Print

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

[Gregory]

For probably close to five (5) years I have been following the developing saga of the issues associated with 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. 

In those early days  people told me that they were praying to God that 3-ABN and/or Danny Shelton would file a lawsuit that would ultimately result in discovery that would vindicate truth, righteousness and reveal the sinners  for what they were.   When the litigation was finally filled, there was rejoicing.  God, it was said, had caused it to be filed in a manner that gave the defendants the best possible venue for victory.  I was interested to see the developing public  claims by some that this litigation was in violation of Biblical teachings.  As the litigation took place, I noted that the pro se defendants did better than many expected, to include myself.  Yet, it appeared to me that they were not likely to achieve the victory that they wanted.

I have listened to the allegations that were made against Danny Shelton, Ralph Thompson and the many others  associated with 3-ABN.  Some of those allegations seem reasonable to me and others seemed to be devoid of either logic or of substantiation.  While I think that Ralph Thompson made some mistakes in judgment, I do not attribute to him that malice that some others seem to attribute to him.  He is  a man who has contributed much in a positive way to his Lord and to the SDA Church  notwithstanding some of what I consider to be mistakes in judgment.  While I deny that Linda was guilty of charges that were made against her, I have never criticized Danny Shelton for either the divorce or for the remarriage.  I have come to the place where just as I believe that charges made against Linda have not been substantiated, so also charges made against Danny Shelton have not been substantiated.

When I first became involved with this ongoing saga, it was as a supporter of Linda Shelton.  I did not believe that she had been treated fairly.  I did not believe that she had given Danny Shelton grounds for a divorce in a manner that conservative SDAs would consider to be Biblical.  I also believed that even if she had given Danny Shelton so-called Biblical grounds for a divorce she had not been treated in an appropriate manner.  That continues to be my position and I continue to support her in those areas of discussion.  I began to publicly support Linda because I saw her as a woman, somewhat defenseless, in a conflict against a well organized group of people who were not treating her fairly.  I wanted to give her public support in a time of crisis in her life.  I saw myself as taking a moral/ethical stand in supporting Linda Shelton.  I continued to do so until the time came that I knew that the time had come for me to take a less public role in support of her.

It is those same moral and ethical issues that now compel me to take a public stand in support of the woman whom Danny married--Brandy Shelton.  She should not be the focus of attacks.  She had nothing to do with any of the issues associated with 3-ABN.   If people want to focus on 3-ABN and its management, fine.  Do so.  Let the chips, so to speak fall where they may.  If you want to litigate, do so.  Some issues can only be decided by the civil courts and should be so decided.  Public opinion and the Church cannot resolve many of the issues that have been raised. A focus on Brandy will do nothing to resolve such issues.

[Gregory]

Please note a typo that occured early this AM:

My reference to Ralph Thompson (who is a real person whom I know) was to the 3-ABN Chair and is named Walter Thompson.

Sorry.

Gregory Matthews

[Bob Pickle]

She had nothing to do with any of the issues associated with 3-ABN.

I think that statement is going too far. We do have someone who claims to have been terminated after expressing concern to Danny that he should stay away from Brandy regarding OS. We also have Danny sounding like he had a girlfriend named Brandy in early 2005, but denying such in late 2005, and then marrying her several months later.

And then there are the lawsuit's claims itself. The lawsuit raises questions about what board members thought about Danny's relationship with Brandy. Nick Miller said that in early 2005 he became concerned about certain issues, including personal issues about Danny. Then Nick got jettisoned from the board about the time Linda and Danny exchanged emails over Danny selling out the ministry for sex, specifically OS, allegations Danny never denied.

And then there is the issue in the lawsuit about 3ABN money getting funneled to Brandy through a third-party non-profit, something Nick told me about, along with the idea that Danny tried to transfer property to Brandy before they got married.

So Brandy does have a lot to do with the issues associated with 3ABN, even if she wasn't with Danny when they bought the corvette while 3ABN was suffering financially, and even if she isn't helping Danny spend the money he has siphoned away from 3ABN in various ways. And even if she had not been chasing Danny for 17 years prior to their marriage, or been chasing Danny at any time prior to June 25, 2004.

It simply is impossible to keep Brandy away from the issues, especially given the issues Danny chose to litigate over.

[Snoopy]

Brandy was part of the fiasco that forced a young child to HIDE UNDER A BLANKET FOR CLOSE TO AN HOUR IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK.  Good grief.  She most certainly IS part of the saga now, by virtue of her very own choices.

[Bob Pickle]

In those early days  people told me that they were praying to God that 3-ABN and/or Danny Shelton would file a lawsuit that would ultimately result in discovery that would vindicate truth, righteousness and reveal the sinners  for what they were.

I do not recall praying for any such thing.

As the litigation took place, I noted that the pro se defendants did better than many expected, to include myself.  Yet, it appeared to me that they were not likely to achieve the victory that they wanted.

Maybe "has taken place" would be the better tense, since it isn't over yet.

It was interesting that the First Circuit on Friday decided that oral arguments would not be allowed in our appeal, which can only be done if a 3-judge panel unanimously decides such on the basis of one of three reasons. It's in Fed.R.App.P. 34.

I believe that indicates that our brief and the record are clear enough that oral arguments wouldn't add a thing. Do note that we filed maybe 1500 pages, and the other side filed about 61 pages, including their table of contents. The other side did ask for oral arguments, which must be allowed unless a 3-judge panel unanimously agrees based on one of three reasons.

We also served a motion for sanctions on the other side last week.

[anyman]

It was interesting that the First Circuit on Friday decided that oral arguments would not be allowed in our appeal, which can only be done if a 3-judge panel unanimously decides such on the basis of one of three reasons. It's in Fed.R.App.P. 34.

I believe that indicates that our brief and the record are clear enough that oral arguments wouldn't add a thing. Do note that we filed maybe 1500 pages, and the other side filed about 61 pages, including their table of contents. The other side did ask for oral arguments, which must be allowed unless a 3-judge panel unanimously agrees based on one of three reasons.

We also served a motion for sanctions on the other side last week.

     More often than not, an appeals level court will not hear oral arguments. It is just not standard procedure. Appeals level judges are considered the most cloistered judges in the judicial system - why, because they read the briefs and rely on the record in the process of rendering an opinion. Your attempt at subtle insinuation that some how things are "going your way" because the panel has denied oral arguments either A.) evidences a lack of understanding of the process or B.) is an attempt to inject some hope in the troops.
     Additionally, the denial of oral arguments has absolutely no relationship to the quality or content of your expansive filings. The quantity of pages in your filings is indicative of only one thing: Your attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion by filing pages of superfluous content. You did not get your "day in court" so you are attempting to circumvent the legal process by filing copious amounts of needless material in an effort to get your purported information "out to the public" via the public record of the case.
     Appeals level courts do not make findings, they render conclusions in regards to the application of law. Your endless recitation of the facts will not have a bearing on the questions of law upon which one files an appeal. An appeal is not about entering information into the record, an appeal is about what is already on the record and answers the question of, "Was the law applied correctly?" So the only question on appeal should be, was the granting of voluntary dismissal rendered according to the law? That is it, that is all the appeal needs to address. The panel will look at the necessary information surrounding that question and render their opinion. All the other material will not be considered.

- anyman

-edited to correct content to accurately reflect the point being made.

[tinka]

Gregory,
What part of Dr. Day's discovery page on Brandy's background not true? Seems DS ventured into sin no matter how you look at it. Repentance on her part?? How?? Seems you can steal a car these days and keep it huh!! then repent!  The Godfather theory. How can you help outsiders not look at the facts here. I've been watching this for the same amount of time before I could make conclusion of the hopping .  And the funds going to feed the   s.

This little tidbit will mean absolutely nothing to anyone but me. My mother passed away about 3 years ago. She was a contributer. But I knew she sacrificed much to do it. Not until I finally went through her clothes this past week with much tears at what I discovered.

You know what I found?? I found the stockings she wore all folded washed and neat with the tops looking all clean until I unfolded and saw the heels all gone and that is the way she must of wore them without me knowing. She sent money before she bought for herself.

Then I watch the posting of someone stating "It is nobodies business what he spends his personal money on. I can state one thing. A crook is a crook and a thief can be of the worse type. But this is the ultimate of using peoples sincere emotions of Love from all and especially the elderly on fixed income as a gift to God for greedy purposes.  A Corvette!  How extremely wonderful for DS. Unless true repentenance the gates are open wide. Any guess of which one to just the on lookers?? How can you present Extravaganza living expenses any different? People can spend their money any way they please for sure but not the way this so called use of SDA propaganda did! DS is at the helm and his ship is broken.

[Bob Pickle]

It was interesting that the First Circuit on Friday decided that oral arguments would not be allowed in our appeal, which can only be done if a 3-judge panel unanimously decides such on the basis of one of three reasons. It's in Fed.R.App.P. 34.

I believe that indicates that our brief and the record are clear enough that oral arguments wouldn't add a thing. Do note that we filed maybe 1500 pages, and the other side filed about 61 pages, including their table of contents. The other side did ask for oral arguments, which must be allowed unless a 3-judge panel unanimously agrees based on one of three reasons.

We also served a motion for sanctions on the other side last week.

     More often than not, an appeals level court will not hear oral arguments. It is just not standard procedure. Appeals level judges are considered the most cloistered judges in the judicial system - why, because they read the briefs and rely on the record in the process of rendering an opinion. Your attempt at subtle insinuation that some how things are "going your way" because the panel has denied oral arguments either A.) evidences a lack of understanding of the process or B.) is an attempt to inject some hope in the troops.
     Additionally, the denial of oral arguments has absolutely no relationship to the quality or content of your expansive filings. The quantity of pages in your filings is indicative of only one thing: Your attempt to try the case in the court of public opinion by filing pages of superfluous content. You did not get your "day in court" so you are attempting to circumvent the legal process by filing copious amounts of needless material in an effort to get your purported information "out to the public" via the public record of the case.
     Appeals level courts do not make findings, they render conclusions in regards to the application of law. Your endless recitation of the facts will not have a bearing on the questions of law upon which one files an appeal. An appeal is not about entering information into the record, an appeal is about what is already on the record and answers the question of, "Was the law applied correctly?" So the only question on appeal should be, was the granting of voluntary dismissal rendered according to the law? That is it, that is all the appeal needs to address. The panel will look at the necessary information surrounding that question and render their opinion. All the other material will not be considered.

- anyman

-edited to correct content to accurately reflect the point being made.

Maybe you should go to law school, anyman. Or perhaps edit you post again to make it more accurate.

• The rule I cited says what it says. Oral arguments must be allowed unless ....
• Everything we filed other than the briefs is already a part of the public record of the case, so your comment other wise is incorrect.
• Simpson based his motion to dismiss in part upon the entire record, so there really isn't anything in the record that we filed with the appeal that can be considered superfluous, and it all is more or less relevant on that basis.
• There are certainly times when appeals courts make findings of law or fact, or determine that the district court's findings of law or fact were clear error.
• The denial of oral argument was on the basis of one of three reasons. I think the wording suggests that it was for the third reason, which would probably have to do with the quality and content of our filing. Your assertion to the contrary can't alter the facts or the law.

[Snoopy]

Gregory,
What part of Dr. Day's discovery page on Brandy's background not true? Seems DS ventured into sin no matter how you look at it. Repentance on her part?? How?? Seems you can steal a car these days and keep it huh!! then repent!  The Godfather theory. How can you help outsiders not look at the facts here. I've been watching this for the same amount of time before I could make conclusion of the hopping .  And the funds going to feed the   s.

This little tidbit will mean absolutely nothing to anyone but me. My mother passed away about 3 years ago. She was a contributer. But I knew she sacrificed much to do it. Not until I finally went through her clothes this past week with much tears at what I discovered.

You know what I found?? I found the stockings she wore all folded washed and neat with the tops looking all clean until I unfolded and saw the heels all gone and that is the way she must of wore them without me knowing. She sent money before she bought for herself.

Then I watch the posting of someone stating "It is nobodies business what he spends his personal money on. I can state one thing. A crook is a crook and a thief can be of the worse type. But this is the ultimate of using peoples sincere emotions of Love from all and especially the elderly on fixed income as a gift to God for greedy purposes.  A Corvette!  How extremely wonderful for DS. Unless true repentenance the gates are open wide. Any guess of which one to just the on lookers?? How can you present Extravaganza living expenses any different? People can spend their money any way they please for sure but not the way this so called use of SDA propaganda did! DS is at the helm and his ship is broken.

tinka, I feel your pain through your post, and you brought a tear.  Your mama was a true gift from God.

Think of the joy when she is able to meet her Creator face to face!

[Snoopy]

Maybe you should go to law school, anyman. Or perhaps edit you post again to make it more accurate.

Hey - isn't there a good law school at Pepperdine?  What a beautiful campus!

[Sam]

She had nothing to do with any of the issues associated with 3-ABN.

I think that statement is going too far. We do have someone who claims to have been terminated after expressing concern to Danny that he should stay away from Brandy regarding OS. We also have Danny sounding like he had a girlfriend named Brandy in early 2005, but denying such in late 2005, and then marrying her several months later.

And then there are the lawsuit's claims itself. The lawsuit raises questions about what board members thought about Danny's relationship with Brandy. Nick Miller said that in early 2005 he became concerned about certain issues, including personal issues about Danny. Then Nick got jettisoned from the board about the time Linda and Danny exchanged emails over Danny selling out the ministry for sex, specifically OS, allegations Danny never denied.

And then there is the issue in the lawsuit about 3ABN money getting funneled to Brandy through a third-party non-profit, something Nick told me about, along with the idea that Danny tried to transfer property to Brandy before they got married.

So Brandy does have a lot to do with the issues associated with 3ABN, even if she wasn't with Danny when they bought the corvette while 3ABN was suffering financially, and even if she isn't helping Danny spend the money he has siphoned away from 3ABN in various ways. And even if she had not been chasing Danny for 17 years prior to their marriage, or been chasing Danny at any time prior to June 25, 2004.

It simply is impossible to keep Brandy away from the issues, especially given the issues Danny chose to litigate over.

Here we go..."someone who claimed".  Repeating rumors again Bob? Spreading gossip that is unsubstantiated. In fact I challenge you to PROVE one thing that you just stated. Prove it with something besides "someone told you" and "someone claimed".

[GRAT]

How about you prove without a doubt that LS committed adultery and that DS was then free to remarry.  Every time that is asked it gets really quiet.  All you have ever had was someone has seen it so believe us. 

[Bob Pickle]

Sam seems to be grasping at straws when he/she asks me to prove that the lawsuit brings Brandy into the middle of this by referring to board concerns about Danny having an inappropriate relationship with her, and by referring to funneling money to her through another non-profit.

Sam, just read the lawsuit. It's there and has been in there for more than two years.

But if you were referring to something else, and was willing all the time to admit that I spoke the truth about that, then please in the future be more specific when you say I haven't proven something.

The issue was whether Brandy was involved or not, not whether what Nick and others said was actually correct. Someone can be involved in an investigation or litigation of the issues and end up being totally innocent.

[tinka]

Snoopy,

Thank you, yes I cried a lot.

[Fran]

I knew that Brandy was there in July in 2004!

Yet we were told she never appeared until November 2004!  Why?  To hide the fact that Danny and she were sitting in the Subway eating dinner every day at lunch!  They think people are blind?

Now, Dr Day has opened the BIG can of worms!  She was there in 1999!  God is opening the truth wide open about Brandy and her where abouts!

Oh yes, she is involved! 

However, people make mistakes, but somewhere the lie has to stop!