Print

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

[Fran]

Here strikes another id attack from the "healing broken people."  Right on que too. And this against someone who has never been on these threads.  Go ahead Kill his reputation and id too and continue to reveal your christian character to all of the world! 

May God forgive you.

[ex3abnemployee]

I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A

Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.

Bringing up things in someone's past in an attempt to discredit. The Sheltons are well known for this.

[Child_of_God]

I find it amazingly sad that when you were asked to comment you chose to make a false accusation. If you had gone to check out the court document you would have found that it was a court decision made in the first half of this year.

[Bob Pickle]

I wonder if 3ABN and Danny could get in similar trouble over not producing documents in response to our discovery requests. That would be interesting if it could get dismissed with prejudice, just like in that case.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A

Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.

Simple response: "Indeed, rather than turn his full attention to providing such responses, plaintiffs' counsel took on a new criminal case pro bono. Although plaintiffs' counsel asked the court to permit plaintiffs to obtain substitute counsel, there is no evidence of any attempt to do so."

Apparently the criminal case took precedence. It is not the Attorney's problem to obtain new counsel for the plaintiffs.

As to the Embezzlement case, that was cited in Vermont and the judge was clearly a great jurist but has since deceased in the intervening 24 years.

Let me point out that we did not challenge the facts but rather the application of the statute. Given the rather unusual application you could conjecture that a spouse who simply took the money out of the checking account on its way out the door could be prosecuted for embezzlement. But then that might make some very happy!!! For example, if Danny Lee Shelton failed to disclose and divide the earned income from royalties or publishing books that were obviously joint property, under the firm name D&L publishing, clearly a marital partnership, then if you applied the Vermont Statute you could argue that he could be prosecuted under that statute. But, he is in Illinois.

The point is, we were clearly guilty of embezzlement under the satute, but that does not make one a liar. For Danny to file an affidavitt with a divorce
court and claim this is all there is and fail to disclose earned income from royalties and book publishing...I believe that leaves one in a position to be
seen as perjurious.

Now tell me the IRS exonerated him from this little jewel!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[anyman]

Another question asked and not answered . . . I didn't ask anything specific about Atty. Heal's time management skills, what was asked is if you can explain his admission that he was inexperienced in practicing law. Seems there was a similar comment in the settlement case as well. A reoccurring pattern from your closest legal ally?

BTW Mr. Duane Clem, as was pointed out this case is certainly not in the past it occurred right in the midst of the current situation, January 2008 to be exact. Now if it had occurred twenty or so years ago and restitution had been made and accepted you might be right - but this is current and evidences characteristics of the efforts of Mr. Gailon Arthur Joy and Mr. Robert Pickle - after all there has been a close association between the three for quite some time now.

So, Mr. Gailon Arthur Joy, your simple response does not address the question but attempts to skirt it and redirect in another direction before anyone can see through the thin veil. Are you going to answer?

In response to Mr. Robert Pickle, IMO there is a much greater chance of a summary judgment against you, than there is a chance the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

Oh yes, one more question, this one for you Fran . . . are you afraid to share what you find out from the IRS contact? Or did you overstep your bounds in asking, or did they tell you it was privileged information and they might lose their job if they were discovered to have shared information with you . . . I am going with, you don't want to share it because it puts to rest the argument over the results of the investigation and in favor of 3ABN/Danny Shelton.

I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A

Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.

Simple response: "Indeed, rather than turn his full attention to providing such responses, plaintiffs' counsel took on a new criminal case pro bono. Although plaintiffs' counsel asked the court to permit plaintiffs to obtain substitute counsel, there is no evidence of any attempt to do so."

Apparently the criminal case took precedence. It is not the Attorney's problem to obtain new counsel for the plaintiffs.

As to the Embezzlement case, that was cited in Vermont and the judge was clearly a great jurist but has since deceased in the intervening 24 years.

Let me point out that we did not challenge the facts but rather the application of the statute. Given the rather unusual application you could conjecture that a spouse who simply took the money out of the checking account on its way out the door could be prosecuted for embezzlement. But then that might make some very happy!!! For example, if Danny Lee Shelton failed to disclose and divide the earned income from royalties or publishing books that were obviously joint property, under the firm name D&L publishing, clearly a marital partnership, then if you applied the Vermont Statute you could argue that he could be prosecuted under that statute. But, he is in Illinois.

The point is, we were clearly guilty of embezzlement under the satute, but that does not make one a liar. For Danny to file an affidavitt with a divorce
court and claim this is all there is and fail to disclose earned income from royalties and book publishing...I believe that leaves one in a position to be
seen as perjurious.

Now tell me the IRS exonerated him from this little jewel!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Bob Pickle]

Another question asked and not answered . . . I didn't ask anything specific about Atty. Heal's time management skills, what was asked is if you can explain his admission that he was inexperienced in practicing law. Seems there was a similar comment in the settlement case as well.

Pardon? Where did you quote such an admission on his part?

I'm not saying he didn't say it. I'm just saying that you haven't quoted what he said.

BTW Mr. Duane Clem, as was pointed out this case is certainly not in the past it occurred right in the midst of the current situation, January 2008 to be exact.

Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?

In response to Mr. Robert Pickle, IMO there is a much greater chance of a summary judgment against you, than there is a chance the case will be dismissed with prejudice.

Pardon? On what basis? It's the plaintiffs that haven't been producing, not us.

And on what basis would there be summary judgment? What specific statements have I made that have been proven to be false and recklessly or maliciously made?

[GrandmaNettie]

Bringing up things in someone's past in an attempt to discredit. The Sheltons are well known for this.

Duane, shall we start a list of people who Bob, Gailon and their assistants, have brought up and are even still bringing up things from their pasts in an attempt to discredit?  Some of these things are not even based upon fact, just conjecture, and yet they continue.

Fran, those who you so staunchly support and who feel they have been anointed to remove sin from the 3ABN camp have, on a continual basis, attacked many who have never been here on Adventtalk.  Who can forget the shockingly short-lived youtube video that stated in part  "Um, well in early May, somebody thought 'Well wait a minute. So and so was talking to Danny's...[censored by GrandmaNettie to respect the individual's privacy]'ah, and da, you know there was some talk about o**l *** ".  The person Bob was referring to has never been on this forum and yet he was doing his level best to tarnish the reputation of this sweet person to further paint Danny as a lacivious man. 

To those of us who have been paying attention to the allegations being raised, there are many instances of this here on Adventtalk, both early on and quite recently.  Gailon is now trying to act like Sam's ID is a multipersonality ID, with both Danny and the couple from a ministry in Thompsonville taking turns on the keyboard.  Yes, I have done some checking and am confident that Gailon is quite factually challenged in this regard.

This is not to claim that the Danny Shelton supporters have always behaved themselves.  That has not been the case, but it has been to a far less degree than what I have witnessed from the Gailon and Bob supporters.

I believe that both sides have some positions of merit and some positions that are factually challenged.  Neither side is either fully right or fully wrong, and to characterize it any other way is folly.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Anyman is clearly having delusions of grandeur again.

I would like to see that Motion for Summary Judgement!!! Are you preparing it, ANYMAN? Or will it come from your Ohio connections? Is so what is your factual basis? Or are going to "wing it"?

You did know that you need a FACTUAL basis for a Motion for Summary Judgement, didn't you? Factually challenged claims are difficult to support in such an effort and would likely be viewed as a waste of the Courts' time. But, we will be up to the challenge!!

By the way, do you need a reading class? The appeal arises from a dismissal against the Plaintiffs in November 2006 and is a case dating back to mid 2005.
It will please you to know the Plaintiff's are still reposing in their home. And I took the response from the Appellate brief.

And what is the matter with my previus response? Gee, I thought it was a very pertinent example!!! Danny's affidavitt is certainly relevant, isn't it? Did the IRS exonerate him on this as well???

Me thinks not!!! Alas, yet another little problem that one is left to wonder the implications.

Well ANYMAN, I leave you to your Christ-like Character and the most important task of burying issues so you can get the message to the world.
Hypocrisy so becomes the the message you promote!!!

As to that apology, I await 3ABN's admission of facts and their heart-felt apology to so many victims (with restitution) so we can forgive, forget and move on. It will come in time or their efforts will be for naught...

And I still await that Notice of closed file!!! I hope I don't have to wait as long as we waited for those phone records...get what I mean? An eternity is a long time!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

"shall we start a list of people who Bob, Gailon and their assistants, have brought up and are even still bringing up things from their pasts in an attempt to discredit?  Some of these things are not even based upon fact, just conjecture, and yet they continue." Grandma Nettie

List, Please, Grandma...I really need to address it?.

And who are my assistants?

Since you have checked it out and are so certain of the factuality of your statements and your sources then you must have the identity of the real SAM, that would certainly be the only way you could be so sure...or are you sure?... if so, why don't you enlighten us...best way to discredit factually challenged statements is with FACTS!!!

If you think I believe you or your sources, guess again!!! Are they as credible as the IRS has exonerated 3ABN and Danny Shelton Statements and the IRS found absolutely nothing statements?

Of course, it will also give us full opportunity to conduct comparative analysis.
SAM is such an interesting personality. Any psychologists like to give us "assistance"

Gailon Arthur Joy

[anyman]

Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?

Well, you sure love to tilt at trivialities don't you . . . I said the document is from January 2008 making it very current. It matters not if the words were uttered in late 2007 or 2005. It isn't the first time he said it and it was his admission the judge referenced. The fact remains that Atty. Heal, your ally in all of this, has admitted that he is an inexperienced practitioner of the law to more than one judge.

The points to be considered, setting aside your valiant, though misguided effort to divert from the salient considerations:

A. I would expect that you read the document linked to earlier in this thread.

B. It appears that you missed the following words from the judge:

"Perhaps most significant, plaintiffs proffered no legitimate excuse for the delay. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel attributed the delay to his inexperience practicing law, the incompetence of his support staff, and his own deliberate decision to direct his attention to cases of paying clients instead of this pro bono matter."

C. Are you calling the judge who wrote the document a liar? It is clear he doesn't consider the words of Atty. Heal to be very wise. It would seem as if you would want to not appear like someone who regularly attacks judges and attorney's.

[Bob Pickle]

Duane, shall we start a list of people who Bob, Gailon and their assistants, have brought up and are even still bringing up things from their pasts in an attempt to discredit?

Any examples?

Some of these things are not even based upon fact, just conjecture, and yet they continue.

Any examples?

Who can forget the shockingly short-lived youtube video that stated in part  "Um, well in early May, somebody thought 'Well wait a minute. So and so was talking to Danny's...[censored by GrandmaNettie to respect the individual's privacy]'ah, and da, you know there was some talk about o**l *** ".  The person Bob was referring to has never been on this forum and yet he was doing his level best to tarnish the reputation of this sweet person to further paint Danny as a lacivious man.

Not at all. One can honestly tell the facts as they are without trying to tarnish someone's reputation.

The facts are the facts. Someone remembered those conversations which resulted in the rediscovery of those emails, which included emails about horse donations. The facts are the facts.

This is not to claim that the Danny Shelton supporters have always behaved themselves.  That has not been the case, but it has been to a far less degree than what I have witnessed from the Gailon and Bob supporters.

My, what an extreme statements! Have you forgotten all the ridiculous stuff the Danny clones have posted?

[Bob Pickle]

Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?

Well, you sure love to tilt at trivialities don't you . . . I said the document is from January 2008 making it very current. It matters not if the words were uttered in late 2007 or 2005. It isn't the first time he said it and it was his admission the judge referenced. The fact remains that Atty. Heal, your ally in all of this, has admitted that he is an inexperienced practitioner of the law to more than one judge.

The points to be considered, setting aside your valiant, though misguided effort to divert from the salient considerations:

A. I would expect that you read the document linked to earlier in this thread.

B. It appears that you missed the following words from the judge:

"Perhaps most significant, plaintiffs proffered no legitimate excuse for the delay. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel attributed the delay to his inexperience practicing law, the incompetence of his support staff, and his own deliberate decision to direct his attention to cases of paying clients instead of this pro bono matter."

C. Are you calling the judge who wrote the document a liar? It is clear he doesn't consider the words of Atty. Heal to be very wise. It would seem as if you would want to not appear like someone who regularly attacks judges and attorney's.

I guess you have pinpointed a major difference between you and me. You are willing to take someone else's word for something without trying to go back to the original source, and then draw conclusions about a topic, and I am not.

That doesn't mean that I am calling into question what the judge said. But it does mean that I am reluctant to conclude that Heal wrote that when the judge did not say that Heal was the one that wrote that. And there is always the possibility that the context of the statement will limit the meaning in some way which would make your application of the judge's statement go beyond the judge's intended meaning.

So go ahead and dig up what Heal really did say, and post it here for all to see.

[Sam]

Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?

Well, you sure love to tilt at trivialities don't you . . . I said the document is from January 2008 making it very current. It matters not if the words were uttered in late 2007 or 2005. It isn't the first time he said it and it was his admission the judge referenced. The fact remains that Atty. Heal, your ally in all of this, has admitted that he is an inexperienced practitioner of the law to more than one judge.

The points to be considered, setting aside your valiant, though misguided effort to divert from the salient considerations:

A. I would expect that you read the document linked to earlier in this thread.

B. It appears that you missed the following words from the judge:

"Perhaps most significant, plaintiffs proffered no legitimate excuse for the delay. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel attributed the delay to his inexperience practicing law, the incompetence of his support staff, and his own deliberate decision to direct his attention to cases of paying clients instead of this pro bono matter."

C. Are you calling the judge who wrote the document a liar? It is clear he doesn't consider the words of Atty. Heal to be very wise. It would seem as if you would want to not appear like someone who regularly attacks judges and attorney's.

I guess you have pinpointed a major difference between you and me. You are willing to take someone else's word for something without trying to go back to the original source, and then draw conclusions about a topic, and I am not.

That doesn't mean that I am calling into question what the judge said. But it does mean that I am reluctant to conclude that Heal wrote that when the judge did not say that Heal was the one that wrote that. And there is always the possibility that the context of the statement will limit the meaning in some way which would make your application of the judge's statement go beyond the judge's intended meaning.

So go ahead and dig up what Heal really did say, and post it here for all to see.

  Oh Bob C'mon.  This is too much for even you.

[Sam]

I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A

Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.

Bringing up things in someone's past in an attempt to discredit. The Sheltons are well known for this.

Maybe we should listen here as you would be an expert in bringing up someone's past to descredit them.
The Shelton's....again???  Acting as if they are one person instead of 40+?  When you do that you are trying to discredit the whole entire family on your opinion alone.