Print

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

[Eduard]

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.

And it should be a reasonable expectation that the court will reach a conclusion based on hard facts, not on the opinions of those who post here or in some other forum. Time to wait!

[Bob Pickle]

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".

Where have I "bragged" about such? Can I be held accountable for something I haven't said?

Since when can damages be proved by someone merely claiming that donations are down?

[Bob Pickle]

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.

For claims of defamation, what we said has to be proven untrue. For claims of defamation per se, what we said has to be proven true. That is how I understand it.

In the case of public figures, recklessness and maliciousness need to be proven is what I recall.

[Cindy]

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.

I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,

Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.

It is usually true though  that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.

For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example)  How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.

You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...

Much in this case is like this IMO.

[Cindy]

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.

For claims of defamation, what we said has to be proven untrue. For claims of defamation per se, what we said has to be proven true. That is how I understand it.

In the case of public figures, recklessness and maliciousness need to be proven is what I recall.

Hmmm.. I agree with the first paragrah mostly, but want to clarify that with a unsubstantiated accusation often it can not be proven false, as one cannot prove a negative, so it must be proved true as in my example to Daryl. On the second the question here is who is considered a  public figure according to legal definitions???

For example is Leonard Westphal a public figure? Are Dr Thompson or his son public figures? are the other members of the 3ABN board public figures? Are Jim Gilley, Danny Shelton, his sister, brothers, his daughter, or employess at 3ABN or members of ASI public figures? The list could go on...

What is the legal definition and how is it determined?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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. 
[/quote]

Sam, could you show me where we have "bragged" that domnations are down? The 990's just don't support that supposition so we would need to correct the record.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Fran]

I wonder if this person is getting paid for all of this?  My opinion is that she is getting something out of this!

synthian2 Thu Jun 5, 2008 9:33 am

Can anyone explain what Bob is saying here? I don't get it.....
 

Bob Pickle

Re: Explosive Charges Leveled Against 3ABN on YouTube!
« Reply #139 on: Today at 09:30:17 PM »

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.

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.

Well asking if anyman can read is a put down of course implying he is ignorant or unable to understand, as is typically allowed on AT, and part of Pickle's modus operandi, but as to what Pickle is referring to, it is usually a lost cause trying to get him to answer any question directly, so  my understanding is as follows...

It is because of Pickle's usual tactics and methods.  You know how every time we have addressed something he claims or question it, he refuses to answer and digs up a bunch of other stuff and tries to bury us in it? He did the same thing with ASI according to their letter, they agreed to attempt to resolve and bring resolution to the issue of the Divorce and Linda's termination, and he just kept bringing up more and more things and attacking and they couldn't ever get started on the resolution process or try to resolve anything, so had to with draw...

[The ASI letter explaining why the felt it necessary to withdraw from the resolution process  is in our files section if any want to see what I am referring to for themselves]

Well Mr Pickle appears to be doing the same thing, or trying to, in the lawsuit. It was filed a year ago, and yet he has been busy bringing up new things ever since and keeps trying to bring them up in his court filings and demanding discovery on them instead of dealing with what he said previously which brought about the lawsuit. He did so again in his "Motion to compel" and 3ABN responded by saying he was bringing up things outside the scope of the lawsuit, which they were not going to address, as they are trying to deal with what is already in the lawsuit.

So of course being Pickle he claims that's because they don't care to hold him accountable for these new things, and don't want to deal with them because they are guilty..

The problem is... if ever time Pickle brings up something new, they expand the lawsuit to include it also, then there will be no end to this and it will never get to trial...
The lawyers are smart enough to see his tactics and are not going to let him bury them and stalemate the legal process and let him escape a judgment.

I don't know if you have read them yet, or seen them, but I uploaded Pickle's motion to compel, and the opposition to his Motion to compel on our forum during the past two days, it includes an affidavit from Jerrie Hayes and the exhibits she attached to that some are letters between her and Pickle we have read before but they also include the cover letters for the discovery items already given to Pickle and Joy, so his claim that he hasn't received any is a bunch of hooey.

What I thought interesting is one letter refers to the fact he was given the info that 3abn recieved about advent talk from bluehost.

I wonder why he's never made a peep about that on AT, while all have been posting nd wondering and asking about this?

I finally got the forum rules posted and in our files system also. If any have idead changes or revisions, let me know, was kinda hard trying to figure it out.

Feel free to post a link to our forum at any time or anywhere to refer people to those PACER documents in our files there, as forum owner I want to but feel kinda weird and shy about doing it myself.

Anyway did this help you understand Pickle's reference any better? He  is difficult for me to understand too as his mind, and logic and reasoning doesn't seem to work like ours..

His latest posts on AT regarding all this seem to be more of what he typically does, dragging things out of context and making arguments about how they mean things other than they say. I have a hard time knowing what to answer and what not to as one thing leads to another, and soon all are way down a rabbit trail and totally off topic. sigh...

But was hoping my answering him there might help in explaining and answering your question a little better.  You can read that here, if you haven't already:

http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,482.msg6898.html#new



Blessings,
 Ian

[Fran]

Responses to the above post: 

Post by:   :sammy39377dl   Thu Jun 5, 2008 2:18 pm

Re: RP on AT- I don't get it


I've noticed these tactics by pickle too. I don't know how he thinks he can get away with this very long before people start to wonder.  Sounds like he is good at manipulation. Do you think he could even  try to manipulate the Judge?

Now I understand why ASI couldn't get anywhere with Linda and her representatives.

Posted by synthian2   Thu Jun 5, 2008 3:36 pm


Re: RP on AT- I don't get it

I have wondered too Sammy. It is actually a burden for me too.  Problem is we can recognize action (fruits as Jesus calls them) and recognize that they are righteous or unrighteous, just or
unjust,because of God's word, and law and principles, but don't know what is going on in another's head or heart or where they are in their calling, or walk with the Lord.

So who knows what he thinks he can get away with or if he even thinks that is what he is doing...

Whether someone follows the deceiver knowingly, willingly or through deceit and believing a lie, the actions are the same...

The point is all we can do is decry error or sin, and pray that he, ourselves and others have the ears to hear and the eyes to see.

It's kinda scary actually for none of us are exempt from being deceived, and the heart is desperately wicked and who can know it, or show us that but our Lord?

Let's just keep praying that we can recognize and reveal the truth and let the Holy spirit do the convicting.

We know the end does not justify the means, so let's just keep praying our actions reflect Christ's will and ways and keep confident that he will triumph as promised.

Blessings...

Just how many people are talking on the 3abndefended site?  2 or 1?

[Snoopy]

WOW - Ian!!!  You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!

I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,

Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.

It is usually true though  that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.

For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example)  How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.

You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...

Much in this case is like this IMO.

[Artiste]

Just how many people are talking on the 3abndefended site?  2 or 1?

I also noticed Ian using an identical denigrating phrase as anyman has used here on AT, but maybe they are just two people who think alike...

[sonshineonme]

...like a lawyer who thinks they know something 

WOW - Ian!!!  You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!

I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,

Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.

It is usually true though  that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.

For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example)  How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.

You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...

Much in this case is like this IMO.

[anyman]

Or someone who bothers to do research, read and seek to understand the procedures of the legal process. Doesn't take much since it is all on line. You can make phone calls. Write emails. It really isn't that hard to get to the bottom of things - if you do it with the intent of discovery of truth and not a personal agenda of revenge.

...like a lawyer who thinks they know something 

WOW - Ian!!!  You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!

I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,

Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.

It is usually true though  that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.

For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example)  How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.

You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...

Much in this case is like this IMO.

[Bob Pickle]

It really isn't that hard to get to the bottom of things - if you do it with the intent of discovery of truth and not a personal agenda of revenge.

Exactly what I have personally found to be true. Hope Ian tries it.

[Sam]

It really isn't that hard to get to the bottom of things - if you do it with the intent of discovery of truth and not a personal agenda of revenge.

Exactly what I have personally found to be true. Hope Ian tries it.

Bob if nothing else you are always good for a laugh!

[Ozzie]

You noticed that too Snoopy?

I really believe that people tend to take on the characteristics of those with whom they associate.

WOW - Ian!!!  You are really starting to sound like a lawyer!!

I think some of both will be included in this lawsuit,

Although some of what is being litigated is considered defamation per se because of the type of accusations and assertions Pickle and Joy have made. Those type of accusations automatically assume damage to the plaintiff, so in those specific types of accusations the burden of proof is definately on the defendants to prove what they have said is true, for all the Plaintiffs have to do is quote them making or repeating these types of statements. Which has already been done by quoting both forum posts, and their website.

It is usually true though  that he who asserts must support and prove the assertion.

For example if I suddenly accused you of collecting donations on behalf of a missionary cause and pocketing the money ( we know you haven't done this, it's just an example)  How would proof of this be established. Should I tell others well if it's not true he needs to prove it! ? No.

You would no doubt deny this false accusation, and it would be up to me to prove it was true, you wouldn't even know what to address or rebut if I didn't reveal and let you know what led me to this false conclusion and accusation whether it be something I saw or thought or something another had told me they saw, heard or thought...

Much in this case is like this IMO.