Who is looking out for the real interests of 3ABN rather than personal pride?
It is the duty of the directors and officers to look out for the real interests of 3ABN. They have clearly decided that hiding the truth is in the best interests of 3ABN.
They have gone to grreat expense to enforce this effort in Minnesotta and Bob Pickles recent summary says it all:
Background
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. (“3ABN”) is a publicly supported, non-profit, 501(c)3 organization, and is a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. From 1985 until September 2007, Plaintiff Shelton was the president, CEO, and managing director of 3ABN, and he remains an influential director of and the only founder still employed by 3ABN.
On June 17, 2004, Plaintiff Danny Shelton in a globally televised broadcast told the world, “It’s your ministry. I’ve said that for years. It’s not our ministry.” He stated that 3ABN belonged to its donors and viewers, that they had a right to know what was going on at 3ABN, that what he did was “very public,” and that “our lives are an open book.” See Affidavit of Robert Pickle at ¶ 1 (hereafter “Pickle Aff.”). Thus Plaintiff Shelton declared to the world his long-held position that the public has a right to know information that would otherwise be private.
Plaintiff Danny Shelton has been the subject of numerous and varied allegations of malfeasance and misconduct, as well as negative internet commentary, long before either Defendant became involved in mid-August 2006. These allegations have included wrongful termination, sexual assault, the ignoring or cover up of child molestation allegations, unbiblical divorce, deceit, and private inurement.
In mid-August 2006 the Defendants launched ecclesiastical investigations into the conduct of Plaintiff Shelton, and began publishing investigative reports in harmony with their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of the Press. The Plaintiffs repeatedly claimed that they had evidence to prove various allegations false while also refusing to provide that evidence to those who inquired.
The Plaintiffs have taken their attempts at secrecy to such extremes that they have yet to produce one single document in the underlying suit, even documents referenced in their initial disclosures on August 3, 2007. The Plaintiffs have taken the unusual position that everything is either confidential, privileged, or irrelevant. See Pickle Aff. at ¶¶ 3–4, Ex. A.
Once again, he has done an excellent summary.
Gailon Arthur Joy