Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

... the single defamatory statement remotely related to Danny Shelton’s personal finances would make relevant only the title, purchase documents and payment information for a Toyota Sequoia automobile [Complaint ¶ 50(g)].

Does this statement make sense to anyone?

It is from the latest filing by 3ABN in opposition to my motion to compel, filed on May 29, 2008. It's at the end of the list of things they think are relevant to the litigation.

[Chrissie]

... the single defamatory statement remotely related to Danny Shelton’s personal finances would make relevant only the title, purchase documents and payment information for a Toyota Sequoia automobile [Complaint ¶ 50(g)].

Does this statement make sense to anyone?

No. 

[anyman]

Here is a question for you Mr. Pickle is the piece of fruit in my hand a pear?

Make sense?

Nope.

Why?

Because there is no context. Just like this ridiculous post of yours which is absent any context whatsoever. Have the guts to put up the whole thing and let the world have a chance to decide if you are manipulating these words. But you won't because it would prove you are manipulating things and misleading people. Why don't you treat your readership with some decency and not assume they don't think for themselves.

... the single defamatory statement remotely related to Danny Shelton’s personal finances would make relevant only the title, purchase documents and payment information for a Toyota Sequoia automobile [Complaint ¶ 50(g)].

Does this statement make sense to anyone?

[Snoopy]

Well Bob, I was just getting ready to ask for a little more context regarding the quote but I see anyman has already beat me to it.  He appears to be in an exceptionally bad mood tonight, don't you think?

... the single defamatory statement remotely related to Danny Shelton’s personal finances would make relevant only the title, purchase documents and payment information for a Toyota Sequoia automobile [Complaint ¶ 50(g)].

Does this statement make sense to anyone?

[Fran]

What kind of car did Linda Drive?  Can't remember the care Linda's daughter drove.  The name rings bells for me.  How about you guys?

[Ozzie]

What kind of car did Linda Drive?  Can't remember the care Linda's daughter drove.  The name rings bells for me.  How about you guys?

Yes I can hear alarm bells but can't quite connect it all yet. Wasn't that Linda's car? Somewhere I think there were bank statements regarding payments or similar. I'd better nip over to Save-3abn and see what I can find.

[Habanero]

It was just a car. But have you ever heard of a Corvette or a Chevy Avalanche? Danny does have good taste in vehicles, I'll give him that. So does Brandy. Too bad the emplyees at 3ABN can't afford much, and some of them can only afford bancruptcy. In these times of belt tightening the lower echelons of personally held Shelton family businesses (Personally held according to court documents from property tax case) like 3ABN have to take the brunt of the fund cutting.
 

What kind of car did Linda Drive?  Can't remember the care Linda's daughter drove.  The name rings bells for me.  How about you guys?

[Ozzie]

Well Bob, I was just getting ready to ask for a little more context regarding the quote but I see anyman has already beat me to it.  He appears to be in an exceptionally bad mood tonight, don't you think?

You noticed that too Snoopy? 

I guess that DannyAnyman really doesn't like having those matters exposed to the world. Maybe, it's all a bit close to the bone for him? 

[Bob Pickle]

Because there is no context.

I've edited the post to add the context. It was from 3ABN's latest court filing.

[Donna]

Anyone interested in reading the full document for themselves may go to 3ABN Defended and read document 67 in the Pacer files folder.

[Eduard]

ADMIN HAT ON


Eduard, I deleted your entire post as it was offensive and degrading.


ADMIN HAT OFF

[Cindy]

Here is a question for you Mr. Pickle is the piece of fruit in my hand a pear?

Make sense?

Nope.

Why?

Because there is no context. Just like this ridiculous post of yours which is absent any context whatsoever. Have the guts to put up the whole thing and let the world have a chance to decide if you are manipulating these words. But you won't because it would prove you are manipulating things and misleading people. Why don't you treat your readership with some decency and not assume they don't think for themselves.

... the single defamatory statement remotely related to Danny Shelton’s personal finances would make relevant only the title, purchase documents and payment information for a Toyota Sequoia automobile [Complaint ¶ 50(g)].

Does this statement make sense to anyone?

Post edited by Snoopy to remove offensive quote from the prior post.

Why do you insist on posting personal insults, put downs  and ridicule Eduard? So many of your posts are like this. I found the post about asking for a requiem for Danny totally unecessary and mean, and mocking anymans education or intellect is certainly not necessary?

Do you have some hurt or anger causing this and can I help in some way? It's distressing to me and I worry about you, but at the same time I have a hard time accepting anything you write as to me it is all so ugly and  just outright rude. Can't you just address the topics of discussion?

maybe you don't see this yourself? Maybe I am wrong, as the moderators don't seem to have a problem with with what you say or how you talk about fellow members..

[anyman]

Nope, you didn't provide anything by your edit. The section you cherry picked,

"and the single defamatory statement remotely related to Danny Shelton's personal finances would make relevant only the title, purchase documents and payment information for a Toyota Sequoia automobile [Complaint P 50(g)]."

and placed here out of context culminates a list of items that 3ABN considers relevant, and relevance is at the core of this issue. According the 3ABN's response you have been "abusive" in your demands for document production. Among the ridiculous demands you have made, you have demanded:

"virtually all of 3ABN's financial, accounting, bookkeeping and auditing records from 1997 to the present"

"all minutes 'and other documents' of the 3ABN Board for its entire existence 'and on an ongoing basis'"

"All types of phone records or other documents enumerating phone calls made by 3ABN officers from January 1, 2003 onward . . ."

You have failed to narrow the scope of your demands to those documents that the Complaint sets the relevant context for. The little tidbit you posted is at the end of a long list that suggests to the Court (but doesn't set as mandatory or limiting) what documents may be relevant and thus holding you responsible for the defamatory statements you have made in regards to:

The Board and it's "actions in regards to moral, ethical, and financial allegations you have made and whether they were ignored, buried, or otherwise improperly disregarded by them"

Purchase/sale of vans

Purchase/sale of furniture with 3ABN funds

Donations to Cherie Peters' ministry and Board orders in such regard

"Book royalties earned by and paid to 3ABN or erroneously or improperly paid to Danny Shelton"

Documents about the use of the corporate jet

Documents relating to the ASI "dispute-resolution process"

"The public record in Danny Shelton's divorce proceedings"

Formal documents with/from the IRS, DOJ, EEOC, or Dept. Of Labor

All of those things are listed BEFORE the statement you provided. They are all taken directly from the Complaint against you - which IS holding you responsible for your words and actions in regards to all of those things. There is the context of the statement! To put it as simple as possible, 3ABN says that the only documentation of Danny Shelton's personal financial files that even "remotely" is connected to the Complaint would be the ones involving the vehicle. So it is obvious that they are holding you responsible for ALL of your defamatory claims.

Additionally, the response to your motion outlines a rock solid argument as to why the court should ignore your petition to compel, your petition to have free rein and access to 3ABN, it's property and all of it's files, and your petition that 3ABN foot the bill for you.

The response outlines brilliantly the fact that you have been "overly broad" in your demands, failed to make any effort to provide an argument of relevance for your demands, and slowed the process by trying to add to the lawsuit that which wasn't/isn't part of the Complaint brought against you.

Because there is no context.

I've edited the post to add the context. It was from 3ABN's latest court filing.

[Bob Pickle]

Thanks, anyman, for making it clear that I was correct: They did not include in that list anything having to do with the divorce, and issue that was in the complaint.

Also, I do not recall saying anything about royalties earned by 3ABN. Nor about the board prohibiting donations to Cherie Peters.

Notice also that there is nothing on the list that would enable one to prove what financial damage was caused by what statements.

There are a number of other problems about their list, are there not?

Now when you consider what we really have said, how in the world could anyone claim that the only stuff remotely relevant to Danny's personal finances is the title of and payment for the Toyota van?

[Mary Sue Smith]

Thanks Donna for letting us know about the new site. It looks very interesting. I already signed up. If anyone wants to see PACER documents in their entirety you can go here but you have to be a member of this site in order to see the files where the PACEr documents are located. Lots of information here!

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