Print

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

[Mary Sue Smith]

Well, if you want to know who is telling the truth, go to this website where you can find all PACER documents under the files section. You have to join in order to see them, as I found out. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3abnDefended/messages

[Donna]

Junebug, I hope many check it out with an open mind and the Lord’s guidance. I believe all have intelligence here, maybe not as much as some others, but with the Lord’s guidance and an open mind to learn the Lord will help all of us to learn. Those who count on people’s lack of intelligence or lack of initiative to seek things out for themselves so they can do a snow job have a form of arrogance and usually outsmart themselves in the end.

Well, if you want to know who is telling the truth, go to this website where you can find all PACER documents under the files section. You have to join in order to see them, as I found out. 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/3abnDefended/messages

[Bob Pickle]

But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.

People have to read critically, and some people don't.

[GrandmaNettie]

But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.

People have to read critically, and some people don't.

But the Pacer documents do show the record as it stands for that particular hearing or whatever.  If there are things recorded that are not truthful, then those must be addressed/rebutted/amended/finetuned.  You will address that discrepancy and any others you feel have been made and make sure the record subsequently shows the actual amount that they gave you, right?  So, if one follows the trail of documents carefully, the truth becomes clear, right?

Pacer doesn't interpret, it merely presents the record as it stands.

[anyman]

According to the documents on Pacer they have provided:

 "On March 28, 2008, following informal requests from Defendants, Plaintiff's produced approximately 12,575 pages of documents that had been identified in Plaintiffs Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, but which were not deemed confidential or privileged. (Hayes Aff. P 23). Following issuance of Magistarte Judge Hillman's Confidentiality and Protective Order on April 17, 2008, Plaintiffs produced an additional 2,500 pages of materials on April 25, 2008, and a second set of 26(a)(1) documents consisting of some 200 pages of additional materials containing confidential, proprietary or trade secret information on May 10, 2008. (Hayes Aff. PP 23 and 25)."

So it would seem that you are once again, though you have been cautioned against doing so, called 3ABN's attorney a liar. It might behoove you to afford 3ABN's attorney the appropriate and civil respect required in the process.

But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.

People have to read critically, and some people don't.

[Cindy]

That is what it seems like to me also.. a unwillingness to bring it up or address it in court appears to me to indicate one is standing on a very shaky leg, if even that...

If it hasn't been mentioned there to those involved, why is it even being posted about here to the public?

 seems less than kosher to me.

According to the documents on Pacer they have provided:

 "On March 28, 2008, following informal requests from Defendants, Plaintiff's produced approximately 12,575 pages of documents that had been identified in Plaintiffs Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures, but which were not deemed confidential or privileged. (Hayes Aff. P 23). Following issuance of Magistarte Judge Hillman's Confidentiality and Protective Order on April 17, 2008, Plaintiffs produced an additional 2,500 pages of materials on April 25, 2008, and a second set of 26(a)(1) documents consisting of some 200 pages of additional materials containing confidential, proprietary or trade secret information on May 10, 2008. (Hayes Aff. PP 23 and 25)."

So it would seem that you are once again, though you have been cautioned against doing so, called 3ABN's attorney a liar. It might behoove you to afford 3ABN's attorney the appropriate and civil respect required in the process.

But the documents on PACER don't necessarily contain truths. They said they gave us 2500 docs when they only gave us 250, for example.

People have to read critically, and some people don't.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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
[/quote]

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


[/quote]

And can you prove this any better than they can prove the Allegations against Linda? Better figure that out as your turn is most certainly coming...produce the evidence!!! Anyone can make an allegation, but eventually one must prove their case...and that involves producing evidence, not stalling around, refusing to produce and making everything confidential or privileged to avoid the inevitable truth...your allegations are factually challenged...now your turn to prove otherwise...best of luck!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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.

Ian, you know what they say about dirt? If there was none to dig, we would not need a shovel...and we have needed so many shovels, it is frightening to think they have not already been taken to task. But, alas, you missed the opportunity to seek reformation and accountability...so we had to do it. And we keep having to buy shovels...and waht a pile of jewels we have uncovered.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Donna]

Yes, the precious jewels that our Lord Jesus Christ will be receiving when He comes for us.

waht a pile of jewels we have uncovered.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Snoopy]

You don't need a shovel for those!!!

Yes, the precious jewels that our Lord Jesus Christ will be receiving when He comes for us.

waht a pile of jewels we have uncovered.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Bob Pickle]

You will address that discrepancy and any others you feel have been made and make sure the record subsequently shows the actual amount that they gave you, right?

Not necessarily, but in this case, probably.

For example, when Jerrie Hayes in the hearing on March 7 said that my request for sanctions in the form of their having to provide us copies of their Rule 26(a)(1) documents at their own expense, when she said that that request for sanctions was nonsense since they were going to pay for them anyway, I didn't correct that one. Even though I have a letter she sent me before I filed my motion that said I needed to pay in advance for those copies.

But in this case, it will likely be addressed, but not yet.

[Bob Pickle]

So it would seem that you are once again, though you have been cautioned against doing so, called 3ABN's attorney a liar.

No. Even though they told a falsehood when they said I got 2500 documents, that doesn't necessarily mean they lied.

But saying that the royalties and private inurement issues referred to in the complaint have nothing to do with Danny's personal finances, I don't see how anyone can in all honesty make such a claim.

[Sam]

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.

They may not win on that basis alone but it certainly won't be hard to prove as your side has bragged for months about how donations are down now that people are "reading the truth".  I bet the attorney's for 3abn have huge stacks of your own words that can be used against you concerning any drop in donations. 

[Emma]

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.

They may not win on that basis alone but it certainly won't be hard to prove as your side has bragged for months about how donations are down now that people are "reading the truth".  I bet the attorney's for 3abn have huge stacks of your own words that can be used against you concerning any drop in donations. 

Isn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?

[Daryl Fawcett]

Isn't the bottom line that Bob's and Gailon's words have to be proved to be false?

......or proven to be true?

I don't know.  I am just asking.