN had a duty to its donors to spend over $1 million in 2007 and 2008 alone of those donor funds? 3ABN had a duty to pay for Danny's personal vendetta against us?

3ABN had a duty to defend itself in court? Against what? We were the defendants, not 3ABN.

What specific issues did 3ABN have a duty to defend itself in court about?

The lawsuit accuses us of lying about Danny's personal use of the jet, which was true nonetheless. However, the only reference I can find to that is my quoting from the judge's opinion in the property tax case, and then asking, "So are they now making sure that all trips in the plane are only for business purposes? Is that one of the changes that has been made?" I got sued for that?

Yet the very next post, by yourself, states:

I don't think so.

Is it not true that a recent "honeymoon" was taken on the 3-ABN jet? Did not that honeymoon last for several days? Is it not true that the only business conducted on that trip was a Sabbath sermon at a local SDA church?

Correct me if I am wrong.

From http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-3.pdf.

Now why did I get sued and you didn't? Why did I get sued for saying that Danny was using the jet for personal purposes when, as far as I can tell, I never said any such thing? I only quoted Admin. Law Judge Barbara Rowe. Yet you indicated that Danny had used the jet for his honeymoon, and you didn't get sued.

I do not think 3ABN had a duty to sue me over my quotation from Judge Rowe's opinion, a duty which cost over $1 million in 2007 and 2008 alone.

So what specific issues did 3ABN have a duty to sue over?

[Johann]

She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?

Here we have one more proof that this SAM is a person who does not care if he's telling the truth or not. Just as long as he makes a statement he thinks will benefit his fight. How can you trust the rest of what he says?

[Bob Pickle]

She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?

Here we have one more proof that this SAM is a person who does not care if he's telling the truth or not. Just as long as he makes a statement he thinks will benefit his fight. How can you trust the rest of what he says?

Sam could always post the deposition, couldn't he?

Sam's theology seems a bit warped. He seems to lean toward a works-gets-you-to-heaven-without-repenting theology. It matters not how many years 3ABN has been on the air, or how many baptisms 3ABN's ministry has resulted in. Danny should still return the money he took via kickbacks and royalties, and that 1998 house deal, and should apologize for covering up pedophilia, of all things. He also should reimburse 3ABN for his share of the litigation costs.

[Gregory]

Bob and anyone else:

My focus, as I have stated before, has never been that of 3-ABN and/or Danny Shelton ahd his alleged sins.  My focus has been on Linda and my posiiton has been and remains to this day:
 1) Linda was not treated right by 3-ABN.  However, I do not attribute malice to people with whom I disagree.

2) Linda did not give a conservative SDA reason to think that Danny had Biblical justification to divorce her.  However, the marriage was broken and it has ended.  From this point on, let both Danny and Linda live in peace without negative comments toward either in regard to future marriages and/or relationshilps that either might enter into.  Wish either well should either decide to remarry.

So from the above standpoint I am not going to debate specifics as to the rightness or wrongness of either side as to the litigation.  As I said:  There were issues that could not be resolved by any means other than litigation.  In such a case, each side has a right to defendtheir interests.

Yes, perhaps some issues could have been resolved by mediation.  But, that did not happen.  That is over and done with.   In my thinking,  you, Gailon, Danny and 3-ABN are free to persue such litigation as you think necessary.

Disagree with me, fine.


As why I was not named as a litigant:  Such would only be speculative and probably without foundation.

[Bob Pickle]

As I said:  There were issues that could not be resolved by any means other than litigation.

And as I asked not once but twice, what specific issues?

[tinka]

Hmmmm, that could be a million dollar answer that won't come. (smile).  This could be a man that is balancing on a high wire fence. There has always got to be truth of right or wrong no matter what and not using knowledge that one has to divulge truth is wrong. Either way is false witness. to withhold or not deliever justice is guilty. To me that is the worst position to be in.

[Johann]

How many souls have either of you guys helped lead to the Lord in the last several years since you made trying to destroy 3abn your lifes work?
In your defense, there was never any chance that your dreams would come true. 3ABN is God's channel of blessing. Reports come in from around the world everyday of people who have given their lives to Christ because of the message being taught.

What do you know about that? Do you know how often I preach to audiences that are not church members? Do you know how many back sliders Dr. Arild Abrahamsen has brought back to church in recent years? It is still the Lord who brings the souls to the Cross of Christ.

[Johann]

When will SAM answer this question?

She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?

Here we have one more proof that this SAM is a person who does not care if he's telling the truth or not. Just as long as he makes a statement he thinks will benefit his fight. How can you trust the rest of what he says?

[Bob Pickle]

Just how perverse was Sam's post, as well as heretical?

Danny tried to destroy us by suing us, and Sam falsely accuses us of trying to destroy 3ABN. Danny's lawsuit takes up all our time, and Sam accuses us then of not spending enough time with our families, our churches, and winning souls.

That's about like Emperor Domitian publicly accusing the Apostle John of not spending enough time soul winning after the same emperor had exiled John to Patmos.

And notice the pomposity of Sam's post, that Satan hates 3ABN the most of all ministries, as if 3ABN is the most important and most effective of all ministries.

May the Lord take note and judge.

[princessdi]

Ok, my bad, I re read and it seems I misunderstood Bob's explanation.  My apologies.  That is why I was asking.  Tenacious Bob is, but I didn't want to believe he was stupid.   My bad.

I understand now that Bob was saying that the investigation did not end with the IRS completely exonerating Danny/3ABN(as some would have it believed), but that they actually found the problem and they settled for an amount that did or did not cover all of the taxes owed.

You really want to post on the world wide web that the IRS took a bribe?  And from a big fish in a very little pool........ok....

I said nothing about a bribe.

C'mon, Diane.  Use some common sense.  I even posted a red hat warning saying that.  If you are going to quote people, please make sure you are not perpetuating a blatant lie.  I don't think you would have appreciated that at BSDA!!

http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2122.msg31693.html#msg31693

[princessdi]

Well, for my part I did state that Simpson would be getting very little or no income from this particular case.   

I agree that 3ABN and DS brought the lawsuit from the beginning(which is another discussion altogether), but when they dropped it, except for a few lingering issues, they would not be continuing to pay Simpson at the rate they were when they were actively suing BP and GJ.  Unless, he is on retainer, if the docs had been returned as requested DS/3ABN might not have had to pay Simpson at all.  They believe the judgement requires BP and GJ to return the documents, so they have a legal right to persue that.  BP and GJ will be first to tell you that they make no bones about what they mean to do with whatever information they hope to glean from these documents, or else there would not be an issue if they thought them worthless.  However, with Bob and GJ sending through a study stream of motions and filings where Simpson may or may not be required to appear at hearings.  We all know that those things a bit more costly then a phone call or an email.

As I type there is one more question that I have.  Bob, do you all believeif you were to return the docs requested, you will then be sued over again, basically, an attempt to catch you unprepared?  Last time it basically got to what seemed to be a stalemate.  Without so much "eveidence" they might see the next lawsuit as a slam dunk.  I ask, because it seems that they are basically threatening legal action on this one point--return of the documents, but I believe your reluctance is because you don't trust them not to try to sue you again.

I strongly disagree.

Why does this have to be laid entirely at Bob and Gailon's feet?  3ABN and DS brought the case in the first place, but when it got hot in the kitchen they cut and ran.  They caused Bob and Gailon to incur a great deal of time and expense to defend themselves, and they have a right to try to recoup that.  Bob and Gailon also have a right to fight for their first amendment rights, something obviously lost on several readers here.  As for Simpson's "golden eggs", nobody is forcing 3ABN/DS to continue to respond to the litigation and pay Simpson.  They could take the high road, try to resolve the mess they created and attempt a good faith effort to at least make Bob and Gailon whole after dragging them into court.  Seems to me that's what Jesus would do...oh...except that He would have never done what 3ABN/DS did in the first place.

Your bias is obvious.

[Bob Pickle]

They believe the judgement requires BP and GJ to return the documents, so they have a legal right to persue that.

I believe that to be false. I believe they know we don't have to return documents.

BP and GJ will be first to tell you that they make no bones about what they mean to do with whatever information they hope to glean from these documents, or else there would not be an issue if they thought them worthless.

We have never said we would publish what is in those documents.

However, there are things in these documents that are clearly not confidential, and the plaintiffs should have been sanctioned for calling them confidential. For example, how could Catch the Vision, freely downloadable from 3ABN's website, be confidential?

As I type there is one more question that I have.  Bob, do you all believeif you were to return the docs requested, you will then be sued over again, basically, an attempt to catch you unprepared?

That is a very plausible scenario. There is certainly nothing legally preventing them from doing it all over again.

Last time it basically got to what seemed to be a stalemate.  Without so much "eveidence" they might see the next lawsuit as a slam dunk.  I ask, because it seems that they are basically threatening legal action on this one point--return of the documents, but I believe your reluctance is because you don't trust them not to try to sue you again.

Correct.

Di, Simpson stated to the court on 1/4/2010:

Plaintiffs have not brought a motion specifically seeking return of the other documents that Pickle and Joy obtained under the Protective Order, primarily the Remnant Publishing records, because it would likely spawn a whole new series of motions and appeals. For the same reason, Plaintiffs also have not sought sanctions against Pickle and Joy, although their attacks on the integrity of this Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel would more than warrant them. For the reasons stated in their original motion for voluntary dismissal, Plaintiffs simply want this litigation to end. However, they reserve all rights under the Protective Order and their right to enforce this Court’s order that the records be returned if Pickle and Joy publish information under the Protective Order.

http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-216.pdf#page=8

Is Simpson a liar? Doesn't the above make fairly clear that they would not drag us back into court in order to try to get the documents unless we publish them? Then how come Simpson sent me a certified letter threatening to drag me back into court?