Print

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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.

Your grasp of the concept is fairly good. However, you missed a central point...with regard to several claims made, they must first PROVE we said them...then, if they can prove WE said them, it would be our problem to prove they were reasonably accurate reflections of the record. IF we did not say them, and they dod not demonstate evidence they were said, request to admit and or motions to strike would eliminate these allegations. You forgot this significant detail in your summary.

However, on the ones we have indeed claimed or have claimed others have claimed, assuming they were defamation per se, that is not yet absolutely established, only alleged. On the other hand, some claims may be well beyond ripe if the IRS moves before trial.

But for the few, if any, that indeed would qualify for per se claims, well...shall we say the evidence required is most certainly relevant, isn't it? Things like records from Michigan, the Auditor, etc, will all go to establish veracity. And who knows, you may be able to contribute significantly here.

Point is, just too early in the game to know for sure what the landscape will look like at trial. SO, chew some more and see if you can work through that series of conditions and come up with a strategic game book that will work here for the plaintiffs. May have to redraw the entire gamebook!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

 

[GrammieT]

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.

Your grasp of the concept is fairly good. However, you missed a central point...with regard to several claims made, they must first PROVE we said them...then, if they can prove WE said them, it would be our problem to prove they were reasonably accurate reflections of the record. IF we did not say them, and they dod not demonstate evidence they were said, request to admit and or motions to strike would eliminate these allegations. You forgot this significant detail in your summary.

However, on the ones we have indeed claimed or have claimed others have claimed, assuming they were defamation per se, that is not yet absolutely established, only alleged. On the other hand, some claims may be well beyond ripe if the IRS moves before trial.

But for the few, if any, that indeed would qualify for per SE claims, well...shall we say the evidence required is most certainly relevant, isn't it? Things like records from Michigan, the Auditor, etc, will all go to establish veracity. And who knows, you may be able to contribute significantly here.

Point is, just too early in the game to know for sure what the landscape will look like at trial. SO, chew some more and see if you can work through that series of conditions and come up with a strategic game book that will work here for the plaintiffs. May have to redraw the entire gamebook!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Dear Friends:

It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!),  they will still be crying "Foul!  We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now.  But we will continue to fight him and all his liars    and WE WILL WIN!  God will not fail us twice!!"
 
May God have mercy on their souls.   

GrammieT   

[Johann]

I sure agree with you, Grammie T. I think you have tried to look at this case from both sides from the beginning.

There is also another possibility. Danny might well know that he will not win this case, because most of the evidence is against him. But he might still think he is winning because he has been able to hold some people at bay so long that it is costing them a lot of money. Thereby he might consider that he is winning even if he loses the court case.

[Sam]

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.

Your grasp of the concept is fairly good. However, you missed a central point...with regard to several claims made, they must first PROVE we said them...then, if they can prove WE said them, it would be our problem to prove they were reasonably accurate reflections of the record. IF we did not say them, and they dod not demonstate evidence they were said, request to admit and or motions to strike would eliminate these allegations. You forgot this significant detail in your summary.

However, on the ones we have indeed claimed or have claimed others have claimed, assuming they were defamation per se, that is not yet absolutely established, only alleged. On the other hand, some claims may be well beyond ripe if the IRS moves before trial.

But for the few, if any, that indeed would qualify for per SE claims, well...shall we say the evidence required is most certainly relevant, isn't it? Things like records from Michigan, the Auditor, etc, will all go to establish veracity. And who knows, you may be able to contribute significantly here.

Point is, just too early in the game to know for sure what the landscape will look like at trial. SO, chew some more and see if you can work through that series of conditions and come up with a strategic game book that will work here for the plaintiffs. May have to redraw the entire gamebook!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Dear Friends:

It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!),  they will still be crying "Foul!  We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now.  But we will continue to fight him and all his liars    and WE WILL WIN!  God will not fail us twice!!"
 
May God have mercy on their souls.   

GrammieT   

And, on the other hand, there is always the possibility that if 3abn wins the Pickle and Joy team will cry foul and "how can we compete with the big dogs" and "they had the money for "real" attorney's and we don't"......yada yada

Yes Grandma Nettie, you know it's true.

[Johann]

Dear Friends:

It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!),  they will still be crying "Foul!  We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now.  But we will continue to fight him and all his liars    and WE WILL WIN!  God will not fail us twice!!"
 
May God have mercy on their souls.   

GrammieT   

And, on the other hand, there is always the possibility that if 3abn wins the Pickle and Joy team will cry foul and "how can we compete with the big dogs" and "they had the money for "real" attorney's and we don't"......yada yada

Yes Grandma Nettie, you know it's true.

Does this mean it's safer betting on the party where the money is?

[GrandmaNettie]

Dear Friends:

It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!),  they will still be crying "Foul!  We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now.  But we will continue to fight him and all his liars    and WE WILL WIN!  God will not fail us twice!!"
 
May God have mercy on their souls.   

GrammieT   

And, on the other hand, there is always the possibility that if 3abn wins the Pickle and Joy team will cry foul and "how can we compete with the big dogs" and "they had the money for "real" attorney's and we don't"......yada yada

Yes Grandma Nettie, you know it's true.
[/quote]

Hey Sam, GrandmaNettie here....  I'm sure GrammieT is a wonderful person but she is not moi.

From my perspective, at this point I believe both of you might possibly be right.  Time will tell.  How about if we all sit back and let Time fill us in when it is, um, time?  Or, we could set up a pool, take our chances and place our bets...see who wins the jackpot.  Or we could all keep gnawing at each other.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

And who is running the pool? I hear Joy and Pickle are 30 to 1 odds, we are just so dog gone incompetent...are the players allowed to bet in this pool?

I'd like to have you spot me $100k and put all on Pickle and Joy. Can you handle that???

Ah, but GrandmaNettie, it's only a hundred k??? And think of the upside if we win? I'd even split it with you, but I hear you are betting both sides.

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Cindy]

Does this mean it's safer betting on the party where the money is?

And who is running the pool? I hear Joy and Pickle are 30 to 1 odds, we are just so dog gone incompetent...are the players allowed to bet in this pool?

I'd like to have you spot me $100k and put all on Pickle and Joy. Can you handle that???

Ah, but GrandmaNettie, it's only a hundred k??? And think of the upside if we win? I'd even split it with you, but I hear you are betting both sides.

Gailon Arthur Joy

Gambling?!?      


Anybody remember how Gailon and Pickle made such a big deal about the following, and called it gambling and then started quoting the Church Manual about it being grounds for disfellowshipping and Church discipline, on their website?

I do... it's still on their site and Johann's mirror site...

Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Mat 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

"Linda, You Lost the $1000 Bet!"

While on July 17, 2004, 3ABN president Danny Shelton had no proof that his ex-wife Linda had given him biblical grounds for divorce the previous month, his opinion had definitely changed by September 6, not 8 weeks later. He was so certain of this that he tried to collect on his $1,000 bet.

What was so convincing to Danny was that Linda had gone to Norway for medical treatment to Dr. Abrahamsen's clinic, and to visit Elder and Mrs. Johann Thorvaldsson, the latter of whom was battling bone cancer. And Linda had gone not once, but twice.



(Ian's note and insertion: is this true?? then perhaps Johann could and should have clarified this before instead of making it sound like she never went at all...)

I found it quite easy to figure out that the letter was refering to Kay and Brenda.

I just don't see how you can conclude that Linda and Arild couldn't have traveled through Europe because Danny and Linda were divorced by June 26, 2004. How does the divorce make a trip impossible? Am I missing something?

I have asked Walt Thompson what evidence he has that this visit took place. He replied there was good evidence. I asked him if he had seen it. He admitted he had not, but that he had heard it. . . .

My wife and I were spending most of our time in the vicinity of Dr. Arild Abrahamsen, she received frequent treratments from him, and we were in daily communication with Arild. It would have been a millionth of a chance we could have missed Linda's visit to Europe during that period. This is merely one more of a multitude of lies emanating from 3ABN. So what can you trust of whata they say?[/b]

More than a year ago this was posted. This time I have put my comments in itallics. They are just as true today as they were last year. Nobody has been able to refute any of what I said then....

Dr Walter Thompson:
Is it OK for one's wife to make plans to visit her doctor to spent time together seeing the sights of his homeland - a trip that was later made?

[Johann Thorvaldsson:] When were these plans made and when did such a trip occur? Walt is really mixing up his chronology of events in this case, and this he has done frequently during this whole process

I have followed Linda's coming and going ever since 2003, and when did she make a trip together with Dr. Abrahamsen just to see the sights of his homeland? Be careful what statements you make, Walt! Irmgard tried to arrange a trip where Linda could see more of Norway, but Linda never went until Linda traveled to Bergen to attend Irmgard's funeral in August 2005. Such plans were never made while Danny and Linda were married.

Watch your chronology of events, Walt!

- end of Ian's inserted quotes...



But we do wonder, how was Danny so certain? And if he really had evidence to that effect, why hasn't he made it public as requested by Linda on February 15, 2007, 482 days ago?
September 6, 2004: Danny Says, "Pay Up Time!"

    -------- Original Message --------
    From:     Danny Shelton
    To:     Linda Shelton
    Date:     Monday, September 06, 2004 12:17 AM

    Kim Smith just called me. Herb's son just killed himself tonight. Please pray for them. He was a little older than Melody.

    Melody said Lisa fell off a ladder and broke her arm in 3 places. The doctor said it was really bad. It needs some pins in it but the dr. said the bones were broken too badly.

    Alyssa said you wanted to move on Sunday the 19th.

    I have a board meeting that day so it won't work to get the rest of the furniture out of my house. You have lots of books too that need moving.

    I guess if they took everything early in the day on the truck that's already loaded maybe they could load up the furniture at my house late in the day.

    X

    I'd like you to pay off your $1,000.00 you owe me from our bet. You know and I know and God knows, you lost that bet. It's a good thing you don't have to pay me one grand for each time you failed. I'd be rich by now. I hear viagra can really help a 61 year old. Of course I'm sure he's denying having to use it.

    According to Johann, it seems you and the Dr. must talk a lot about s*x. If you are talking about our past s*x life, you must surely be talking about yours and his now.

    By the time you get back you will have spent 5 out of the last 8 weeks with him. Shameful!

    Anyway, I take cash or even a check will do!

Seventh-day Adventist Position on Gambling

Seventh-day Adventists do not believe in gambling. In fact, the Seventh-day Adventist Church Manual lists as one of the "Reasons for Which Members Shall Be Disciplined":

    2. Violation of the law of God, such as worship of idols, murder, stealing, profanity, gambling, Sabbathbreaking, and willful and habitual falsehood.

    (Church Manual, p. 195)

Church discipline may take one of two forms:

    * Vote of Censure: One loses one's church offices and cannot have a voice or vote in the affairs of the church for a stated period of time.
    * Disfellowship: One ceases to be a member of the church.

"...He began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy" Luke 12:1

[GrandmaNettie]

And who is running the pool? I hear Joy and Pickle are 30 to 1 odds, we are just so dog gone incompetent...are the players allowed to bet in this pool?

I'd like to have you spot me $100k and put all on Pickle and Joy. Can you handle that???

Ah, but GrandmaNettie, it's only a hundred k??? And think of the upside if we win? I'd even split it with you, but I hear you are betting both sides.
 
Gailon Arthur Joy

To be equitable, it should be run by someone representing both sides.  Since allegations hold such weight around these parts, I suppose I would be the logical choice.

30 - 1 odds?  Who is your source for this information?  If it is other than an expert in the field of odds making, say perhaps a contact in Las Vegas or, perhaps Atlantic City, I wouldn't put much stock in what you have heard.

I am neither a shylock nor a careless philanthropist, so you will have to find your funding for any wager elsewhere.  On simple, general principles, though, I would strongly advise you not to be too hasty about betting the farm.

Now, let's carefully examine your final statement....  "but I hear you are betting both sides."   This will take some documentation.

Yesterday, GrammieT posted her perspective of what will happen at the conclusion of this law suit:

Dear Friends:

It has become clearly apparent to me that even when the final verdict in this case is reached, particularly when it goes against DSL et al (and I have no doubt that's what it will be!),  they will still be crying "Foul!  We've been painted to look wrong by the enemy and he has won for now.  But we will continue to fight him and all his liars    and WE WILL WIN!  God will not fail us twice!!"
 
May God have mercy on their souls.   

GrammieT   

Sam was quick to pose an opposing perspective of what might happen at the end of the self-same law suit:

And, on the other hand, there is always the possibility that if 3abn wins the Pickle and Joy team will cry foul and "how can we compete with the big dogs" and "they had the money for "real" attorney's and we don't"......yada yada

Yes Grandma Nettie, you know it's true.

Sam made an apparent mistake in addressing GrammieT as Grandma Nettie so I felt obliged to set the record straight so as not to have the facts in this saga misrepresented in any way.

And since I had the floor anyway, I decided to post my own perspective about what might happen at the end of this law suit:

Hey Sam, GrandmaNettie here....  I'm sure GrammieT is a wonderful person but she is not moi.

Notice, this is where I attempt to set the record straight... 

And now, I present my perspective, and the only place where I believe I might give the impression that I am "betting both sides":

From my perspective, at this point I believe both of you might possibly be right. Time will tell.  How about if we all sit back and let Time fill us in when it is, um, time?  Or, we could set up a pool, take our chances and place our bets...see who wins the jackpot.  Or we could all keep gnawing at each other.

Obviously, nobody seems willing to wait for Time to tell.

However, regarding the proposed pool...since most of the posters here are conservative SDAs, and I am clearly aware that conservative SDAs do not believe that gambling is an acceptable conservative SDA activity, out of respect for those beliefs I would not seriously consider setting up such a pool. 

So, I guess that leaves the apparently acceptable conservative SDA activity of gnawing at each other.  Carry on...

[Johann]

Here again - in Ian's post above - is another demonstration that makes me consider that I have never in my 50 years of working for the Lord met a person who is greater at twisting, deducting and falsely adding together her twists of what I have said, drawing conclusions of what I have said that are eons at a distance from reality. And she seems to think she can get away with it in the long run. In your garbs I do not recognize what I have said, because you turn it into falsehood.

May the Lord have mercy!!!

[Cindy]

Here again - in Ian's post above - is another demonstration that makes me consider that I have never in my 50 years of working for the Lord met a person who is greater at twisting, deducting and falsely adding together her twists of what I have said, drawing conclusions of what I have said that are eons at a distance from reality. And she seems to think she can get away with it in the long run. In your garbs I do not recognize what I have said, because you turn it into falsehood.

May the Lord have mercy!!!

Well maybe you want to quote your posts in context and compare them to my quotes and point out the differences you are claiming, and explain how you cannot recognize what you have said?

I did not edit or change your words or the context in any kind of way. In fact the first post I quoted by you was quoted in it's entirety, just as you posted it not one word edited changed, nor deleted.  All I did was quote both in context, and say what it sounded like to me. Like you were giving the impression Linda didn't ever go to Europe after the divorce till 2005. Which was in fact what was under discussion and being questioned when you posted. 

But as usual you are full of accusations rather than clarifications Johann.

And-- considering your stance here, what's your thinking on how Mr Pickle reports and twists the words and spins meanings of others such as falsely claiming Danny Shelton admitted to breaking into Linda's car , or Walt Thompson admitted that Danny Shelton misled him, when both clearly said the opposite???

It looks like you must approve as you have that and even more like that published to the world on your mirror website.

Or am I twisting that too?

[Johann]

I have tried many times to correct your statements, but you still refuse, as you have done in the above statement, where you again refer only to a part of my statement, and not the whole. So you are still twisting, and still coming back again and again, regardless of how I have tried to make corrections.

No, you did not edit my words, but you keep drawing unwarranted conclusions of what I have said, even after I have made several attempt to help you understand the context.

Did you never read what Walt stated in your quote above? Did it never occur to you that I was replying to what he said, and not making a statement about something else? Before you ever quote these things again, I beg of you to read what it says there without making your own twists. There is no substitute for accuracy in such matters. It appears like you only read the first few words in a sentence and make a guess of the rest - and a different conclusion. This is what I call an unwarranted twist. You can do better than that!!!

[Habanero]

Twist and shout! Ian, if you were in the room I would have to take you out on the floor for a spin. That is the place where twisting is what its all about. LOL! All this talk about twisting has me in the mood for a dance.

And how about a game of twister. I haven't played that in years. Blue, red, geen and yellow? Those are the colors, right?

Sometimes we just need to loosen up and have some fun together. We can scrap and squabble, and we can debate lofty and debased matters, but we are all still just humans living together on a tiny speck in the middle of infinity. A little merriment would be good for our souls, individually and collectively. Collaborative merriment tends to reduce enmity so I think that it is one of the more important parts of life.

[Chrissie]

Twist and shout! Ian, if you were in the room I would have to take you out on the floor for a spin. That is the place where twisting is what its all about. LOL! All this talk about twisting has me in the mood for a dance.

And how about a game of twister. I haven't played that in years. Blue, red, geen and yellow? Those are the colors, right?

Sometimes we just need to loosen up and have some fun together. We can scrap and squabble, and we can debate lofty and debased matters, but we are all still just humans living together on a tiny speck in the middle of infinity. A little merriment would be good for our souls, individually and collectively. Collaborative merriment tends to reduce enmity so I think that it is one of the more important parts of life.

Indeed, that is so Habanero. Time to let your hair down folk and laugh - for a change. 

So, Gentlemen, please take your Lady's hand as the music commences, for the Barn Dance! 

[GRAT]

No No No, it must be the barn march!!!!