Print

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

[Gregory]

Rick,

See if you can talk to 3ABN/Danny and get them to throw in the towel.

But note that there are bigger issues. Sam has asserted that Gilley plans on getting Danny back into the presidency. Has Danny repudiated John Lomacang's theology that Danny is the Lord's anointed and cannot be corrected by any human being? That is pretty serious. Do we really want someone who buys into that sort of heresy operating a ministry as big and influential as 3ABN?

Moreover, such a move would be unprecedented in the history of our denomination. When have we ever had someone accused of sexual assault, private inurement, unbiblical divorce, wrongfully terminating folks, filing a frivolous lawsuit, covering up child molestation allegations, lying about so many different things, and he still gets to continue on as if nothing happened? Without apologies, without restitution, and without dropping the frivolous lawsuit he started!

I am going to respond to one issue that you have raised: The "frivolous lawsuit."

Back, several years ago, before a lawsuit had ever been filed, there was a lot of talk going on among a nubmer of peple which included people not defendants in the current lawsuit.

There was an attitude of gleeful expectation that it would be to the advantage of the 3-ABN critics if 3-ABN would file a lawsuit.  It was correctly pointed out that the defendants would enjoy some legal advantages is 3-ABN filed and they became defendants.  There was great joy when the lawsuit was filed in the 1st Federal Court District as it was thought that would be a major advantage to the defendants.

There was talk of law students becomming involved in various aspects of the case that they could do and of well-known lawyers donating their free time.

I was approached and asked if I would like to join the lawsuit as a defendant.  My answer was a very loud NO.

I will also say that many of the issues raised in the lawsuit cannot be resolved by any means other than litigation.  Come now, can the issue of copyright be resolved in any other manner.

As you well know, even if you disagree, denominational policy is that the "church" is not to act (nor can it act) as a civil magistrate.  Therefore, it agrees that civil lalwsuits may be appropriate for issues that can not be resolved in any other manner.

"Frivolous,"  hardly.  Painful, yes to you and Gailon.  I am sorry for the pain that is being caused to you and your family.  But, the lawsuit is exactly what I suspect some prayed that God would cause to happen.

I repeat:  I do not believe, as I review the record, and have talked to attorney friends of mine that the 3-ABN attornies have treated you as harshly as they could have.  I do not see them going for "blood."

You need to reconsider your position as a defendant in this litigation.

No one has ever asked you to lie about anything.  Don't raise that as an issue.  You lose credibility by raising such.

Gregory Matthews
 

[Bob Pickle]

To the contrary, Gregory, you may lose credibility by asserting that I have not been asked to lie. To illustrate, from the lawsuit:

"7. That Defendants be ordered to immediately publish a retraction of the false statements of fact alleged herein and otherwise established at trial, and to publish that retraction in the same forms and forum and to the same general and specific audience as the false statements were originally made."

First of all, to the extent it asks me to retract things I never said, it asks me to lie. Second, to the extent it asks me to retract things that I did say that are really true, it asks me to lie.

Now to assert that there was no other way to resolve the various issues other than by suing is simply false. We could have easily followed Paul's counsel to the Corinthians, but Danny refused to do so.

As far as the issue of copyright goes, the plaintiffs would like to claim that copyright issues aren't part of the lawsuit. I disagree, but that is what they would like to claim.

The lawsuit is indeed frivolous. If you think not, then please specifically state the basis you see for it.

The lawsuit claims that we caused donations to decline though our lies, and yet after more than a year, the plaintiffs have yet to produce any documents which show that we caused donations to decline, and that what we said were lies. More than a year and these basic points are still unsubstantiated.

The only document that comes close to linking us to a decline in donations is a single exhibit filed in connection with Mollie's affidavit in May 2007, but that one links the withdrawal of a trust with documentation, not with lies. And it was written later than the cutoff point the plaintiffs are now asking for.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory, a case in point: The lawsuit says:

"46. Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle have published numerous untrue statements that 3ABN and its President Danny Shelton have committed financial improprieties with donated ministry funds. Among those untrue statements made by Joy and Pickle are, inter alia, that:

"...

"j. Danny Shelton has used the 3ABN corporate plane for personal uses."

If Gailon said that, I have yet to find it. If I said that, I have yet to find it. But I did find where you said something along those lines.

Now how can I retract something that I can't verify that I ever said? Why would I get sued for what someone else said, if I never did say it?

But the lawsuit said I said it, and truth is an absolute defense in defamation, so I went about trying to think of a way to prove that it was so. And I believe I found a way to do so. So besides not being able to retract something that I can't verify that I said, I'd have trouble retracting what appears to be in fact true unless someone can show me that I am mistaken.

But regarding the plane, Gregory, do you now think that Danny never used it for personal purposes?

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

I am going to respond to one issue that you have raised: The "frivolous lawsuit."

Back, several years ago, before a lawsuit had ever been filed, there was a lot of talk going on among a nubmer of peple which included people not defendants in the current lawsuit.

There was an attitude of gleeful expectation that it would be to the advantage of the 3-ABN critics if 3-ABN would file a lawsuit.  It was correctly pointed out that the defendants would enjoy some legal advantages is 3-ABN filed and they became defendants.  There was great joy when the lawsuit was filed in the 1st Federal Court District as it was thought that would be a major advantage to the defendants.

There was talk of law students becomming involved in various aspects of the case that they could do and of well-known lawyers donating their free time.

I was approached and asked if I would like to join the lawsuit as a defendant.  My answer was a very loud NO.

I will also say that many of the issues raised in the lawsuit cannot be resolved by any means other than litigation.  Come now, can the issue of copyright be resolved in any other manner.

As you well know, even if you disagree, denominational policy is that the "church" is not to act (nor can it act) as a civil magistrate.  Therefore, it agrees that civil lalwsuits may be appropriate for issues that can not be resolved in any other manner.

"Frivolous,"  hardly.  Painful, yes to you and Gailon.  I am sorry for the pain that is being caused to you and your family.  But, the lawsuit is exactly what I suspect some prayed that God would cause to happen.

I repeat:  I do not believe, as I review the record, and have talked to attorney friends of mine that the 3-ABN attornies have treated you as harshly as they could have.  I do not see them going for "blood."

You need to reconsider your position as a defendant in this litigation.

No one has ever asked you to lie about anything.  Don't raise that as an issue.  You lose credibility by raising such.

Gregory Matthews
 

Mr. Gregory, your recollection is apparently flawed. Prior to service and from the end of Decmber up until service was rendered, I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT ASSERTED DANNY LEE SHELTON WOULD FILE SUITE  You did not agree.

The filing in Massachusetts did indeed prove to be a major advantage, including the defeat of the Motion to Impound. The only other option would have been Minnesotta. One would think that would have been a major advantage to a firm based in Minneapolis. But they elected my back yard in a court with a judge who is a sound constitutionalist. Are you suggesting it was not an advantage? Is your analysis somehow gone awry? Explain!!!

As to well known lawyers "donating their time" that is a serious mis-statement. We did work to make available counsel on both west and east coast to pursue various claims of OTHERS damaged by various actions of 3ABN, including Linda Sue Shelton, other 3ABNers, trust services staff and various others. Most have declined to pursue their claims, the good little church memebers or denominational employees that they be. 

You were a player in convincing Linda not to pursue her claims. Seems you are big on Civil process to resolve certain issues until it crosses your personal philosophy or personal preservation concerns. BUT AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST YOU BECOME A DEFENDANT!!! Nor have I ever suggested I wanted to add you as a third party defendant, despite your role and the evidence you provided.

AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!

None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.

As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.

As to the issue of copyright, well lets just say THAT IS FRIVOLOUS and you know very well why, unless your counsel are seriously challenged. If you wish to debate that here, I suspect we would be willing to enlighten your sudden ignorance on the issue. And we do have attorneys that have offered to deal with that issue at the proper time. We are still a ways from "dispositive motions"  and discovery is still alive and well. It is the current focus and will be for a few months yet.

Gregory, it is very clear that you have your own agenda and has been clear since the beginning of the year: Preserve Gregory!!!. Just remember we have loads of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that you have conveniently buried your views on certain issues. If you would like me to share that, to demonstrate your amusing little revisionist effort, I shall be most happy to accomodate.

Let me also contradict your view on "civil magistrate". Conciliation has long been the preferred solution to controversy between the brethren. An eccliastical process would have been the far better process for preserving the rights of the parties and restoring the brotherhood. US Civil courts are adversarial, not conciliatory. Therefore, let me go on record to state emphatically I disagree with your non biblical premise. Copyright and any other controversy could easilly be resolved by the parties meeting together as a minimal start. And how many times did we offer to meet with the 3ABN board? Would you like us to publish the record?

Then electing a conciliation process would be the appropriate alternative dispute resolution. WE DID NOT CLOSE THAT DOOR, 3ABN DID, if your recollection is still intact. ANd again we proposed meeting directly with the brethren (the 3ABN Board). And again, actually several times, we were deemed "no-bodies" and not worthy of sitting at the same table. I seem to recall you would have been part of that process, assuming you would show up. So, they elected to sue "no-bodies" in a civil magistrate. Ignore due process, conciliation and elect adversarial law.

Mr Gregory, there was no good biblical or ecclesistical basis for what has gone on here and we have now way too much evidence to simply walk away and desert outr station, regardless of your philosophies.

In the subject case, it is exactly the issue of due process and the right to face ones accusers that 3ABN has repeatedly avoided. In case after case they have been fortunate to find spineless believers that would not face them down and stand for the rights of victims. They have consistently avoided due process. So, they chose a new battlefield. They can no longer avoid due process, something they are not use to. We have elected to meet them there, something you have taken great pains to avoid.

I trust you know what I think of deserters. That is right, deserters!!!

But don't you dare misrepresent by innuendo or otherwise the real history or you will be met head on!!! I would think you would know by now we take exception to factually challenged statements. When you move that direction you will be corrected.

As to your legal counsel, I have read your paranormal legal analysis and you can pass back the following message...ignorance is bliss but it is also ignored.
Tell her she needs a vacation from her paranoias!!! You have promoted her for going on two years now (yes, I remember the call promoting her availability) and my position remains the same...I do not get into bed with the enemy!!!
I do not desert my post!!! And I will not partner with non-believers.

Now, put your military training to good use and re-evaluate where you stand, before the sand erodes your wanton position.

Gailon Arthur Joy



 

[Fran]

Gailon,  some excellent food for thought.

[Gregory]

Gailon for some reason I expected to find that there would be a response waiting for me this morning.  As I have done befroe, I will respond with comments placed in [ ]s in your post:

Mr. Gregory, your recollection is apparently flawed. Prior to service and from the end of Decmber up until service was rendered, I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT ASSERTED DANNY LEE SHELTON WOULD FILE SUITE  You did not agree.

[Gailon, Yes you believed that Danny would file a lawsuit.  And, there were others who agreed with you.  Come now, do you really thilnk that you can truthfully say that no one else agreed with your position--GM?]

The filing in Massachusetts did indeed prove to be a major advantage, including the defeat of the Motion to Impound. The only other option would have been Minnesotta. One would think that would have been a major advantage to a firm based in Minneapolis. But they elected my back yard in a court with a judge who is a sound constitutionalist. Are you suggesting it was not an advantage? Is your analysis somehow gone awry? Explain!!!

[My suggestion is and always has been that it was an advantage.  Never have I suggested that it was not.   Where does this question come from--GM?]

As to well known lawyers "donating their time" that is a serious mis-statement. We did work to make available counsel on both west and east coast to pursue various claims of OTHERS damaged by various actions of 3ABN, including Linda Sue Shelton, other 3ABNers, trust services staff and various others. Most have declined to pursue their claims, the good little church memebers or denominational employees that they be. 

You were a player in convincing Linda not to pursue her claims. Seems you are big on Civil process to resolve certain issues until it crosses your personal philosophy or personal preservation concerns. BUT AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST YOU BECOME A DEFENDANT!!! Nor have I ever suggested I wanted to add you as a third party defendant, despite your role and the evidence you provided.

[My reference to being added as a third party was not to you--GM.]

[Your reference to Linda is incomplete.  You simply do not know the facts.  At times when Linda did not have any legal representation and did not have any idea as to who could represent her I strongly advised her to obtain representation from an attorney and I gave her suggestions as to how she could obtain such.  At no time did I ever suggest that she obtain such from a certain female attorney, of which you are aware, as that person did not practice an an area that was appropriate for Linda.  Some of the advice that I gave Linda came from other male attornies, friends of mine, who made suggestions to me--GM.]

AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!


None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.

As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.

As to the issue of copyright, well lets just say THAT IS FRIVOLOUS and you know very well why, unless your counsel are seriously challenged. If you wish to debate that here, I suspect we would be willing to enlighten your sudden ignorance on the issue. And we do have attorneys that have offered to deal with that issue at the proper time. We are still a ways from "dispositive motions"  and discovery is still alive and well. It is the current focus and will be for a few months yet.

[My position always has been that the legal situation in regard to certain of the copyright issues involved with the Internet is not clear.  This situation is a developing one as various courts render decisions that are not uniform.  As you well know, there are conflicting decisions from the courts which appear to give advantage to both you and 3-ABN on this issue.  In view of the fact that the various decisions are in some conflict with each other, the litigation is not frivolous.  Any lawsuit that may bring clairty to an issue is not frivolous.  In fact, Gailon, your may go down in legal history as being involved in a case that helped to clairfy the issues--GM.]

Gregory, it is very clear that you have your own agenda and has been clear since the beginning of the year: Preserve Gregory!!!. Just remember we have loads of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that you have conveniently buried your views on certain issues. If you would like me to share that, to demonstrate your amusing little revisionist effort, I shall be most happy to accomodate.

[My agenda from the very beginning has been two-fold:  a) To support Linda Shelton and b) to help her to make the decisions that she needed to make.  NOTE:  That was not to influence her to make any specific decision bur rather to consider the options that she had, evaulate them and decide.  The exception to this, as I have already stated, was that at times when she had no legal representation of any kind she needed to obtain such.  Gailon, while you may think you are fully informed as to how I related to Linda, you are not so informed--GM.]

Let me also contradict your view on "civil magistrate". Conciliation has long been the preferred solution to controversy between the brethren. An eccliastical process would have been the far better process for preserving the rights of the parties and restoring the brotherhood. US Civil courts are adversarial, not conciliatory. Therefore, let me go on record to state emphatically I disagree with your non biblical premise. Copyright and any other controversy could easilly be resolved by the parties meeting together as a minimal start. And how many times did we offer to meet with the 3ABN board? Would you like us to publish the record?

[Gailon, I agree with your that the civil courts are adversarial.  You are correct.  I have been formally trained in mediation by the Office of Resolution Management.  This training occured after the ASI thing fell through.  There are simply some issues that are quite unlikely to be failrly settled by mediation.  In several of the issues the civil courts preserve the rights of the individuals far better than any church process could.  You may call my position unbiblical.  Regardless, it is denominational policy that certain issues can not properly be decided by a chruch process in which the rights of all are preserved and that it is the position of the denomination that the chruch should not play the role of a civil magistrate.  Disagree if you wish, but that is church policy--GM.]

Then electing a conciliation process would be the appropriate alternative dispute resolution. WE DID NOT CLOSE THAT DOOR, 3ABN DID, if your recollection is still intact. ANd again we proposed meeting directly with the brethren (the 3ABN Board). And again, actually several times, we were deemed "no-bodies" and not worthy of sitting at the same table. I seem to recall you would have been part of that process, assuming you would show up. So, they elected to sue "no-bodies" in a civil magistrate. Ignore due process, conciliation and elect adversarial law.

[I happen to have some agreement with you on this point.  I agree that the ASI proposed process was flawed from the very beginning.  While you and I do disagree in some aspects of this, I still beleive that properly done ASI mediation could have accomplished something that would have been worthwhile--GM]

Mr Gregory, there was no good biblical or ecclesistical basis for what has gone on here and we have now way too much evidence to simply walk away and desert outr station, regardless of your philosophies.

In the subject case, it is exactly the issue of due process and the right to face ones accusers that 3ABN has repeatedly avoided. In case after case they have been fortunate to find spineless believers that would not face them down and stand for the rights of victims. They have consistently avoided due process. So, they chose a new battlefield. They can no longer avoid due process, something they are not use to. We have elected to meet them there, something you have taken great pains to avoid.

[Due process and the right to face accusers are important issues on which I agree with you.  Do not imply that I take positions that I do not take--GM.]

I trust you know what I think of deserters. That is right, deserters!!!

But don't you dare misrepresent by innuendo or otherwise the real history or you will be met head on!!! I would think you would know by now we take exception to factually challenged statements. When you move that direction you will be corrected.

As to your legal counsel, I have read your paranormal legal analysis and you can pass back the following message...ignorance is bliss but it is also ignored.
Tell her she needs a vacation from her paranoias!!! You have promoted her for going on two years now (yes, I remember the call promoting her availability) and my position remains the same...I do not get into bed with the enemy!!!
I do not desert my post!!! And I will not partner with non-believers.

[Gailon my specific reference was to a male attorney, not a female attorney.  You have simply made an assumption that is wrong--GM.]

Now, put your military training to good use and re-evaluate where you stand, before the sand erodes your wanton position.

[Gailon, time will tell.  I have stated from the beginning that each side will win some and lose some. Time will ultimately tell who won and lost the most--GM.]

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Sister]

Gailon for some reason I expected to find that there would be a response waiting for me this morning.  As I have done befroe, I will respond with comments placed in [ ]s in your post:

Mr. Gregory, your recollection is apparently flawed. Prior to service and from the end of Decmber up until service was rendered, I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT ASSERTED DANNY LEE SHELTON WOULD FILE SUITE  You did not agree.

[Gailon, Yes you believed that Danny would file a lawsuit.  And, there were others who agreed with you.  Come now, do you really thilnk that you can truthfully say that no one else agreed with your position--GM?]

The filing in Massachusetts did indeed prove to be a major advantage, including the defeat of the Motion to Impound. The only other option would have been Minnesotta. One would think that would have been a major advantage to a firm based in Minneapolis. But they elected my back yard in a court with a judge who is a sound constitutionalist. Are you suggesting it was not an advantage? Is your analysis somehow gone awry? Explain!!!

[My suggestion is and always has been that it was an advantage.  Never have I suggested that it was not.   Where does this question come from--GM?]

As to well known lawyers "donating their time" that is a serious mis-statement. We did work to make available counsel on both west and east coast to pursue various claims of OTHERS damaged by various actions of 3ABN, including Linda Sue Shelton, other 3ABNers, trust services staff and various others. Most have declined to pursue their claims, the good little church memebers or denominational employees that they be. 

You were a player in convincing Linda not to pursue her claims. Seems you are big on Civil process to resolve certain issues until it crosses your personal philosophy or personal preservation concerns. BUT AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST YOU BECOME A DEFENDANT!!! Nor have I ever suggested I wanted to add you as a third party defendant, despite your role and the evidence you provided.

[My reference to being added as a third party was not to you--GM.]

[Your reference to Linda is incomplete.  You simply do not know the facts.  At times when Linda did not have any legal representation and did not have any idea as to who could represent her I strongly advised her to obtain representation from an attorney and I gave her suggestions as to how she could obtain such.  At no time did I ever suggest that she obtain such from a certain female attorney, of which you are aware, as that person did not practice an an area that was appropriate for Linda.  Some of the advice that I gave Linda came from other male attornies, friends of mine, who made suggestions to me--GM.]

AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!


None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.

As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.

As to the issue of copyright, well lets just say THAT IS FRIVOLOUS and you know very well why, unless your counsel are seriously challenged. If you wish to debate that here, I suspect we would be willing to enlighten your sudden ignorance on the issue. And we do have attorneys that have offered to deal with that issue at the proper time. We are still a ways from "dispositive motions"  and discovery is still alive and well. It is the current focus and will be for a few months yet.

[My position always has been that the legal situation in regard to certain of the copyright issues involved with the Internet is not clear.  This situation is a developing one as various courts render decisions that are not uniform.  As you well know, there are conflicting decisions from the courts which appear to give advantage to both you and 3-ABN on this issue.  In view of the fact that the various decisions are in some conflict with each other, the litigation is not frivolous.  Any lawsuit that may bring clairty to an issue is not frivolous.  In fact, Gailon, your may go down in legal history as being involved in a case that helped to clairfy the issues--GM.]

Gregory, it is very clear that you have your own agenda and has been clear since the beginning of the year: Preserve Gregory!!!. Just remember we have loads of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that you have conveniently buried your views on certain issues. If you would like me to share that, to demonstrate your amusing little revisionist effort, I shall be most happy to accomodate.

[My agenda from the very beginning has been two-fold:  a) To support Linda Shelton and b) to help her to make the decisions that she needed to make.  NOTE:  That was not to influence her to make any specific decision bur rather to consider the options that she had, evaulate them and decide.  The exception to this, as I have already stated, was that at times when she had no legal representation of any kind she needed to obtain such.  Gailon, while you may think you are fully informed as to how I related to Linda, you are not so informed--GM.]
Let me also contradict your view on "civil magistrate". Conciliation has long been the preferred solution to controversy between the brethren. An eccliastical process would have been the far better process for preserving the rights of the parties and restoring the brotherhood. US Civil courts are adversarial, not conciliatory. Therefore, let me go on record to state emphatically I disagree with your non biblical premise. Copyright and any other controversy could easilly be resolved by the parties meeting together as a minimal start. And how many times did we offer to meet with the 3ABN board? Would you like us to publish the record?

[Gailon, I agree with your that the civil courts are adversarial.  You are correct.  I have been formally trained in mediation by the Office of Resolution Management.  This training occured after the ASI thing fell through.  There are simply some issues that are quite unlikely to be failrly settled by mediation.  In several of the issues the civil courts preserve the rights of the individuals far better than any church process could.  You may call my position unbiblical.  Regardless, it is denominational policy that certain issues can not properly be decided by a chruch process in which the rights of all are preserved and that it is the position of the denomination that the chruch should not play the role of a civil magistrate.  Disagree if you wish, but that is church policy--GM.]

Then electing a conciliation process would be the appropriate alternative dispute resolution. WE DID NOT CLOSE THAT DOOR, 3ABN DID, if your recollection is still intact. ANd again we proposed meeting directly with the brethren (the 3ABN Board). And again, actually several times, we were deemed "no-bodies" and not worthy of sitting at the same table. I seem to recall you would have been part of that process, assuming you would show up. So, they elected to sue "no-bodies" in a civil magistrate. Ignore due process, conciliation and elect adversarial law.

[I happen to have some agreement with you on this point.  I agree that the ASI proposed process was flawed from the very beginning.  While you and I do disagree in some aspects of this, I still beleive that properly done ASI mediation could have accomplished something that would have been worthwhile--GM]

Mr Gregory, there was no good biblical or ecclesistical basis for what has gone on here and we have now way too much evidence to simply walk away and desert outr station, regardless of your philosophies.

In the subject case, it is exactly the issue of due process and the right to face ones accusers that 3ABN has repeatedly avoided. In case after case they have been fortunate to find spineless believers that would not face them down and stand for the rights of victims. They have consistently avoided due process. So, they chose a new battlefield. They can no longer avoid due process, something they are not use to. We have elected to meet them there, something you have taken great pains to avoid.

[Due process and the right to face accusers are important issues on which I agree with you.  Do not imply that I take positions that I do not take--GM.]

I trust you know what I think of deserters. That is right, deserters!!!

But don't you dare misrepresent by innuendo or otherwise the real history or you will be met head on!!! I would think you would know by now we take exception to factually challenged statements. When you move that direction you will be corrected.

As to your legal counsel, I have read your paranormal legal analysis and you can pass back the following message...ignorance is bliss but it is also ignored.
Tell her she needs a vacation from her paranoias!!! You have promoted her for going on two years now (yes, I remember the call promoting her availability) and my position remains the same...I do not get into bed with the enemy!!!
I do not desert my post!!! And I will not partner with non-believers.

[Gailon my specific reference was to a male attorney, not a female attorney.  You have simply made an assumption that is wrong--GM.]

Now, put your military training to good use and re-evaluate where you stand, before the sand erodes your wanton position.

[Gailon, time will tell.  I have stated from the beginning that each side will win some and lose some. Time will ultimately tell who won and lost the most--GM.]

Gailon Arthur Joy

I would like to address item “b” that I have highlighted in red. I believe that statement is misleading. When one takes a counseling position with an individual that has been abused in a way that has resulted in that person having difficulty in making their own life decisions, because their abuser has conditioned them to rely on the abuser for guidance and to distrust their own thoughts, can easily put the “counselor” in a position where “helping” her consider the options that she had, evaluate them and decide can easily become a process of choosing for her. In the case of Linda’s relationship in regard to any association to Joy and Pickle, by Linda’s own words, I believe that is what you and a small group of individuals, in a combined effort, attempted. Although your attempt in “helping Linda” failed, it had the appearance of taking advantage of a known weakness and exploiting it. Had it achieved the desired results, Linda would have been lead to make a statement on the internet that broke any association with Joy and Pickle and would have resulted in you being the spokesperson for Linda. In my opinion that is manipulation, not counseling.

In this whole sorry saga, only God knows all the hidden agendas. Although not everyone is willing to admit it even to themselves, there are agendas where Linda Shelton merely becomes a pawn to be sacrificed. The first in line in this catagory is her ex-husband, Danny Shelton. Unfortunately, he is not the last...

[Gregory]

Sister: 

Again, I will place my comments in the body of your post in [ ]s.

I would like to address item “b” that I have highlighted in red. I believe that statement is misleading. When one takes a counseling position with an individual that has been abused in a way that has resulted in that person having difficulty in making their own life decisions, because their abuser has conditioned them to rely on the abuser for guidance and to distrust their own thoughts, can easily put the “counselor” in a position where “helping” her consider the options that she had, evaluate them and decide can easily become a process of choosing for her.

[Sister, you are quite correct in your comment in regard to what can happen.  This is where it is up to the counselor involved to be professional and to guard against such actually happening.  Such may be called manipulation--GM.]

In the case of Linda’s relationship in regard to any association to Joy and Pickle, by Linda’s own words, I believe that is what you and a small group of individuals, in a combined effort, attempted. Although your attempt in “helping Linda” failed, it had the appearance of taking advantage of a known weakness and exploiting it.

[I do not doubt that such is what is being told today.  I will tell you and the public at large that a large list of attempts to help Linda came at her specific request.  She asked for help and nothing was imposed upon her.  She initiated the request for help in situations where  we had no reason to believe that help was needed.  You reference a "failed attempt to help her."  That is your perception.    I called off that attempt because Linda had changed her objectives, among other reasons.   That in my mind is not a failure.  In my mind it is success when people can come to the place where they take charge of their life and make decisions for themself.  In this case, Linda did just exactly that.  That was growth and progress which I celebrate--GM.]

Had it achieved the desired results, Linda would have been lead to make a statement on the internet that broke any association with Joy and Pickle and would have resulted in you being the spokesperson for Linda. In my opinion that is manipulation, not counseling.

[Was I a spokesperson for Linda?   In 2007 and again in 2008  Linda asked me for help on certain specific issues.  e.g. In 2007 she asked me to make contact with certain individuals as her spokesperson.  There is more to events that took place than is  generally known.  Be aware that there is an ethical principle that states that when a person is falsely accused that accused person may defend themself by releasing information that would otherwise be considered confidential.  Also be aware that confidentiality did not exist between Linda and I.  Linda was clearly informed that she and I did not have a relationship in which confidentiality was granted to her.  She was told that anything she told me was subject to beign shared with others and several were specificly named.  That alone threw confidentiality out the window.  I have a great deal of respect for Linda.  I have supported her and I continue to support her.  False statemenets have been made in regard to events and me.  She needs to be aware that I have the right to defend myself as do others about whom false statements are being made--GM]

 
In this whole sorry saga, only God knows all the hidden agendas. Although not everyone is willing to admit it even to themselves, there are agendas where Linda Shelton merely becomes a pawn to be sacrificed. The first in line in this catagory is her ex-husband, Danny Shelton. Unfortunately, he is not the last...

[I agree with much of what you have said here--GM.]

Linda has a history of complaining about just about everyperson who has attempted to help her--Bob, Gailon, me, and others whom I know have worked very  hard to help her and others of whom I am not so closely informed.  I personally know that much of what has been said is inaccurate and misleading, even if believed.  I am well aware that this is a symptom that is often seen in some people who have gone through certain experiences.  e.g. She came to me with an accusation against another person that was essentially accusing them of a misdemeanor.   I do not think that it is in the best interests of a number of people for every aspect of this to be put out for public view.   Good-hearted, sincere people attempted to help her.  She was helped in many ways.  She is taking charge of her life, she should get on with it.  But, continued accusations will give people the right to defend themselves. There is documented evidence to do so. 

[Bob Pickle]

[My position always has been that the legal situation in regard to certain of the copyright issues involved with the Internet is not clear.  This situation is a developing one as various courts render decisions that are not uniform.  As you well know, there are conflicting decisions from the courts which appear to give advantage to both you and 3-ABN on this issue.  In view of the fact that the various decisions are in some conflict with each other, the litigation is not frivolous.  Any lawsuit that may bring clairty to an issue is not frivolous.  In fact, Gailon, your may go down in legal history as being involved in a case that helped to clairfy the issues--GM.]

I repeat, the Plaintiffs have not listed copyright as one of their counts against us. Further, they have repeatedly stated that none of 3ABN's programming is copyrighted, and thus are estopped from now asserting otherwise.

The only broadcast they have ever registered with the US Copyright Office contained a tribute to an alleged pedophile, but since that broadcast was not copyrighted, they should never have registered it.

[reddogs]

Rick,

See if you can talk to 3ABN/Danny and get them to throw in the towel.

But note that there are bigger issues. Sam has asserted that Gilley plans on getting Danny back into the presidency. Has Danny repudiated John Lomacang's theology that Danny is the Lord's anointed and cannot be corrected by any human being? That is pretty serious. Do we really want someone who buys into that sort of heresy operating a ministry as big and influential as 3ABN?

Moreover, such a move would be unprecedented in the history of our denomination. When have we ever had someone accused of sexual assault, private inurement, unbiblical divorce, wrongfully terminating folks, filing a frivolous lawsuit, covering up child molestation allegations, lying about so many different things, and he still gets to continue on as if nothing happened? Without apologies, without restitution, and without dropping the frivolous lawsuit he started!

Bob,

You are correct, in my opinion they all need to step down and clear the 3ABN of the terrible saga that has befallen it. But we need to start backing away from this on both sides, or you will be locked into this tradegy longer than your lifetime. It is Satans snare, and all of you have gotten snagged, its time to untangle, and let God judge those behaviours and sins that need it. As we say in spanish 'basta', or 'enough already', this has poisoned enough good Christians and Adventist, lets cut it off where it is and deny evil the many victims it now has in its grip.....

Rick

[Bob Pickle]

The one problem, Rick, is that I'm not the one who sued, so it isn't my choice to stop or even draw back. As long as they continue this suit, it can't be over.

According to their own time table, today they are 11 months late giving us a demand to settle. 11 months late!

[Fair Havens]

 Bro. Gregory Matthews

There is a spirit to your posts that is attractive and evokes a feeling that you are sincere and honest. No bombast just a dealing with the issues raised by others with a calm 'authority'. Seems to me to be the CHRISTian way.

[Nosir Myzing]

Linda has a history of complaining about just about everyperson who has attempted to help her--Bob, Gailon, me, and others whom I know have worked very  hard to help her and others of whom I am not so closely informed.  I personally know that much of what has been said is inaccurate and misleading, even if believed. 

Agreed.

Is it worth mentioning or considering that this tendency did not begin with either Bob, Gailon, or you, and that perhaps what was inaccurate and misleading before your involvement has also been believed?

Before you entered the scene this same claim was made by Danny Shelton, Kay Kuzma, Brenda Walsh,  Pastor Lomacang, and the 3ABN board, and chairman... as they tried to help her and the list goes on...

I believe it is possible that just as in your case, they allowed her to make her own choices, but could not continue with them, or her, although wishing her well and still caring about her.


Personally I see no end to all of this. I applaud your attempt at such, as a come let us reason together approach  works among brethren, but I have never noticed it works with the unreasonable, or those bent on vengeance, or at taking offense, and causing it.  One reason this lawsuit was inevitable I believe.

So -- I'll return to lurk mode and return the conversation and discussion back to you all now.

Go with God.

[Bob Pickle]

I believe the record is fairly clear that these folks did not simply let her make her own choices.

Consider carefully that the way Walt Thompson botched up the investigation into the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton suggests a tendency to arrive at desired conclusions rather than to objectively look at the situation. What would make you think that the way Linda was handled was different?

It to this day makes no sense to replace an alleged adulteress with an alleged pedophile, even if Linda was difficult to work with.

If she was difficult to work with, why not fire her? Why instead accuse her of having an affair and then replace her with an alleged pedophile?

[GrandmaNettie]

And I know how totally "off topic" this may be but can't help myself.  http://youtube.com/watch?v=CT7x3VnrqbA

I'm so filled with hope when I see youth taking back the arts for God I want to stand up and applaud. 

Please enjoy and think on things that are really important.

Maxey

 

Amazing....

First you bring tears of Joy with "Free Hugs", now Hope with youthful hands pointing to what really matters.

Off topic?  Hardly!  It is THE most important topic.

Thank You.