Print

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

[Ozzie]

Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?

Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's  support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?

Explain please.

Ian,

Did you just make the mistake of calling Bob Pickle a liar? Got insurance? Or is you closest relative a pro bono lawyer?

You may just make the trial yet, as a third party defendant!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

I read that too Gailon.    Ian is getting rather loose-tongued when she calls Bob a liar.

Well, maybe she does want to be part of the three-ring circus that Danny has created by taking you and Bob to court? Just no telling with some people, what they'll do to be part of the show!

[Cindy]

Is that true? then WHY would Pickle's words and accusations not be a good idea to have out there right now?

Aren't they already out there? Isn't he already being sued for defamation of character (aka lies) ? Doesn't he already have your's and Snoopy's  support in claiming his condemnations are true and can be proved?

Explain please.

Ian,

Did you just make the mistake of calling Bob Pickle a liar? Got insurance? Or is you closest relative a pro bono lawyer?

You may just make the trial yet, as a third party defendant!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

I read that too Gailon.    Ian is getting rather loose-tongued when she calls Bob a liar.

Well, maybe she does want to be part of the three-ring circus that Danny has created by taking you and Bob to court? Just no telling with some people, what they'll do to be part of the show!

You mean like when Pickle posted "someone is lying" in reply to my reference to the recent PACER documents, and you keeled over from shock and outrage and then took him to task like this???

 

I was simply and truthfully referring to the case against Pickle and Joy. If that is grounds for a case against me, that's news to me...

Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.

The causes of action, defamation of character, slander, and libel are closely related. They involve the allegation that the defendant told untruths about the plaintiff, thereby causing the plaintiff to suffer harm. The precise elements of these causes of action vary from state to state.

Defamation, Libel and Slander

Generally speaking:
Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.

Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another

You can read all in context here:
http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html

[Bob Pickle]

Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.

Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.

Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?

Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!

[Cindy]

Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.

Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.

Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?

Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!

No folks, I didn't notice all that. IMO, all the above is Pickle's spin and retranslation, and reinterpretation, which is why he again uses the word "apparently" as he has so often, or other words like it,  in this whole stinky mess he's helped make by following the premise of report and we will report it.. or saying "I heard..." (followed by so many of you all reporting his reports, or repeating what he heard, or claims to have heard, and spreading it further???)

If all the above were really true, all he really had to do was quote them saying/doing this and then it should be obvious to most, if not all.

" Notice"  That is something he tends to avoid doing...

For I heard the defaming of many, fear on every side. Report, [say they], and we will report it. All my familiars watched for my halting, saying, Peradventure he will be enticed, and we shall prevail against him, and we shall take our revenge on him. - Jer 20:10


SAD...


Deu 13:14 Then shalt thou enquire, and make search, and ask diligently...
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 
Lev 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour: I am the LORD.

What is the problem with understanding, "thou shalt", "thou shalt not", or who the Lord is here?

[Bob Pickle]

No, it isn't spin at all.

[anyman]

Sounding alot like King Nebuchadnezzar. And we all know how that story ended up.

The fact that VNS has mysterious and quietly disappeared from the face of cyberspace. There is no channel at YouTube named VNS or Victory News Service. It's gone along with the videos that were there. Is it possible that your buddy posted them so that you could download them and pass them along? Was Mr. Pickles only goal to spread his venom in a new format. Post, let people download, then run away and hide letting you pass them along? A few calls revealed that no one official on the 3abn side of things was aware of the videos until Tuesday. So the disapperance of the videos was obviously due to a conflict on that side of the fence and 3abn or their attorneys had not a thing to do with it. Pull Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy down off their pedestals you have put them on and examine then in the plain light of the day and you might have your eyes opened.

Oh, boy, guess I would rather stay on the pedaestal so I don't end up in the slime-pit with you, anyman.
But thanks for the cue that 3ABN did not get a chance to copy them. I was rather looking forward to seeing all twelve clips again at trial, but would guess that opportunity has been missed. C'est la vie!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Artiste]

Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.

Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.

Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?

Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!

Which latest filing is that, Bob?

Did they really twist those issues like that?  That's very interesting!

[Bob Pickle]

Their opposition to my motion to compel which they filed last Thursday.

[Cindy]

Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused.

Not so. Notice in the latest filing that they apparently do not consider it to be relevant whether donors stopped or decreased giving because of what we said.

Notice also how they apparently do not consider it relevant whether Danny had biblical ground for divorce, or whether Danny covered up the child molestation allegations. Yet in reality, if our investigative reports caused a decline in donations, would it not have been over issues like that, particularly the former?

Notice also how they twist the royalty issue into whether we said that 3ABN didn't receive the royalties they had earned, and how they garble the funnel-money-to-Brandy issue into whether the 3ABN Board had prohibited donations to Cherie Peters. And they have the gall to say that what I have written is incomprehensible?!?!?!?!

Which latest filing is that, Bob?

Did they really twist those issues like that?  That's very interesting!

Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so? Haven't you noticed yet how time and again it is Pickle who twists what people say and misrepresents the issues?

You know what? You have a choice Artiste, so, please either ask him or myself for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid without questions, but if the latter than I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not an excuse for believing false witness.

I am out of a sincere concern waiting on your reply here.

[Snoopy]

Speaking of ignoring posts, Ian, when are you going to acknowledge that you attrbuted a post to me that I did not make?


http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6715.html#msg6715

Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?

You know what? You have a choice Artiste, ask him for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid, but I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not a excuse for believing false witness.

[Cindy]

Speaking of ignoring posts, Ian, when are you going to acknowledge that you attrbuted a post to me that I did not make?


http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6715.html#msg6715

I will gladly do so now. I already wanted to reply and apologize but the thread was closed by the time I realized my mistake. I was actually going to pm you today and apologize.  I thought what Inga posted was what you wrote and that is why I was posting to you rather than her.

I am very sorry, and can understand now why you were confused by what I was saying to you. My fault entirely.
I am sorry for the confusion.

Blessings,
Ian

Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?

You know what? You have a choice Artiste, ask him for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid, but I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not a excuse for believing false witness.

[Snoopy]

Thank you, Ian.  I appreciate that!

Blessings to you too!     


    Snoopy

Speaking of ignoring posts, Ian, when are you going to acknowledge that you attrbuted a post to me that I did not make?


http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6715.html#msg6715

I will gladly do so now. I already wanted to reply and apologize but the thread was closed by the time I realized it. I was actually going to pm you today and do so.  I thought what Inga posted was what you wrote and that is why I was posting to you rather than her.

I am very sorry, and can understand why you were confused by what I was saying to you. My fault entirely.
I am sorry for the confusion.

Blessings,
Ian

Way to ignore what I posted! Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?

You know what? You have a choice Artiste, ask him for the quotes and prove and see things for yourself, or keep drinking the koolaid, but I would suggest to you that willful ignorance or blindness is not a excuse for believing false witness.

[Bob Pickle]

Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?

I trust you know how to read.

You said that we are being held accountable for our statements. Which statements? And which statements that we have made are they not wanting to hold us accountable for? Why?

In other words, good luck trying to find where we said the things they said we said in their latest filing. And why aren't the more obvious statements included?

Secondly, you said we're being held accountable for the damage we caused, and yet they don't want to discover that! Then how are they holding us accountable for damages they don't want to disclose? Damages that must be tied to the narrowed list of statements they've given?

Okay, so you have a donor who quit giving. How in the world do they expect to prove in court that that donor quit giving because of some statement we never made about the plane, instead of some statement we did make about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations?

They aren't serious about this litigation, and that much is obvious.

And thu8s I was correct in saying, "Not so."

[Cindy]

Did you happen to notice he flat out denied an obvious fact above, and said "not so" when we all know it is so?

I trust you know how to read.

You said that we are being held accountable for our statements. Which statements?

Considering the case was filed a year ago, and you were served the complaint detailing exactly what it was about. and that you have been given discovery items demonstrating what the complaint filed against you was about... This is not a great mystery.

You keep running around and digging up more dirt, and keep bringing up things which aren't in the case and you think this makes sense to any but you and those buying your bridge or drinking your koolaid?

These tactics may have brought ASI to a stalemate, and ended the resolution process 3ABN cooperated in and asked for, but I very much doubt a court of law is going to buy it, or accept it.

And thu8s I was correct in saying, "Not so."

You said Not so, to this

"Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused."

Truth is, ---> it is so.
and no twisting, spinning, or word games can make it otherwise.

[Bob Pickle]

Considering the case was filed a year ago, and you were served the complaint detailing exactly what it was about. and that you have been given discovery items demonstrating what the complaint filed against you was about... This is not a great mystery.

And thus you display your ignorance. I have not been served discovery items that demonstrate what the complaint is about, and that is the problem.

You said Not so, to this

"Reality check: Whether you like it or not.. Pickle and Joy are in fact defendants being sued for defamation of character, which according to the definition means they are both being accused in a court of law of lying about the Plaintiffs, and are being held accountable by the Plaintiffs for their statements and for the damages they caused."

And I say again, Not so.