Print

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

[Artiste]

Very funny, Bob and SDAminister.

[Alex L. Walker]

Sam, are you forgetting that Tommy admitted molesting Alex?

If Alex is as disturbed as you claim, could it not be that Tommy is at least in part to blame?

Which brings up the question: Why are you defending admitted pedophile Tommy Shelton, Sam?

I'm not forgetting anything. Especially the part that professing guilt (whether guilty or not) was part of a plea bargain that the judge didn't accept. So now is a moot point as if it never happened...a lawyer tells me.

You're nuts. He admitted to what he did, and that is all I need to win this suit! What lawyer are you talking too?

As far as Alex being warped because of his accusations...No way  ask his parents. They will tell you that was his pattern since he was a toddler. In fact...why haven't you called his parents?  You have made hundreds of calls to try and dig up dirt on 3abn and Tommy but haven't talked to anyone in Alex's family that might dispute his stories. That seems a little one sided to me Bob. Doesn't back up your continual claims that you just want truth. I believe I challenged you before to talk to Alex's parents but it never happened...why Bob?  I'll answer that. You only want "truth" if it is something against 3abn or those that work there.  If your "inquiries" discover anything good, that never sees the light of day.

Your facts are wrong again...I do believe that Bob HAS spoken to my parents, so give it up!

Maybe you should stick to worrying about your own home and problems. After all, your wife has made claims of abusive behaviour by you to different people she has talked to. I have heard she also says she can't deal with your "obsession" with 3abn.  Good for her because, Bob, it is a sickness where you are concerned. Please try and seek help.
[/quote]

Irrelevant?

[Alex L. Walker]

Sam you have got some nerve. First, none of which you say can be proven, but I on the other hand can prove you're a liar. You keep up bringing up the gay issue like it's a bad thing? Yet, you fail to realize you defend an admitted pedophile who is what? GAY! Now your nonsense and half truths is getting old, so I will not respond to you anymore. One other thing John Manly withdrawing from my case had nothing to do with whether he believed me or not so quit insinuating he did, or Ill prove your cowardly [censored] wrong.

Finally, you quit using Adam's name. Good job!

What I say can be proven if your sister ends up testifying to it. Your parents already have. Testified to what? It can't be proven. It can be proven that she's a liar. I think Zach proved that in his post, so keep talking.
Is being gay not a bad thing?  You say you were a minister. Were you a gay minister? Is that why they let you go? No, I resigned you coward.
You are right about one thing. John M didn't let you go because he didn't personally believe you...he did until he started investigating your claims so he could defend you in court. That's when it all hit the fan and he discovered one lie after another. No attorney wants to be made a fool of in court and since he found out you were not credible he wasn't about to take your case. Loser? Your facts are wrong. Why don't you call John Manly and ask him the reason.  You need help!
Question...will you pursue this even if Tommy dies? Heck yes I will.   The medical reports presented to the court recently say that he had a huge stroke with permanent damage. I care why? Oh wait, of course you would still pursue as it is all about getting money that doesn't belong to you. After all didn't you threaten to sue your own dad at one time and then threaten to sue an employer that you thought discriminated against gays? Either show your proof on these allegations or shut up! Neither of those threats came to fruition so you had to try another route. In these poor economic times a guy has to find some way to make a living!

My responces are in Blue.

[Alex L. Walker]

I disagree, Bob! Anyone who comes on here running their mouth, and is to coward to reveal themselves is subhuman. Sorry.

To me "subhuman" indicates that the person in question is not a member of the homo sapien species, and thus is at best a chimpanzee. But chimps can't run their mouths and post like Sam has.

But perhaps I'm ignorant of other meanings of "subhuman garbage." I see that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subhuman says that "Subhuman" is a song by a rock band called "Garbage."

Chimps may not be able to speak, but they have brains unlike Sam. 

[JustWondering]

Sam, are you forgetting that Tommy admitted molesting Alex?

If Alex is as disturbed as you claim, could it not be that Tommy is at least in part to blame?

Which brings up the question: Why are you defending admitted pedophile Tommy Shelton, Sam?

I'm not forgetting anything. Especially the part that professing guilt (whether guilty or not) was part of a plea bargain that the judge didn't accept. So now is a moot point as if it never happened...a lawyer tells me.
(snip)

Sam says: "...a plea bargain that the judge didn't accept"

Let's refresh our memories on why the judge rejected guilty plea agreement.

Fairfax judge rejects plea deal for man who admitted molesting 2 boys
Washington Post Staff Writer, By Tom Jackman; Monday, November 15, 2010

A Fairfax County judge rejected a plea agreement Monday for a former Fairfax church pastor who admitted molesting two boys in the 1990s because the agreement would not have not put the pastor behind bars.

Tommy R. Shelton Jr., 65, pleaded guilty in July to two felony counts of taking indecent
liberties with a child under his supervision.
(snip)
Shelton's attorneys and Fairfax prosecutors agreed to a deal: If Shelton pleaded guilty, he would be placed on probation with no jail or prison time. When the deal was presented to Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows, he told both sides, "I may ultimately reject
this agreement."

Then, after reading a sentencing memo Monday from Shelton's attorneys, the judge - a former federal prosecutor in Alexandria - said: "There's no expression of remorse. This submission doesn't even acknowledge that he committed the offense. . . . I've got a plea to two very serious charges that involves no jail time. And on top of it, I've got a defendant that's expressing no remorse, and I've got victims that are willing to participate in the litigation. [Both victims were in court, and one testified Monday.] I'm trying to understand why I would accept this agreement."
(snip)

(bolding of text added)

Judge Bellows rejected the plea agreement because the punishment did not fit the crimes that TS admitted to committing.  There was no jail time and TS did not express ANY remorse.

Judge Bellows saw right through TS's selfish veil.  TS had multiple chances to express true remorse, but according to the judge he did not.  The judge read the sentencing memo submitted by the defense and expected remorse to be expressed, but only read about how hard this experience has been on TS.  The judge had the opportunity to watch TS that day in court and previous dates.  According to the WP article, the judge had the opportunity to watch TS during one of the victim's testimony that day and watch and listen to TS make a statement about how remorseful he was.  Even with all of the opportunities, Judge Bellows saw NO REMORSE.

Sam says: "So now is a moot point as if it never happened..."

Moot point, huh?  Moot point in an earthly court or a moot point according to God?

The judge rejecting the plea agreement did not cause the guilty plea to be withdrawn.  This is left up to the defendant.  After a judge rejects a plea agreement, a defendant has the choice to move forward and let the judge sentence him or her at that time.  Or withdraw the guilty plea and and let a jury decide.

Withdrawing a guilty plea does not mean that the defendant is saying that he or she is not guilty.  This only means that the guilty plea cannot be used by the prosecution and considered by the jury in the following trial.

Sam,  any thoughts on my post above?  I thought you would have responded by now.  Or maybe you do not know how to respond when someone provides facts that dispute what you have claimed.  Did my response hit too close to home?  Why do you think TS has not been able to show any remorse?  One of the WP articles said that he told one of his victims that their past sexual activities were "the type of relationship a father and son had."  Does TS still hold this view?  If so, this may explain why he has not been able to show or express any remorse.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

[Nosir Myzing]

Sam, are you forgetting that Tommy admitted molesting Alex?
...

I'm not forgetting anything. Especially the part that professing guilt (whether guilty or not) was part of a plea bargain that the judge didn't accept. So now is a moot point as if it never happened...a lawyer tells me.
(snip)

Sam says: "...a plea bargain that the judge didn't accept"

Let's refresh our memories on why the judge rejected guilty plea agreement.

Fairfax judge rejects plea deal for man who admitted molesting 2 boys
Washington Post Staff Writer, By Tom Jackman; Monday, November 15, 2010

A Fairfax County judge rejected a plea agreement Monday for a former Fairfax church pastor who admitted molesting two boys in the 1990s because the agreement would not have not put the pastor behind bars.

Tommy R. Shelton Jr., 65, pleaded guilty in July to two felony counts of taking indecent
liberties with a child under his supervision.
(snip)
Shelton's attorneys and Fairfax prosecutors agreed to a deal: If Shelton pleaded guilty, he would be placed on probation with no jail or prison time. When the deal was presented to Fairfax Circuit Court Judge Randy I. Bellows, he told both sides, "I may ultimately reject
this agreement."

Then, after reading a sentencing memo Monday from Shelton's attorneys, the judge - a former federal prosecutor in Alexandria - said: "There's no expression of remorse. This submission doesn't even acknowledge that he committed the offense. . . . I've got a plea to two very serious charges that involves no jail time. And on top of it, I've got a defendant that's expressing no remorse, and I've got victims that are willing to participate in the litigation. [Both victims were in court, and one testified Monday.] I'm trying to understand why I would accept this agreement."
(snip)

(bolding of text added)

Judge Bellows rejected the plea agreement because the punishment did not fit the crimes that TS admitted to committing.  There was no jail time and TS did not express ANY remorse.

Judge Bellows saw right through TS's selfish veil.  TS had multiple chances to express true remorse, but according to the judge he did not.  The judge read the sentencing memo submitted by the defense and expected remorse to be expressed, but only read about how hard this experience has been on TS.  The judge had the opportunity to watch TS that day in court and previous dates.  According to the WP article, the judge had the opportunity to watch TS during one of the victim's testimony that day and watch and listen to TS make a statement about how remorseful he was.  Even with all of the opportunities, Judge Bellows saw NO REMORSE.

Sam says: "So now is a moot point as if it never happened..."

Moot point, huh?  Moot point in an earthly court or a moot point according to God?

The judge rejecting the plea agreement did not cause the guilty plea to be withdrawn.  This is left up to the defendant.  After a judge rejects a plea agreement, a defendant has the choice to move forward and let the judge sentence him or her at that time.  Or withdraw the guilty plea and and let a jury decide.

Withdrawing a guilty plea does not mean that the defendant is saying that he or she is not guilty.  This only means that the guilty plea cannot be used by the prosecution and considered by the jury in the following trial.

Sam,  any thoughts on my post above?  I thought you would have responded by now.  Or maybe you do not know how to respond when someone provides facts that dispute what you have claimed.  Did my response hit too close to home?  Why do you think TS has not been able to show any remorse?  One of the WP articles said that he told one of his victims that their past sexual activities were "the type of relationship a father and son had."  Does TS still hold this view?  If so, this may explain why he has not been able to show or express any remorse.

I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Here's my thoughts...

Most case in the U.S. end in plea bargains regardless of guilt or innocence, and this one was rejected so can not be used against Tommy Shelton, but you all believe what you want to and see only what you choose to regardless of the facts. You claim that Tommy Shelton admitted to the crimes, but showed no remorse, Alex claims "He admitted to what he did, and that is all I need to win this suit! (He's gonna need a lot more than that, his story is so inconsistant and contradictory it has more holes than swiss cheese)

And you bold texted the part from the November 2010 Washington Post article: Plea deal rejected in molestation case saying""There's no expression of remorse.

but ignored the following, the Judge went on to say:
"This submission doesn't even acknowledge that he committed the offense. . . . "

So you all claim he admitted guilt but the court said he didn't.

The same news article goes on to say:

Bellows asked Shelton whether he wanted to address the issue of accepting the plea deal. The former pastor stood.

"I am remorseful," Shelton said. "I tried to live a Christian life all my life. I obviously got off track for a while. In the last 15 years, I've done everything in my power to live the way I should. I've kept myself away from young people. . . ."

Think about it, if you can..
He still didn't acknowledge or admit he committed any offense.

He said the exact opposite.

He said "In the last 15 years, I've done everything in my power to live the way I should. I've kept myself away from young people."

That makes sense if he was innocent. He was previously and falsely accused and so he wouldn't want to give any a reason to think he was guilty of anything in the future, so he kept himself away from young people to avoid the appearance of evil. "Young people" would include Dennis Turley and Alex Walker.

The past 15 years covers his entire time as Pastor of the Dunn Loring Church of God from 1995-2000 and it includes his employment after that at 3ABN...

No, he never admitted guilt, but you are all free to continue claiming that he did, and I am sure you will.

[Bob Pickle]

but ignored the following, the Judge went on to say:
"This submission doesn't even acknowledge that he committed the offense. . . . "

So you all claim he admitted guilt but the court said he didn't.

No. The court said that in the submission he didn't acknowledge that he committed the offense. But all reports still state that he pled guilty. No report that I've seen says that he instead submitted a no contest plea or Alford plea.

Think about it, if you can..
He still didn't acknowledge or admit he committed any offense.

No wonder the court rejected the plea! Here's a guy that pleads guilty, thus admitting that he molested children, and then can't even bring himself to acknowledge his crimes.

He said "In the last 15 years, I've done everything in my power to live the way I should. I've kept myself away from young people."

That makes sense if he was innocent.

No. It only makes sense if he's a bald face liar. "I've kept myself away from young people"? What about Kid's Time? What about being around his own kids? He told the judge he'd kept himself away from young people, and it wasn't even true. Loads of video from 3ABN proves it.

Being around young people accidentally might be different. But playing for Kid's Time was intentional.

And why would Tommy say he'd kept himself away from young people? Just because every last alleged victim had lied about him? What a stretch!

[Stan]

this was more fun when we talk about Bob being a Jesuit.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Well, Stan, "IF" Bob is a Jesuit, we need more Jesuits.

One thing I am certain of, we can do without ANY Stans who take no stands based upon the moral law!!!

Last I knew, you have never admitted that Danny Lee Shelton is a Biblical Adulterer. And just how many times have the TEN COMMANDMENTS BEEN REMOVED AT 3ABN?

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

this was more fun when we talk about Bob being a Jesuit.

[Stan]

there remain two kinds of sinners

a-those who have been caught
b-those who have not been caught.

I really do not care if or when Danny did or did not do anything.

Get over it.

[Bob Pickle]

Gailon, Stan did take a stand re: me being a Jesuit: He thought it was a big joke.

Stan, biblically speaking, should not the leaders of our major ministries and our church be held accountable for public sins and misdeeds?

[Stan]

they should be accountable to their board.

AND in my opinion, that board should be made up of folks who believe it in enough to give sacrificially.

One of the problems we have in our Church, is that we have people on boards who are there by position, and just wanting to give their 'wisdom'.

This is getting off topic, I remember one board member voting against moving Pacific Press to Idaho because that board member did not want to go there for board meetings in the winter.

So often at sessions, and Church business meetings, the people who do all the talking do not financially support the organization.

Yeah this is getting more off topic sorry

[Bob Pickle]

That's fine.

What if a board isn't holding the leaders of a ministry accountable for public sins and misdeeds? I think those who have contributed to and promoted that ministry, and/or whose churches, conferences, and/or ministries are directly impacted by that ministry, have a right to call for revival and reform.

[Stan]

Am sure both you and I have been in situations that regarding employees that could not be disclosed. AND a governing board can't, or its in-camera personal committee. (Not sure the 3ABN board had this).  There are tough call to make that they must support after they get satisfactory evidence, and they must give a payout that meets or exceeds policy or state/provincial laws.

I was surprised that the lawsuit was over a domain name trademark, and i was surprised both that they won the trademark issue, and that they paid $5,000 for it.  I do understand they needed to protect their investment and the network over what they considered slanderous statements.

I doubt if all the story has been told, and that it even needs to be told.

What I do know is this, there are hurting, dying folks out there that are looking for answers on why there is suffering, pain and death, that need to have answers, and there is the great commission that needs to be fulfilled.

[Bob Pickle]

I was surprised that the lawsuit was over a domain name trademark, and i was surprised both that they won the trademark issue, and that they paid $5,000 for it.

Someone actually told you that they won the trademark issue? That is a real shocker.

They never litigated the trademark issue. Rather than litigate it, they bought the two domain names from the bankruptcy estate, complained about the additional names that popped up before they bought the two, acted like they wanted to go after those as well, and then never pursued the matter.

When they asked to have the suit dismissed, they pretended that they had already accomplished their objectives as far as the domain names are concerned, even though there were 16 times as many websites as there had been when they first sued.

The suit explicitly requested that the court permanently enjoin us from using any domain name that contained the characters "3-A-B-N" in it, and then just dropped everything without ever getting that injunction.

And the fact of the matter is that they knew before they ever sued that case law was against them on the trademark issue.

I have yet to get one threatening letter over the domain name 3ABNvJoy.com. If they won the trademark issue, how come?