Print

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

[Donna]

Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.

[Bob Pickle]

Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.

Your response doesn't make sense.

Which specific statements that I have made am I really being held accountable for, based on the latest filing? Anything I've said about Tommy? About Danny getting royalties from Remnant? About donations of horses? About Danny divorcing without biblical grounds? About Danny's abuse of power by trashing his critics on TV?

The latest filing seems to surrender most of the issues of this scandal, does it not?

Secondly, what damages am I being held accountable for? Because I referred to something Judge Barbara Rowe said about the 3ABN plane? And how can they win a judgment against me because I referred to what a judge said in official court documents? And how much damage did my reference to her comment cause in real dollars?

3ABN is out to lunch if they think they can waltz into court and say, "We lost $3 million in 2006, and they said bad stuff about us," and think they can win on that basis. One thing they have to prove is that we caused the loss. They also have to prove that we were reckless or malicious, and it has to be established that what we said was false.

[anyman]

At this point any reasonable, or even semi-conscioutious person would have really wonder about your awarenes of what is going on - have you read the complaint against you and Mr. Joy? Ian has successfully and concisely restated what the suit is about. I think in your rush to ruin as many peoples lives as you possible can before the results call your veracity and honesty into question has clouded your perception and ability to discern the facts and truth.

And all you can provide is, "Not so" and yelled no less?

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.

[anyman]

ADMIN HAT ON

Anyman, I edited out the last sentence of your post as it was very disrespectful and degrading.

ADMIN HAT OFF



It surrenders nothing and you know it. You are using the fact that people here are believing you without checking a thing you say along with the fact that no one here, other than Ian is bothering to gather those douments and read them. Your not a victim and you need to face up to that fact - you got your self into this mess and now you don't like it so it is slash and burn, destory lives and reputations.

Folks, Pacer documents show he was told and that he and Joy made a joint reply.

Your response doesn't make sense.

Which specific statements that I have made am I really being held accountable for, based on the latest filing? Anything I've said about Tommy? About Danny getting royalties from Remnant? About donations of horses? About Danny divorcing without biblical grounds? About Danny's abuse of power by trashing his critics on TV?

The latest filing seems to surrender most of the issues of this scandal, does it not?

Secondly, what damages am I being held accountable for? Because I referred to something Judge Barbara Rowe said about the 3ABN plane? And how can they win a judgment against me because I referred to what a judge said in official court documents? And how much damage did my reference to her comment cause in real dollars?

3ABN is out to lunch if they think they can waltz into court and say, "We lost $3 million in 2006, and they said bad stuff about us," and think they can win on that basis. One thing they have to prove is that we caused the loss. They also have to prove that we were reckless or malicious, and it has to be established that what we said was false.

[Bob Pickle]

So anyman, do you know how to read? If so, then read the latest filing and you will see very plainly that they don't want to hold me accountable for a lot of what I have said.

When they give a list of things that they consider to be the ONLY topics that can be investigated, they are saying very plainly that they aren't going to hold me accountable for anything but those.

Problem is that they will have a hard time proving that I said a number of the things that are in their short list.

As far as holding me accountable for damages, they will have to allow enough discovery to determine what those damages really are. And they don't want to do that.

[Cindy]

So anyman, do you know how to read? If so, then read the latest filing and you will see very plainly that they don't want to hold me accountable for a lot of what I have said.

When they give a list of things that they consider to be the ONLY topics that can be investigated, they are saying very plainly that they aren't going to hold me accountable for anything but those.

Problem is that they will have a hard time proving that I said a number of the things that are in their short list.

As far as holding me accountable for damages, they will have to allow enough discovery to determine what those damages really are. And they don't want to do that.

Pickle seems to think he is in charge of the lawsuit, it's terms, conditions and what the complaint is about.

If he doesn't get his way, he just assigns evil or sinful motives to those who don't go along with his agenda.

He's not in charge, he also can not read the hearts and minds of others and needs to stop pretending he can for the bible warns of such.  3ABN filed the lawsuit and they made the complaint and said what it was about, not Pickle. It seems to me Pickle needs to figure out he should first deal with what he is being sued for.

It was filed a year ago, obviously it was concerned with what was said and published before that time, if it keeps being expanded to include the different things Pickle keeps reporting and claiming after the fact, there is no way this is ever going to end.

It seems that Mr Pickle has a Hard time understanding the concept of let's handle one thing at a time, and then we can move on to others... I am quite sure I read a letter from Danny to either Pickle or Joy trying to explain this when the ASI process was underway, but instead of understanding Pickle got bent out of shape and claimed they were trying to limit things and kept bringing up more and more, so nothing got resolved. He's doing the same thing now as far as I can tell.

This is a shame for if he had been able to understand this concept when ASI was trying to help resolve things then the issue of the Divorce and Linda's employment termination would be a thing of the past by now.

[Bob Pickle]

Ian, you are telling falsehoods.

Danny made it quite clear that he didn't want ASI handling anything but the Linda issue, and that he was going to use a decision on the Linda issue to make everything else go away.

The latest filing states exactly what the plaintiffs think are the "ONLY" things that are able to be discovered, and whether Danny had biblical grounds for divorce isn't on the list! That issue in the complaint but isn't on their list in the latest filing.

Now since you do have access to the documents, have you gone beyond telling falsehoods to telling lies?

[Bob Pickle]

From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm

ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.

Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?

[Cindy]

From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm

ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.

Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?

This is the statement I recall.

Quote:
"That's why I choose to wait until ASI handles this huge issue of mine and Linda's divorce before answering questions of all the other accusations manufactured by Linda, Gailon, Derrell Johann, Barbara Kerr and others who have or has had an ax to grind with 3ABN."

As I said, first things first, and one at a time.... Even the Lord works that way and doesn't overwhelm us with all at once whether it be truths in his word, or truths about ourselves...

Later...

[Cindy]

Ian, you are telling falsehoods.

Danny made it quite clear that he didn't want ASI handling anything but the Linda issue, and that he was going to use a decision on the Linda issue to make everything else go away.

The latest filing states exactly what the plaintiffs think are the "ONLY" things that are able to be discovered, and whether Danny had biblical grounds for divorce isn't on the list! That issue in the complaint but isn't on their list in the latest filing.

Now since you do have access to the documents, have you gone beyond telling falsehoods to telling lies?

Where's Oziie? everytime I turn around Pickle is saying "stop lying" "someone is lying" or "You are telling falsehoods" "have you gone beyond telling falsehoods to telling lies/" etc etc. Ozzie thinks that's being loose lipped, and Joy thinks it grounds for a lawsuit, or that's what they posted before... I think it sounds like a little kid going "liar, liar" and don't regard it as anything of merit for Pickle has yet to prove I've lied about anything...


Most rational people who  hear someone say : That's why I choose to wait until ... this huge issue is handled and answered before answering questions of all the other accusations" do not assume that is an attempt to make everything go away, or a refusal to address further questions after the first question is resolved.

But then Pickle isn't most people and seems to excel at taking people's words out of context and assigning motives and intents and meanings to them which are not present in their actual words...

And I am going to get off this merry go round for now before I get dizzy with the spins.

[Bob Pickle]

From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm

ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.

Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?

Ian, you failed to comment on the above quote. Is he not saying that he is going to use a positive decision from ASI on the Linda question to make everything else go away?

[Cindy]

From http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-intro.htm

ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board and myself did not "scapegoat Linda" to cover up my sins, then, in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe many of these other accusations are lies also.

Now are you willing, Ian, to admit that you did not recall Danny's statement correctly?

Ian, you failed to comment on the above quote. Is he not saying that he is going to use a positive decision from ASI on the Linda question to make everything else go away?

No he is not. This isn't hard to understand, unless you just don't want to. If he had meant what Pickle is trying to claim he would not have gone on to say he would answer questions about the rest following the first and huge issue being answered and resolved.

nuff said?

[Bob Pickle]

No, not nuff said.

He makes it plain that his answer to the other questions was going to be, "See, everything else must be a lie too."

Remember, Danny Shelton in this reply to me was thumbing his nose at the written wishes of his own boards chairman by refusing to answer my questions about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-1.htm, http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-2.htm, http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-untruths-in-detail-reply-1.htm).

I think that Danny was also trying to say that his divorce was a bigger issue than his cover up of Tommy's child molestation allegations when he called his divorce a huge issue during a conversation about child molestation. And for him to try to blame the child molestation allegations on Linda, Gailon, Johann, Derrell, and Barbara Kerr when they go back to 1982 or so is absolute nonsense.

[Donna]

Open minded people, seeking the truth, do not want to be told or swayed by what another thinks things mean. We are all intelligent enough to think and draw conclusions for ourselves.

edited for spelling

[Bob Pickle]

I think that may be debatable.