Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on May 24, 2011, 07:45:07 PM
-
Today we filed our petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in our two appeals. We'll see what happens.
-
Seems like some have claimed there were no more appeals?
-
The final appeal is a Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, there are ways in which such a Writ may be appealed or other actions taken in an attempt to keep litigation going.
-
In the U.S. a petition for such a Writ or Cert as it is often called is typically granted by the Supreme Court about 1% of the time. Granting such a petition simply means that the Court will review the case, it does not indicate a win.
NOTE: A petition for a Cert is the common means of getting a case before the Supreme Court. However, there are other ways to do so in carefully defined circumstances, which probablly do not apply in what we are talking about here.
-
But why?!!! What is the purpose?
-
Justice?
-
Our petition for rehearing is not a petition to the Supreme Court.
Di, they are still harassing us. I have had to take time away from work to interact with Greg Simpson in his latest round of threats to drag us back into court. It's pathetic.
When this is all over, I want it to be over once and for all. I don't want to be harassed for the rest of my life.
-
Ok so why is Greg Simpson threatening to take you back to court. Is there a specific reason he gives?
Our petition for rehearing is not a petition to the Supreme Court.
Di, they are still harassing us. I have had to take time away from work to interact with Greg Simpson in his latest round of threats to drag us back into court. It's pathetic.
When this is all over, I want it to be over once and for all. I don't want to be harassed for the rest of my life.
-
He wants to pretend that certain court orders say something that they don't, and then he wants to accuse us of failing to comply with those court orders.
Ok so why is Greg Simpson threatening to take you back to court. Is there a specific reason he gives?
Our petition for rehearing is not a petition to the Supreme Court.
Di, they are still harassing us. I have had to take time away from work to interact with Greg Simpson in his latest round of threats to drag us back into court. It's pathetic.
When this is all over, I want it to be over once and for all. I don't want to be harassed for the rest of my life.
-
So is this about the documents being returned, again? So he is saying that since the case if over you need to return the"evidence" you gathered? I thought I also read that in the judges decision?
He wants to pretend that certain court orders say something that they don't, and then he wants to accuse us of failing to comply with those court orders.
-
Since it is clear the Plaintiff's will never be satisfied, the best way to keep the litigation going is to sue them all, as in the lawyers, 3ABN, it's officers and it's directors and to litigate to a real and final conclusion. Up or down, win or loose, it must be done to come to a final conclusion.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
The final appeal is a Writ of Certiorari filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
However, there are ways in which such a Writ may be appealed or other actions taken in an attempt to keep litigation going.
-
The judge specifically said we could keep copies if the confidentiality order permitted. So it all has to do with what the confidentiality order actually says.
Nothing in the confidentiality order says that litigants must return all copies. But Simpson is demanding that we do, WITHOUT quoting for us from the dismissal and confidentiality orders where we are required to do so. The nerve.
So is this about the documents being returned, again? So he is saying that since the case if over you need to return the"evidence" you gathered? I thought I also read that in the judges decision?
He wants to pretend that certain court orders say something that they don't, and then he wants to accuse us of failing to comply with those court orders.
-
Ok so just so I understand you.........You are keeping copies of whatever evidence---confidential documents--you believe to protect yourself against another lawsuit from Danny and 3ABN? However, it is the keeping of these documents that still has them threatening to take you back to court for violation of the judge's order to return them. Do I understand you correctly?
-
Ok so just so I understand you.........You are keeping copies of whatever evidence---confidential documents--you believe to protect yourself against another lawsuit from Danny and 3ABN? However, it is the keeping of these documents that still has them threatening to take you back to court for violation of the judge's order to return them. Do I understand you correctly?
Almost.
Judge Saylor's order specifically allows us to keep copies if the confidentiality oder permits. From Doc. 141 p. 12:
Destruction of the documents will only be permitted if consistent with the terms of the order; and similarly, any photocopying or other copying of any such materials will only be permitted if permitted under that order.
Since the confidentiality order doesn't require us to return anything, that's just the way it is.
-
I think that Atty. Simpson is sorry that he ever got himself into dealings with Bob and Gailon.
-
Just recently some attourneys thought they could confiscate our property. It was an alert clerk at the police office who warned us of the fraud and we got a good young honest attourney to help us out.
-
I think that Atty. Simpson is sorry that he ever got himself into dealings with Bob and Gailon.
Why? His dealings with Bob and Gailon have likely earned him a rather large income. Isn't that what attornies do? They earn income from the legal issues of others.
-
If he likes the constant abrasion of Bob's pointing out his deficiencies.
-
At his income level, it is simply a minor anoyance. Keep in mind, He gets a check for responding to anything that requires legal attention. In one sense, it is people like Bob and Gailon who keep attornies employed. Just imagine the income that they have generated for him over the past four or more years!
When this all finally ends, I thonk that he ought to throw them a party, perhaps give them a vacation on island, along with their families in appreciation for the income that they have brought to him. :)
-
Right Gregory...emails, telephone calls, letters, answers to motion, court appearance alltheir individual price...........If they wanted to hurt Simpson a study flow of petition is not the way.......I had not even thought of that.
-
Just another way to look at it: Everytime Bob hick-uped, or Gailon burped, Simpson got paid.
-
Aaaahh man! LOL!! Well, guys. what do you think? Care to keep asupporting Simpson in his present level of income?
-
Hmmm, It seems Gregory, with implying your theory of Bob and Gailon that you support the pew money to keep this fiasco of corruption going??? Wow, it has been quite established that all corruption will come to an end with the greatest loss of all. Eternity. So... just thoughts looking in from outside.
-
Tinka: That is the way it has happened. Bob and Gailon have served a role that has feathered the nest of Arry. Sompson. I can well imagine that there are attornies who would be glad to pray to the Lord, every night, to put them in a situation such as Simpson was in with Bob and Gailon.
My comments reflect no other view than that of the role that Bob and Gailon have played with Simpson.
-
If he likes the constant abrasion of Bob's pointing out his deficiencies.
Sometimes his patience seems to wear thin.
Tinka: That is the way it has happened. Bob and Gailon have served a role that has feathered the nest of Arry. Sompson. I can well imagine that there are attornies who would be glad to pray to the Lord, every night, to put them in a situation such as Simpson was in with Bob and Gailon.
And yet Simpson no longer works at Siegel Brill, after he failed to get our case finished, and he had a pending motion for sanctions against him. He moved to another law firm, seemingly taking the case with him.
It would seem that Duffy and company wanted to get the case as far away from themselves as possible.
As far as Simpson doing it all for money goes:
Mark 8:36 For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
According to Rev. 21:8, 27; 22:15, lying is something that will land us in the lake of fire, and Simpson knows this since we talked about it in 2008. It is pretty sad when a lawyer will stoop so, so low as to lie for money, and thereby sell out his or her chances on eternity for a paltry sum. Imagine! Knowingly choosing to give up walking on golden streets with Jesus simply to be able to lie in exchange for money!
Of course:
Ecclesiastes 9:4 For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion.
So any lawyer who has stooped so low as to lie for money can still repent, make things right, and be bound for glory, as long as he is still alive. But repentance, which includes a determination not to continue doing that sin, and making things right are conditions that must be complied with.
-
Here! Here!...me thinks we are about to enter phase two, but Simpson becomes a party!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
I think that Atty. Simpson is sorry that he ever got himself into dealings with Bob and Gailon.
Why? His dealings with Bob and Gailon have likely earned him a rather large income. Isn't that what attornies do? They earn income from the legal issues of others.
-
Who is it that has to pay Simpson for his continued services?
-
Wouldn't you suppose it is those who are not satisfied yet with the outcome?
-
Who ever currently retains him. Is that Danny and 3ABN?
Gregory is just telling the truth here. Each time Simpson has to answer a filing, a phone call, an email from Bob, Gailon or even his client, there is a charge. Bob, it does no good to quote Bible scriptures about Simpson, when you are directly responsible for creating the environment which allows him to contiue to"prosper'. Tinks if you all are worried about Danny using "pew money" to pay for legal expenses, then the motions an filings should stop and you won't have to worry about pew money being used any longer in this case.
Ok so I also have some questions. Bob and Gailon. Why did you not return the documents? Is there a point where they ask you if you have any other copies? Who would have even asked had you just complied the first time?
Gregory, isn't it kind of expected, or assumed that all parties to keep files on the entire case and it's evidence even if they are settled out of court, in trial, or even dismessed? I would think so.
Who is it that has to pay Simpson for his continued services?
-
Gregory, isn't it kind of expected, or assumed that all parties to keep files on the entire case and it's evidence even if they are settled out of court, in trial, or even dismessed? I would think so.
The short answer is: Yes.
The longer answer is more complicated: 1) Often times in an out of court settlement there will be an agreement (order) directing that one or more parties either return documents and/or destroy all copies in their possession. 2) The retention of documents after a stated time is often governed by a judicial order.
Number 2, above, is the issue here. The two sides each are making conflicting claims in regard to a judicial order. At this point, it is up to the one side to request that a judge order the other side to comply with the origonal order of the judge. Of course, such a request would give the other side an opportunity to rebut the request. NOTE: My wording is not to be construed as indicating which side I believe to be correct in its understanding.
-
Who is it that has to pay Simpson for his continued services?
Simpson represents a client who has retained his services. That client pays Simpson everytime Simpson acts on behalf of the client. In order to faithfully fulfill his duties to his client a service to the client is generated, with consequent payment, everytime Bob or Gailon acts in a manner that involves Sompson's client.
-
And who pays when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?
-
And who pays when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?
So, who do you think decides that his defense is a "questionable action?" The answer to that question is the Bar Associaiton Ethics Committee. It is not you. It is not me. It is not his client. Should the Bar Associaton decide that Simpson did something wrong, it would prescribe a corrective action.
-
A questionable action by definition would be an action that can be questioned. Whether the Bar Association Ethics Committee agrees that it bears further looking into and correcting is another matter. But my understanding is that the parties to a lawsuit have the right to raise the question of whether the lawsuit was conducted properly.
And was you words "not you, not me" intended to put me in my place?
-
Yes, the parties to a law suit do have the right to question the actions of their attorney. They would first likely talk to their attorney. Then, if not satisfited, they would bring it to the attention of the Bar Association Ethics Committee. Or, they could consult with an attorney who specicializes in attorney misconduct. There are such.
As to putting you in your place: When you said: . . . when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?
it came across to me as factual statement on your part, that in your opinoin Simpson had already acted in his own interests in defending questionable actions. I thought that others would likely agree with that position. So, I wanted to simply point out that we who are on the sidelines and only observe a part of what goes on, do not have the knowledge to decide whether or not an action of Simpson is questionable. Although you may have stated a tautology in which case your statement was true.
-
Ok so I also have some questions. Bob and Gailon. Why did you not return the documents?
Because there is no legal requirement to do so, and as Simpson himself knows, since he can't quote anywhere in the two orders in question where we are told that we have to return all copies of documents. Here he is threatening to drag us back into court, and so I ask him to quote that language of the orders that require us to return all copies, and he can't do it.
Also, if Danny and 3ABN sued us again, we'd have to get these documents again, and to do that we'd have to spend months fighting in court again just to get them to turn them over to us.
Plus, they now know better what is incriminating, and they might not turn that over, and they might even destroy it.
-
Number 2, above, is the issue here. The two sides each are making conflicting claims in regard to a judicial order.
But Simpson can't even quote where the order supports his position. It's pathetic.
-
And who pays when he is acting in his own interest defending questionable actions that he has performed in the course of his legal practice?
So, who do you think decides that his defense is a "questionable action?" The answer to that question is the Bar Associaiton Ethics Committee. It is not you. It is not me. It is not his client. Should the Bar Associaton decide that Simpson did something wrong, it would prescribe a corrective action.
Incorrect. It is God Himself who will judge Greg Simpson, and Greg Simpson will have to answer to God for his lies, unless he repents.
And Danny Shelton and Jim Gilley and Carmelita Troy and all the rest will have to answer to God Himself for every lie that they paid Simpson to tell.
If Nadab and Abihu were responsible for what they did while under the influence, then Ellsworth McKee and Bill Hulsey are responsible for what their representative did for them in court while representing the entity they are directors of.
And I think that the churches these folks are members of should hold them responsible for Simpson's lies and for the persecution they launched and continue to perpetrate against those who spoke out against the cover up of child molestation allegations and private inurement.
-
Yes, Bob, your are correct that in the venue of eternal values it is God who decides and neither you nor I as neither of us is God.
Now I do not think that Child of the King was talking about eternal life and standing in the place of God in what appeared to me to be her judgement call. I would never attribute that to her.
I felt that she asked her question from the social structure of this world and this life. If I am wrong, I am wrong and it will not be the first time.
So, I responded from the standpoint of the social structrue in which we live and more specificly the structure in which Simpson practices law. From that standpoint I was correct and I was not wrong as you suggested. Surely you understood that and knew the context in which I spoke.
-
Gregory are you aware that (to me at least) you come accross as very condescending in your manner. This seems to be quite deliberate. Now I may be wrong and it is not your intention to lecture or talk down to us individuals who are mere mortals. In which case your remarks would be appropriate.
-
Gregory, if we step back from eternal realities, your statement is still incorrect. You said that it was the bar ethics committee, not you, not others, who decides whether what Simpson has done is right or not.
That's akin to saying that the common people have no say so in regards to religious matters since they don't have degrees or haven't been ordained.
Everyone of us may assess the facts ourselves and decide for ourselves. There are times when some organizations protect their own, and if the common people don't independently assess the situation, things run awry.
The fact of the matter is that attorney ethical rules require attorneys to be truthful. And yet attorneys have a reputation for lying. How can that possibly be?
Do ethics committees come down on attorneys who lie more often than bishops come down on priests who fornicate?
-
My response to you was divided into two parts: In the first part of your post I thought you were asking a real quesiton: Who pays when an attorney does something that is inappropriate. That happens more often than it should. Lawyers make mistakes. They misjudge. They go off on tangents that are called by their fellow attornies "novel." I took your question to be an honest one in which you were asking how a client could address such a situation. My short answer was: Go the Ethics Committee of the State Bar Association. I shoud have said to talk to the attorney first.
As to the second part: I was acutally addressing more than your post. I was expanding my response to include those who suggest that Simpson (or other attornies) have done something questionable, yet are not in a position to know the inner workings of the legal issues as experienced by his client. I was basicly saying that we who only have part of the picture are not in a place to state a dictum that his actions are quetionable. We simply do not know the whole picture.
As to the general style of my writing: That is how I write in another venue and quite successfully. In that context I am not understood as being condecending. I tone my style down somewhat when I post here, but not becasue I feel a need to talk down to anyone, but because the context, and purpose, here is different from the context and purpose where I otherwise write.
As to talking down to you personally: I have never felt the need to do that. If I respond to a post it is because I beleive that an individual has raised a valid quesstion that I am interested in responding to.
-
Bob said:
That's akin to saying that the common people have no say so in regards to religious matters since they don't have degrees or haven't been ordained.
Bob, as I have stated, I was not posting in the context of religioius or spiritual matters. As I stated my my most recent post, I responded to what I thought was an honest question as to what should happen when a client questioned the actions of the attorney who represented the clilent.
You mention degrees and ordination: That did not come into play in any of the posts. It certainly did not come from anyting that I have said.
If Child of the King was asking a spiritual question, I was wrong in my response and you were correct. S he mentioned "payment" this in my mind placed the context in the secular world in which we all live today. The context had been "payment" as generally understood today of Simpson for his many hours of legal work. The previous posts were not focused on standing before the judgement bar of God.
-
My meaning was specific. I meant, assuming that an attornery has malpractice insurance to cover it, if he or she did something that was considered wrong but did it at the direction of his client or if he had been had been misled by a client, would he or she have to bear the cost and the legal responsibility or would the client have some liability? I know there is confidentiality between a lawyer and client. If a lawyer did something unethical because he or she felt it would be in the best interest of his or her client's case but without being directed to do so by his or her client, who would be considered to be legally responsible? What if they conspired to try to get away with something? What if permission to use shady tactics wasn't stated but implied or just tolerated. The question was who would pay and I didn't feel that the question was addressed.
I am aware that God's standards are more strict than those of our legal system. A client should make it clear to his attorney that he wants his lawyer to adhere to these higher standards and should ensure that any lawsuit is conducted accordingly. The Court of Heaven is indeed the court of final appeal but Christians are directed to be as salt in this world.
-
No, I did not address that question. I did not understand that as your question.
That is a question that I do not beleive that have the knowledge to answer. Most anytling that I would say would be guesswork. So, I will leave it at that.
-
Ok Got it. But I have to say this, I thought in my reading of at least one of the documents the judge did order the return of the evidence documents. Now, I could be wrong. Also, since the documents were not ordered destroyed(on which I believe everyone can agree), what was there to keep B & G from returning the orginals(so to speak) and keeping copies? I mean was someone going to come and search their files?
I completely understand what you are saying, Gregory. So there are two things I get from your statements and subsequent questions asked.
1. No matter what the details, the fact that Bob and Gailon keep making motions and such is the reasont hat simpson is still getting paid(at least on this case). Had they comlied with the original dismissal, very little income would have come to Simpson from this particular case, correct?
2. And this one is on the blunt side......if Bob and Gailon had returned "a" copy of the evidence documents and kept their mouths shut about keeping "a" copy against being taken to court again by Danny and 3ABN intheir personal files, Simpson would not be able to count on generated income(like a retainer) on a regular basis from contacting them to ask for these documents, is this also correct?
The short answer is: Yes.
The longer answer is more complicated: 1) Often times in an out of court settlement there will be an agreement (order) directing that one or more parties either return documents and/or destroy all copies in their possession. 2) The retention of documents after a stated time is often governed by a judicial order.
Number 2, above, is the issue here. The two sides each are making conflicting claims in regard to a judicial order. At this point, it is up to the one side to request that a judge order the other side to comply with the origonal order of the judge. Of course, such a request would give the other side an opportunity to rebut the request. NOTE: My wording is not to be construed as indicating which side I believe to be correct in its understanding.
-
1. No matter what the details, the fact that Bob and Gailon keep making motions and such is the reasont hat simpson is still getting paid(at least on this case). Had they comlied with the original dismissal, very little income would have come to Simpson from this particular case, correct?
Yes. Sompson would have had to have depended upon other clients to earn a good living. As a result of Bob and Gailon the goose is laying eggs of gold for Simpson.
-
2. And this one is on the blunt side......if Bob and Gailon had returned "a" copy of the evidence documents and kept their mouths shut about keeping "a" copy against being taken to court again by Danny and 3ABN intheir personal files, Simpson would not be able to count on generated income(like a retainer) on a regular basis from contacting them to ask for these documents, is this also correct?
I am not willing to take that position. Simpson would have demanded that the judge order them to state whether or not they had kept a copy. I assume that Boband Gailon would have been truthful. So, the litigation would have gone on and on.
-
Ok Got it. But I have to say this, I thought in my reading of at least one of the documents the judge did order the return of the evidence documents. Now, I could be wrong. Also, since the documents were not ordered destroyed(on which I believe everyone can agree), what was there to keep B & G from returning the orginals(so to speak) and keeping copies? I mean was someone going to come and search their files?
Di, immediately after getting the case dismissed (< 90 minutes after the status conference ended), Simpson demanded that we surrender not just the originals but also all copies. I do not recall if he also demanded a sworn statement to that effect, but in his last threatening letter he did.
I do not think Simpson is just bumbling along not knowing what he is doing.
Here's from the dismissal order:
I will order that all materials produced in discovery that were designated as confidential under the confidentiality and protective order issued in this case on April 17th will be returned, as set forth in that order.
Destruction of the documents will only be permitted if consistent with the terms of the order; and similarly, any photocopying or other copying of any such materials will only be permitted if permitted under that order.
...
THE COURT: Well, it's -- it is transferable, unless it's subject to the confidentiality order. If it's subject to the confidentiality order, you have to return it, or do whatever the order says you're supposed to do with it; and, you know, you have gained presumably a certain amount of information. You're not required to erase it from your brain, and you can use it consistent with the terms of the order as -- as may be permitted by that order, but that's --
(Doc. 141 pp. 12, 14-15).
Now Di, isn't it pretty clear that Saylor was only ordering the return of documents if the confidentiality order so required? Do you have to have a law degree to see that?
Further, even if we returned the originals, isn't it clear that we can keep copies if the confidentiality order permits?
The confidentiality order consists of two parts: 6 pages laying out the terms of the order, and a 2-page exhibit, Exhibit A, that certain non-litigants must sign before receiving any confidential documents from a litigant. The only return requirement mentioned anywhere in that order is in Exhibit A, not in the 6 pages that apply to me.
And I think Simpson has understood this all along. I think this is why Atty. Charles Bappert tried to get me to sign Exhibit A when he sent me the Remnant documents. I think Simpson wanted to get us to be legally bound to return those documents.
But I didn't fall for it. I called Bappert and told him I didn't need to sign it, and he didn't argue with me at all about it.
Exhibit A is a way for the court to obtain jurisdiction of non-parties so that the court can enforce the confidentiality order upon a non-litigant. But the court already has jurisdiction over me.
In some respects one could say, "already had jurisdiction" instead of "already has." My understanding is that since the case was dismissed, the court has authority to enforce the existing order, or relieve the existing order's obligations under Rule 60. But the court does not have jurisdiction to alter the existing order to impose new obligations upon us under rule 60. In order for Simpson to legally get that order altered to force us to surrender all copies, he would have to file a new action against us.
Returning just the originals and keeping copies isn't good enough for Simpson. He doesn't want us to keep anything, even though Exhibit A permits non-litigants to retain the materials until 30 days after the end of all appeals. Understand? Simpson even wants us to surrender everything before the appeals are over!
I do not have any record of Simpson returning any documents either Gailon or I had designated confidential. Now why would that be if Simpson really believes all confidential documents must be returned?
And then there is the issue of who designated the Remnant documents as confidential. Remnant denied that they did. How can Danny or 3ABN have standing to designate documents pertaining to DLS Publishing, Inc. as confidential? DLS has never contacted us, not once. Jerrie Hayes explicitly told the magistrate in Minnesota that she was representing Danny, not DLS, and the magistrate didn't think Danny had standing to complain about our subpoenaing bank records pertaining to DLS.
The bottom line is that Judge Saylor said we could keep copies if the confidentiality order permits, the confidentiality order doesn't require litigants to return anything or to sign Exhibit A, and Simpson won't be satisfied if we keep any copies whatsoever.
-
Ok Got it. But I have to say this, I thought in my reading of at least one of the documents the judge did order the return of the evidence documents. Now, I could be wrong. Also, since the documents were not ordered destroyed(on which I believe everyone can agree), what was there to keep B & G from returning the orginals(so to speak) and keeping copies? I mean was someone going to come and search their files?
Di, immediately after getting the case dismissed (< 90 minutes after the status conference ended), Simpson demanded that we surrender not just the originals but also all copies. I do not recall if he also demanded a sworn statement to that effect, but in his last threatening letter he did.
I do not think Simpson is just bumbling along not knowing what he is doing.
Gailon & Bob why do you talk with such arrogance about round two coming up? Both of you are the only two people who have followed this law suit with 3ABN and think you have won. Can you show me anything from the court records from day one where you have won anything that amounted to anything with Duffy and or Simpson? The answer is no!
You have totally lost everytime you have gone to court. Hasn't it occurred to you that you may be the only people who have been in court for years and never won any rounds whatsoever!
You and Bob are worse than any ordinary laymen because at least they realize when they are whipped! Let me give you an example. You lost in the court to dismiss the court case with 3ABN. You continued to talk big for nearly three years, meanwhile losing every appeal. This case is over and you two are the only ones in the world who seem to believe that you can still win! This is utter nonsense. This last move with Simpson shows how ate up with hatred you are for those involved with 3ABN. If either of you ever had any balance in judgement before this case, it is obvious that there is no balance, judgement or common sense left.
Bob, Look what this has done to your family and church family relationships. You have put your hatred for 3ABN above your family. Sadly these results will last a lifetime. Gailon had boo coo family troubles before he came into this situation. Pride will eat away at the foundations of a happy home.
Look at the IRS situation. You have denied for years it was over...when you found out it was over and 3abn and DS were cleared completely did you publically apologize? Did you admit your accusations were false? Did you admit you were wrong when you kept saying the investigation was still ongoing?
Again...The IRS cleared Danny and 3ABN of any wrong doing....this would include any of the accusations that you point to, Bob...laundering blah blah blah....
Any reasonable, sane and AND HONEST person would acknowledge that when the IRS, cleared DS of any wrong doing...they should move on and admit they falsely accused DS and 3ABN. Both you and Gailon admits that the IRS investigation is over...Yet you continue to hold fast to your false accusing which of course is a sin in the books of heaven!
How many souls have either of you guys helped lead to the Lord in the last several years since you made trying to destroy 3abn your lifes work?
In your defense, there was never any chance that your dreams would come true. 3ABN is God's channel of blessing. Reports come in from around the world everyday of people who have given their lives to Christ because of the message being taught.
Did you guys really think you could fight against God and win? No one ever has and no one ever will.
Gailon Joy, Bob Pickle, Linda, Arild, Johnann or any of your little group will never take over 3ABN. You really thought you could pull this off, didn't you?
3ABN is ran by a great Board who is commited to getting the undiluted 3 Angels messages to the world and God is blessing abundantly. They would never allow Linda or any of the rest of you to touch 3abn with your gloating, arrogance, hatred and lies. With all you've tried to do 3ABN continues to grow and it's outreach and influence is spreading around the world. This is happening because of God's grace and His love for the tool He brought about to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ.
It's sad you call yourselves SDA's and are puppets for your little internet group who are either non SDA, unhappy SDA's with an ax to grind,
or not even Christian.. period.
Think about it. Of all the ministries on earth which one does Satan hate the most? For over 25 years 3ABN has been giving an end times message to the world. You cannot stop it nor decide who is in leadership...that is God's job. It's been seven years since the divorce of DS and LS.
Johann and Aril A. are dilusional when they talk about all this swirl of support for Linda...She is dilusional when she comes on the internet and says something like.. "Let's take a vote" concerning her taking over 3ABN. Does she really think after seven years that the cry from the pews as Gailon likes to call it..will be so loud that all the 3ABN board members will be stepping down and turning 3ABN over to you all.... You people are under such deception that it is terrible.. The fact that she is allowed to talk in churches every once in a while means what??? 3abn cannot keep up with all the requests from around the world every Sabbath....Why? Because 3abn is spreading the gospel where Linda is spreading lies of abuse and being "thrown out penniless" instead of talking about Jesus. She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?
Haven't you all noticed Jim G, DS and others from 3ABN interviewing Elder Ted Wilson, GC President and Dan Jackson, North American Division President and a host of other top GC leaders? Have you read the letter from Elder Wilson to the world leaders about giving their support to 3ABN?? Have you seen the list of 3ABN's Pillars campmeeting speakers...the best of the best in the SDA church!
I'm amazed that you two guys can live in total denial as you do!
God is moving to finish His work. He is coming ready or not. It's my prayer that all the haters of truth will become lovers of truth and turn their attention of doing what God commissioned us to do..and that is to go into all the world to help finish the work on this earth so that Jesus can come back to redeem His children!
-
Thank you gentlemen. All questions asked were answered.
-
Well, I just have a couple of comments/questions. I didn't know that Bob and Gailon admitted the IRS investigation was over. I htought their position is tha it is still gong on on some level. Once agian, I could be wrong an dmissed something. But if they have, Thank God!! for some progress. I basically agree with you on the legal portion. I am still at a loss as to why they are still lining Simpson's pocket, but Hey! I don't have to understand it. It is between them and God, at this point.
Now where we part is your summation where Linda is concerned. Just as I blieve Bob and Gailon to be wrong to contiue with this lagel mess, I believe 3ABn and Danny were wrong in the way they handled the divorce. Even if(and that is a HUGE if) Linda had been unfaithful to Danny, that means she was a broken soul. Since, 3ABn is God's ministry(and believe it or not I have no argument with that), and the mission given is the "Mend Broken People", then "mending" should have started at home. Yes, yes by laws of business in this land you legally got away with paying her the bare minimum to leave and keep her mouth shut as she went, you constantly maintain to answering a "Higher Power", no better witness for 3ABN would have been than to "love" when[they feel] they were wronged. I know you all know you were wrong in this because you immediately started dimishing her role in establishing 3ABN as aminisry and a business. IOW, for 20 years she was a equal partner in buidling 3ABN, 20+ the day Danny decided she had to go, she did almost nothing. Not cool, Not Christlike, Not ministry. I know it makes you no difference at all, but it is these actions(3ABN's actions, not Linda's that will forever keep me from endorsing or even watching 3ABN.
About her speaking engagements, she was near here a couple of months ago, and Iwas going to book her at my church on the recommendation of my pastor's wife who was impressed with her for exhibiting God's spirit and lack of anything negative. Now, I don't know about any other engagements, I can just speak to that one. Also, I wouldn't crow bout Linda's supposed admission to living with the good Dr., not while we have Danny another failed marriage later(very quietly failed, I might add). Once again you all are failing to remember that "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander". Don't throw Linda's business in the street, if you don't want Danny's to go out with it.......There are a plethora of other like phases, but I believe you get my drift.
About GC supporting 3ABN, the church does not have a great history in this area. they tend to support the man no matter the situation. That does not impress me. However, I fully agree that God's work will go on and is not dependent on the "perfection" of the servants He chooses. 3ABN will continue to be a blessing no matter who is at the helm here on earth because God is at the helm in this minstry in Heaven.
-
Just as I blieve Bob and Gailon to be wrong to contiue with this lagel mess, I believe 3ABn and Danny were wrong in the way they handled the divorce.
Di, we're not the ones continuing with the threats. It was the continued threats that led in part to our appeals.
And Sam is plain wrong about us not winning anything. We won in Michigan, pretty much won in Minnesota, and were slowing gaining ground in Massachusetts. We won the issue of the form of electronic discovery, and pretty much won the issues of the confidentiality order and of the scope of discovery. We got the subpoenas enforced in Michigan and Minnesota, and successfully responded to a show cause order in Illinois.
As far as the IRS investigation goes, our understanding is that the IRS was paid over $1 million for the criminal investigation to go away. Whether that took care of everything regarding Danny, or whether there were still some civil issues, I don't know.
But the bottom line is that it was wrong for Danny to line his pockets with kickbacks and excessive royalties, the 1998 house deal was wrong, and the horse donation(s) reported as cash were wrong.
-
Di, we're not the ones continuing with the threats. It was the continued threats that led in part to our appeals.
Ok, because he believes he has a legal right on bahlf of his client, right? Also that you all will not just file these docs away, you will be pouring over them,,,possibly for the rest of your lives....trying to find......something. Well, at this point, it is clear that somebody needs to clear this up. You believe the judgements say you can keep the docs and the other side believes you should give them back. It's still a mess.
And Sam is plain wrong about us not winning anything. We won in Michigan, pretty much won in Minnesota, and were slowing gaining ground in Massachusetts. We won the issue of the form of electronic discovery, and pretty much won the issues of the confidentiality order and of the scope of discovery. We got the subpoenas enforced in Michigan and Minnesota, and successfully responded to a show cause order in Illinois.
This portion, I just don't care about. Tit for tat, is just plain silly, even in the court system.
As far as the IRS investigation goes, our understanding is that the IRS was paid over $1 million for the criminal investigation to go away. Whether that took care of everything regarding Danny, or whether there were still some civil issues, I don't know.
You really want to post on the world wide web that the IRS took a bribe? And from a big fish in a very little pool........ok.... :dunno:
But the bottom line is that it was wrong for Danny to line his pockets with kickbacks and excessive royalties, the 1998 house deal was wrong, and the horse donation(s) reported as cash were wrong.
[color=[urple]Ok, but this sounds a lot like..coveting.....[/color]
-
Delete plz- duplicate post
-
Sam is plain wrong about us not winning anything. We won in Michigan, pretty much won in Minnesota, and were slowing gaining ground in Massachusetts. We won the issue of the form of electronic discovery, and pretty much won the issues of the confidentiality order and of the scope of discovery. We got the subpoenas enforced in Michigan and Minnesota, and successfully responded to a show cause order in Illinois.
NOT. The first clue that Pickle should have is that the word "Denied" in response to all his his motions, indicates that, and means just that. The first clue all reading here should have is his claims are always that "claims"- empty words- lacking proof...
As far as the IRS investigation goes, our understanding is that the IRS was paid over $1 million for the criminal investigation to go away. Whether that took care of everything regarding Danny, or whether there were still some civil issues, I don't know.
Again the first clue Pickle should have and what he and others need to question is why he believes such. What is it based on? Is he just justifying himself and listening to gossip, false accusations -- without doesn't bothering to get any proof ? Is he accepting what he hears and is accepting and passing that on only to justify himself and his thinking? Or does he have solid evidence and proof? I HAVE SEEN NONE. Thus, imo, the first clue the readers should have about his claims and accusations is that he never gives any verification or proof. Come on people, God requires you to ask for that, to compare testimony, verity all and dilegently examine all. You are required to expect such before buying into and accepting and passing on swill... WHY do you fail to do so?
But the bottom line is that it was wrong for Danny to line his pockets with kickbacks and excessive royalties, the 1998 house deal was wrong, and the horse donation(s) reported as cash were wrong.
According to Bob... but this was all reported to the IRS, and their investigation went back as far as they had reasons to believe they needed to based on all the information they had which was much more than Bob had. They are not known for being easy - even on the innocent or those not at fault. So either they were totally corrupt where DS and 3ABN were concerned or Pickle and Joy and co.. are just DEAD WRONG and guilty of sin. You decide, but "please" make sure your are accountable and know all before doing so...
This isn't unimportant, your soul and eternal life may be at stake, as it is all about love, judgment, mercy and the character of Christ. Be like Him or be unlike Him, whatever you do to others you do to Him, whatever you don't do to others you don't do to Him... your choice...
-
You really want to post on the world wide web that the IRS took a bribe? And from a big fish in a very little pool........ok....
I said nothing about a bribe.
Ok, but this sounds a lot like..coveting.....
Danny went way beyond just coveting.
-
Sam is plain wrong about us not winning anything. We won in Michigan, pretty much won in Minnesota, and were slowing gaining ground in Massachusetts. We won the issue of the form of electronic discovery, and pretty much won the issues of the confidentiality order and of the scope of discovery. We got the subpoenas enforced in Michigan and Minnesota, and successfully responded to a show cause order in Illinois.
NOT. The first clue that Pickle should have is that the word "Denied" in response to all his his motions, indicates that, and means just that.
In Minnesota it was Danny's motion to quash that was denied. That subpoena was enforced.
In Michigan our motion to compel Remnant was granted.
In Illinois Danny and 3ABN's motion to quash was not granted.
In Massachusetts:
- Danny and 3ABN's attempt to permanently seal the case was denied.
- Danny and 3ABN's attempt to get a copy of our hard drives was denied.
- Danny and 3ABN's motion for a confidentiality order was granted, but that order was much more to our liking than to Danny and 3ABN.
- My motion to compel production of the Rule 26(a)(1) materials was granted.
- Danny and 3ABN's motion to limit the scope of discovery was denied. The part of their motion requesting that we must get court approval before issuing subpoenas backfired, since the court imposed that requirement upon them too.
So you are clearly wrong in saying that we never won anything.
As far as the IRS investigation goes, our understanding is that the IRS was paid over $1 million for the criminal investigation to go away. Whether that took care of everything regarding Danny, or whether there were still some civil issues, I don't know.
Again the first clue Pickle should have and what he and others need to question is why he believes such. What is it based on? Is he just justifying himself and listening to gossip, false accusations -- without doesn't bothering to get any proof ? Is he accepting what he hears and is accepting and passing that on only to justify himself and his thinking? Or does he have solid evidence and proof? I HAVE SEEN NONE. Thus, imo, the first clue the readers should have about his claims and accusations is that he never gives any verification or proof. Come on people, God requires you to ask for that, to compare testimony, verity all and dilegently examine all. You are required to expect such before buying into and accepting and passing on swill... WHY do you fail to do so?
That's what our sources have told us, and I would think our sources are more reliable than Danny Shelton and Jerrie Hayes, who denied that there was any IRS investigation going on. But then later Danny and Gerry Duffy admitted that an investigation had been going on after all.
The problem is that even Walt Thompson admitted under oath that no proof of IRS exoneration could be produced.
If you really want proof one way or another, get Danny and Jim Gilley to each fill out the required form that would allow the IRS to disclose return information to me. Have them send me those forms, and then I will contact the IRS and get proof one way or another regarding Danny Shelton, individually, and 3ABN.
But the bottom line is that it was wrong for Danny to line his pockets with kickbacks and excessive royalties, the 1998 house deal was wrong, and the horse donation(s) reported as cash were wrong.
According to Bob... but this was all reported to the IRS, and their investigation went back as far as they had reasons to believe they needed to based on all the information they had which was much more than Bob had. They are not known for being easy - even on the innocent or those not at fault. So either they were totally corrupt where DS and 3ABN were concerned or Pickle and Joy and co.. are just DEAD WRONG and guilty of sin. You decide, but "please" make sure your are accountable and know all before doing so...
This isn't unimportant, your soul and eternal life may be at stake, as it is all about love, judgment, mercy and the character of Christ. Be like Him or be unlike Him, whatever you do to others you do to Him, whatever you don't do to others you don't do to Him... your choice...
Greg Simpson admitted to me that the IRS criminal investigation did not go back far enough to deal with the 1998 house scandal.
For 3ABN or the directors to pay more than $1 million to the IRS to end the criminal investigation, the IRS must have found some pretty serious stuff.
-
You really want to post on the world wide web that the IRS took a bribe? And from a big fish in a very little pool........ok....
I said nothing about a bribe.
C'mon, Diane. Use some common sense. I even posted a red hat warning saying that. If you are going to quote people, please make sure you are not perpetuating a blatant lie. I don't think you would have appreciated that at BSDA!!
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2122.msg31693.html#msg31693
-
1. No matter what the details, the fact that Bob and Gailon keep making motions and such is the reasont hat simpson is still getting paid(at least on this case). Had they comlied with the original dismissal, very little income would have come to Simpson from this particular case, correct?
Yes. Sompson would have had to have depended upon other clients to earn a good living. As a result of Bob and Gailon the goose is laying eggs of gold for Simpson.
I strongly disagree.
Why does this have to be laid entirely at Bob and Gailon's feet? 3ABN and DS brought the case in the first place, but when it got hot in the kitchen they cut and ran. They caused Bob and Gailon to incur a great deal of time and expense to defend themselves, and they have a right to try to recoup that. Bob and Gailon also have a right to fight for their first amendment rights, something obviously lost on several readers here. As for Simpson's "golden eggs", nobody is forcing 3ABN/DS to continue to respond to the litigation and pay Simpson. They could take the high road, try to resolve the mess they created and attempt a good faith effort to at least make Bob and Gailon whole after dragging them into court. Seems to me that's what Jesus would do...oh...except that He would have never done what 3ABN/DS did in the first place.
Your bias is obvious.
-
Gregory are you aware that (to me at least) you come accross as very condescending in your manner. This seems to be quite deliberate. Now I may be wrong and it is not your intention to lecture or talk down to us individuals who are mere mortals. In which case your remarks would be appropriate.
I have felt that way for years, COTK. I totally agree with you.
-
My position: Bob and Gailon have every right to fight for what they believe in and to defend themselves. Also, 3-ABN, Danny Shelton and whomever else has every right to defend their interests by means of the judicial system to the same extent that Bob and Gailon have those rights. On some issues, I believe that 3-ABN had a duty to those who have supported it to defend itself in court. I donot fault any of the participants in the litigation.
Realisticly, some of the issues that are involved, in my mind are not resolvable outside of the judicial system and probably through no one's fault.
Other issues potentially might have been resolvable, in my opinion, outside of the judicial system. I have stated my personal opinon, at this time, in a thread that I have titled "Mediation."
O.K. That is where I am. Perhaps that reflects a bias. If so, my bias is that everyone has some fault. You will note that in my thread on Mediation I stated that I have taken some positions that I now believe to have been wroing.
-
I have often said: If people on both sides think that I am wrong in some way, I must be doing something right, even if wrong on some aspects. :)
-
My position: Bob and Gailon have every right to fight for what they believe in and to defend themselves. Also, 3-ABN, Danny Shelton and whomever else has every right to defend their interests by means of the judicial system to the same extent that Bob and Gailon have those rights. On some issues, I believe that 3-ABN had a duty to those who have supported it to defend itself in court. I donot fault any of the participants in the litigation.
3ABN had a duty to its donors to spend over $1 million in 2007 and 2008 alone of those donor funds? 3ABN had a duty to pay for Danny's personal vendetta against us?
3ABN had a duty to defend itself in court? Against what? We were the defendants, not 3ABN.
What specific issues did 3ABN have a duty to defend itself in court about?
The lawsuit accuses us of lying about Danny's personal use of the jet, which was true nonetheless. However, the only reference I can find to that is my quoting from the judge's opinion in the property tax case, and then asking, "So are they now making sure that all trips in the plane are only for business purposes? Is that one of the changes that has been made?" I got sued for that?
Yet the very next post, by yourself, states:
I don't think so.
Is it not true that a recent "honeymoon" was taken on the 3-ABN jet? Did not that honeymoon last for several days? Is it not true that the only business conducted on that trip was a Sabbath sermon at a local SDA church?
Correct me if I am wrong.
From http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-3.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-152-3.pdf).
Now why did I get sued and you didn't? Why did I get sued for saying that Danny was using the jet for personal purposes when, as far as I can tell, I never said any such thing? I only quoted Admin. Law Judge Barbara Rowe. Yet you indicated that Danny had used the jet for his honeymoon, and you didn't get sued.
I do not think 3ABN had a duty to sue me over my quotation from Judge Rowe's opinion, a duty which cost over $1 million in 2007 and 2008 alone.
So what specific issues did 3ABN have a duty to sue over?
-
She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?
Here we have one more proof that this SAM is a person who does not care if he's telling the truth or not. Just as long as he makes a statement he thinks will benefit his fight. How can you trust the rest of what he says?
-
She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?
Here we have one more proof that this SAM is a person who does not care if he's telling the truth or not. Just as long as he makes a statement he thinks will benefit his fight. How can you trust the rest of what he says?
Sam could always post the deposition, couldn't he?
Sam's theology seems a bit warped. He seems to lean toward a works-gets-you-to-heaven-without-repenting theology. It matters not how many years 3ABN has been on the air, or how many baptisms 3ABN's ministry has resulted in. Danny should still return the money he took via kickbacks and royalties, and that 1998 house deal, and should apologize for covering up pedophilia, of all things. He also should reimburse 3ABN for his share of the litigation costs.
-
Bob and anyone else:
My focus, as I have stated before, has never been that of 3-ABN and/or Danny Shelton ahd his alleged sins. My focus has been on Linda and my posiiton has been and remains to this day:
1) Linda was not treated right by 3-ABN. However, I do not attribute malice to people with whom I disagree.
2) Linda did not give a conservative SDA reason to think that Danny had Biblical justification to divorce her. However, the marriage was broken and it has ended. From this point on, let both Danny and Linda live in peace without negative comments toward either in regard to future marriages and/or relationshilps that either might enter into. Wish either well should either decide to remarry.
So from the above standpoint I am not going to debate specifics as to the rightness or wrongness of either side as to the litigation. As I said: There were issues that could not be resolved by any means other than litigation. In such a case, each side has a right to defendtheir interests.
Yes, perhaps some issues could have been resolved by mediation. But, that did not happen. That is over and done with. In my thinking, you, Gailon, Danny and 3-ABN are free to persue such litigation as you think necessary.
Disagree with me, fine.
As why I was not named as a litigant: Such would only be speculative and probably without foundation.
-
As I said: There were issues that could not be resolved by any means other than litigation.
And as I asked not once but twice, what specific issues?
-
Hmmmm, that could be a million dollar answer that won't come. (smile). This could be a man that is balancing on a high wire fence. There has always got to be truth of right or wrong no matter what and not using knowledge that one has to divulge truth is wrong. Either way is false witness. to withhold or not deliever justice is guilty. To me that is the worst position to be in.
-
How many souls have either of you guys helped lead to the Lord in the last several years since you made trying to destroy 3abn your lifes work?
In your defense, there was never any chance that your dreams would come true. 3ABN is God's channel of blessing. Reports come in from around the world everyday of people who have given their lives to Christ because of the message being taught.
What do you know about that? Do you know how often I preach to audiences that are not church members? Do you know how many back sliders Dr. Arild Abrahamsen has brought back to church in recent years? It is still the Lord who brings the souls to the Cross of Christ.
-
When will SAM answer this question?
She had to admit, under oath, in a deposition that she lives with the doctor. Does that not wake anyone up?
Here we have one more proof that this SAM is a person who does not care if he's telling the truth or not. Just as long as he makes a statement he thinks will benefit his fight. How can you trust the rest of what he says?
-
Just how perverse was Sam's post, as well as heretical?
Danny tried to destroy us by suing us, and Sam falsely accuses us of trying to destroy 3ABN. Danny's lawsuit takes up all our time, and Sam accuses us then of not spending enough time with our families, our churches, and winning souls.
That's about like Emperor Domitian publicly accusing the Apostle John of not spending enough time soul winning after the same emperor had exiled John to Patmos.
And notice the pomposity of Sam's post, that Satan hates 3ABN the most of all ministries, as if 3ABN is the most important and most effective of all ministries.
May the Lord take note and judge.
-
Ok, my bad, I re read and it seems I misunderstood Bob's explanation. My apologies. That is why I was asking. Tenacious Bob is, but I didn't want to believe he was stupid. My bad.
I understand now that Bob was saying that the investigation did not end with the IRS completely exonerating Danny/3ABN(as some would have it believed), but that they actually found the problem and they settled for an amount that did or did not cover all of the taxes owed.
You really want to post on the world wide web that the IRS took a bribe? And from a big fish in a very little pool........ok....
I said nothing about a bribe.
C'mon, Diane. Use some common sense. I even posted a red hat warning saying that. If you are going to quote people, please make sure you are not perpetuating a blatant lie. I don't think you would have appreciated that at BSDA!!
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,2122.msg31693.html#msg31693
-
Well, for my part I did state that Simpson would be getting very little or no income from this particular case.
I agree that 3ABN and DS brought the lawsuit from the beginning(which is another discussion altogether), but when they dropped it, except for a few lingering issues, they would not be continuing to pay Simpson at the rate they were when they were actively suing BP and GJ. Unless, he is on retainer, if the docs had been returned as requested DS/3ABN might not have had to pay Simpson at all. They believe the judgement requires BP and GJ to return the documents, so they have a legal right to persue that. BP and GJ will be first to tell you that they make no bones about what they mean to do with whatever information they hope to glean from these documents, or else there would not be an issue if they thought them worthless. However, with Bob and GJ sending through a study stream of motions and filings where Simpson may or may not be required to appear at hearings. We all know that those things a bit more costly then a phone call or an email.
As I type there is one more question that I have. Bob, do you all believeif you were to return the docs requested, you will then be sued over again, basically, an attempt to catch you unprepared? Last time it basically got to what seemed to be a stalemate. Without so much "eveidence" they might see the next lawsuit as a slam dunk. I ask, because it seems that they are basically threatening legal action on this one point--return of the documents, but I believe your reluctance is because you don't trust them not to try to sue you again.
I strongly disagree.
Why does this have to be laid entirely at Bob and Gailon's feet? 3ABN and DS brought the case in the first place, but when it got hot in the kitchen they cut and ran. They caused Bob and Gailon to incur a great deal of time and expense to defend themselves, and they have a right to try to recoup that. Bob and Gailon also have a right to fight for their first amendment rights, something obviously lost on several readers here. As for Simpson's "golden eggs", nobody is forcing 3ABN/DS to continue to respond to the litigation and pay Simpson. They could take the high road, try to resolve the mess they created and attempt a good faith effort to at least make Bob and Gailon whole after dragging them into court. Seems to me that's what Jesus would do...oh...except that He would have never done what 3ABN/DS did in the first place.
Your bias is obvious.
-
They believe the judgement requires BP and GJ to return the documents, so they have a legal right to persue that.
I believe that to be false. I believe they know we don't have to return documents.
BP and GJ will be first to tell you that they make no bones about what they mean to do with whatever information they hope to glean from these documents, or else there would not be an issue if they thought them worthless.
We have never said we would publish what is in those documents.
However, there are things in these documents that are clearly not confidential, and the plaintiffs should have been sanctioned for calling them confidential. For example, how could Catch the Vision, freely downloadable from 3ABN's website, be confidential?
As I type there is one more question that I have. Bob, do you all believeif you were to return the docs requested, you will then be sued over again, basically, an attempt to catch you unprepared?
That is a very plausible scenario. There is certainly nothing legally preventing them from doing it all over again.
Last time it basically got to what seemed to be a stalemate. Without so much "eveidence" they might see the next lawsuit as a slam dunk. I ask, because it seems that they are basically threatening legal action on this one point--return of the documents, but I believe your reluctance is because you don't trust them not to try to sue you again.
Correct.
Di, Simpson stated to the court on 1/4/2010:
Plaintiffs have not brought a motion specifically seeking return of the other documents that Pickle and Joy obtained under the Protective Order, primarily the Remnant Publishing records, because it would likely spawn a whole new series of motions and appeals. For the same reason, Plaintiffs also have not sought sanctions against Pickle and Joy, although their attacks on the integrity of this Court and Plaintiffs’ counsel would more than warrant them. For the reasons stated in their original motion for voluntary dismissal, Plaintiffs simply want this litigation to end. However, they reserve all rights under the Protective Order and their right to enforce this Court’s order that the records be returned if Pickle and Joy publish information under the Protective Order.
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-216.pdf#page=8 (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-216.pdf#page=8)
Is Simpson a liar? Doesn't the above make fairly clear that they would not drag us back into court in order to try to get the documents unless we publish them? Then how come Simpson sent me a certified letter threatening to drag me back into court?
-
For the record Gregory, let it be clear just how seriously I take this outrageous threat to re-open the case by Mr Simpson and his clients...I consider it a clear intent to re-open hostilities and will take full advantage of the opportunity to finish this case once and for all, with or without Mr Pickle...mediation
will never be an acceptable option...thunbs up or thimbs down, we go to the finish.
Reply
G. Arthur Joy to Gregory, bcc: Bob
show details May 26 (10 days ago)
You can play the misuse of process any way you wish, but let us be clear that we are complying with the ENTIRE order and let this serve as notice that a filing that violates the ENTIRE Order and that violates the Confidentiality Order will be grounds to pursue you personally and your client for the appropriate legal remedies. YOU ARE CLEARLY WRONG AND OUT OF LINE ON THIS ISSUE.
Since it is clear your clients, as in 3ABN, Danny Lee Shelton, the officers and directors, do not wish to see this litigation ever to come to a peaceful conclusion pursuant to the rule of law, I have no alternative but to conclude it is in my best interest to review carefully my post petition claims and to move expeditiously to exercise my right to litigate all claims to a complete and final conclusion.
An appropriate demand pursuant to Mass General Laws 93-A, et siq will follow.
Let this serve as CLEAR notice that if you pursue this effort to violate the ENTIRE order and the underlying Confidentiality Order, I will be compelled to draft a comprehensive complaint and YOU will be a party to that complaint. I will not tolerate further legal bullying form you or your clients.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Gregory, isn't it kind of expected, or assumed that all parties to keep files on the entire case and it's evidence even if they are settled out of court, in trial, or even dismessed? I would think so.
The short answer is: Yes.
The longer answer is more complicated: 1) Often times in an out of court settlement there will be an agreement (order) directing that one or more parties either return documents and/or destroy all copies in their possession. 2) The retention of documents after a stated time is often governed by a judicial order.
Number 2, above, is the issue here. The two sides each are making conflicting claims in regard to a judicial order. At this point, it is up to the one side to request that a judge order the other side to comply with the origonal order of the judge. Of course, such a request would give the other side an opportunity to rebut the request. NOTE: My wording is not to be construed as indicating which side I believe to be correct in its understanding.
-
I will not tolerate further legal bullying form you or your clients.
The bullying MUST stop.
-
You mean it has to go head on? Is that what Danny Shelton and 3ABN want?
-
Bob,, the rest of your post are answers to questions for clarification, and I have no problem with your answers...You like it, I love it. However, the statement below.....come on now....You guys got sued because to opened up a web page specificaly created to publish documents proving legal, financial, moral wrong doing by DS and 3ABN. You have go to be kidding me! You have spent 7 years pouring over public and private documents you were able to get your hands on and posting their contents...........come on. BSDA Was choked full of documents.
I believe that to be false. I believe they know we don't have to return documents.
We have never said we would publish what is in those documents.
However, there are things in these documents that are clearly not confidential, and the plaintiffs should have been sanctioned for calling them confidential. For example, how could Catch the Vision, freely downloadable from 3ABN's website, be confidential?
-
I'm not kidding you at all. We have never said we would publish those documents. How could we, without getting permission first from either the plaintiffs or the court?
Di, look at what we haven't published. Scan through the archive of BSDA, scan through Save-3ABN.com, scan through AdventTalk.com. You won't find anywhere were we published Danny's tax returns. Correct? And when we filed them with the court, we filed them under seal on our own initiative, not because we had to.
Can you find published anywhere the email where Melody essentially acknowledging to conceiving a baby out of wedlock? Or the irate email about the man who had allegedly had an affair with Tammy Chance? Now if we were publishing everything, why did we never publish these things?
7 years? Neither Gailon nor myself were involved until August 2006.
Bob,, the rest of your post are answers to questions for clarification, and I have no problem with your answers...You like it, I love it. However, the statement below.....come on now....You guys got sued because to opened up a web page specificaly created to publish documents proving legal, financial, moral wrong doing by DS and 3ABN. You have go to be kidding me! You have spent 7 years pouring over public and private documents you were able to get your hands on and posting their contents...........come on. BSDA Was choked full of documents.
I believe that to be false. I believe they know we don't have to return documents.
We have never said we would publish what is in those documents.
However, there are things in these documents that are clearly not confidential, and the plaintiffs should have been sanctioned for calling them confidential. For example, how could Catch the Vision, freely downloadable from 3ABN's website, be confidential?
-
Ok, nearly 5 yerars. Bob, true, you haven't published those things(even though mentioning, Bob, is almost as bad), but look at what you have published. Even somethings at your own descretion without the permission. The fact that you even can as me to 'scan the documents' on three(3) different site locations makes my point. On BSDA, we had to stop you all(both sides) from going into folks families, children, we even had to draw the line at Brandy, because her business was all in the street, just because she married Danny. As I said before, both sides have been running in the "all if ari" kind of energy most of the time. It is not a healthy situation at all, no matter which side you support.
I'm not kidding you at all. We have never said we would publish those documents. How could we, without getting permission first from either the plaintiffs or the court?
Di, look at what we haven't published. Scan through the archive of BSDA, scan through Save-3ABN.com, scan through AdventTalk.com. You won't find anywhere were we published Danny's tax returns. Correct? And when we filed them with the court, we filed them under seal on our own initiative, not because we had to.
Can you find published anywhere the email where Melody essentially acknowledging to conceiving a baby out of wedlock? Or the irate email about the man who had allegedly had an affair with Tammy Chance? Now if we were publishing everything, why did we never publish these things?
7 years? Neither Gailon nor myself were involved until August 2006.
Bob,, the rest of your post are answers to questions for clarification, and I have no problem with your answers...You like it, I love it. However, the statement below.....come on now....You guys got sued because to opened up a web page specificaly created to publish documents proving legal, financial, moral wrong doing by DS and 3ABN. You have go to be kidding me! You have spent 7 years pouring over public and private documents you were able to get your hands on and posting their contents...........come on. BSDA Was choked full of documents.
I believe that to be false. I believe they know we don't have to return documents.
We have never said we would publish what is in those documents.
However, there are things in these documents that are clearly not confidential, and the plaintiffs should have been sanctioned for calling them confidential. For example, how could Catch the Vision, freely downloadable from 3ABN's website, be confidential?
-
We did not publish a host of information we had recovered on Brandy. In fact did not seriously discuss Brandy until the divorce, despite the fact that my notes are full of salacious issues that normally sell newspapers. We could write a book on just the Danny and Brandy story!!!
It would embarrass the entire Board, particularly the "blinded" Chairman. It would embarass Danny, and it would embarass Brandy, a lady who simply took the dip to take her go at the lifestyle...clearly not grounded in the Faith and clearly went back to her former lifestyle. Clearly did not find the face of adventism very compelling!!!
Someday, she will likely share her story!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
In all these years of reading Gregory's posts, I never got this impression. Now, he is very confident in what he knows and even in admitting what he doesn't know, but he was always very clear and informative. That is why I ask him for clarification all the time. He seems to be the most "detached" from the immeidate emotional portion of this mess. Most others seem to be responding not with legal facts but with their emotions seeking legal loopholes to fit their emotions, so it is difficult to get an impartial answer to the tangled web of legal actions.
Gregory are you aware that (to me at least) you come accross as very condescending in your manner. This seems to be quite deliberate. Now I may be wrong and it is not your intention to lecture or talk down to us individuals who are mere mortals. In which case your remarks would be appropriate.
-
Yeah, you all did not publish them, they weren't allowed on BSDA, and rightly so, anywhere else. Because Admins had to review teh info before ruling on posting, I know some of those things, and even some that came to me some interesting ways, and pretty much they bared out, but the point is still that you guys will post whatever you can get away with in your effort to take Danny down. Info on Brandy willnot assist you in that end at this point.
We did not publish a host of information we had recovered on Brandy. In fact did not seriously discuss Brandy until the divorce, despite the fact that my notes are full of salacious issues that normally sell newspapers. We could write a book on just the Danny and Brandy story!!!
It would embarrass the entire Board, particularly the "blinded" Chairman. It would embarass Danny, and it would embarass Brandy, a lady who simply took the dip to take her go at the lifestyle...clearly not grounded in the Faith and clearly went back to her former lifestyle. Clearly did not find the face of adventism very compelling!!!
Someday, she will likely share her story!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
I think you're wrong on this one, princessdi. Of course BlackSDA was very important to you, but that was not the primary place where Bob and Gailon were posting info.
It was on the Save3ABN site. I don't think you had any jurisdiction there.
Gailon is correct in that they themselves decided not to share the material in question. It had nothing to do with your moderating duties at BSDA.
-
And we still haven't published Danny's tax returns, even though we've had them for over fur years now. If we published anything to take Danny down, why haven't we published those? We voluntarily, at our own initiative, filed them under seal.
-
You would be surprised how often we have not published information on Danny. Unlike 3ABN's General Counsel, we have NEVER published ANY communications that enjoyed "off the record" status.
And I am sure you are aware that we did not publish loads of stories that came our way that cannot be corroberated by at least one other party. I have several great stories that await the primary party to verify the third party statement.
But, If I could corroborate, it would be published!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Yeah, you all did not publish them, they weren't allowed on BSDA, and rightly so, anywhere else. Because Admins had to review teh info before ruling on posting, I know some of those things, and even some that came to me some interesting ways, and pretty much they bared out, but the point is still that you guys will post whatever you can get away with in your effort to take Danny down. Info on Brandy willnot assist you in that end at this point.
We did not publish a host of information we had recovered on Brandy. In fact did not seriously discuss Brandy until the divorce, despite the fact that my notes are full of salacious issues that normally sell newspapers. We could write a book on just the Danny and Brandy story!!!
It would embarrass the entire Board, particularly the "blinded" Chairman. It would embarass Danny, and it would embarass Brandy, a lady who simply took the dip to take her go at the lifestyle...clearly not grounded in the Faith and clearly went back to her former lifestyle. Clearly did not find the face of adventism very compelling!!!
Someday, she will likely share her story!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Actually, Artiste I only mentioned BSDA because there was a whole lot of information posted there. i am quite aware that there was more posted on the Save3ABN site, and I know I had no jurisdiction there. My point is that for all they sai they haven't posted, they have posted a lot more, and nobody knows what they will post next.........I would be a bit wary also about allowing them to keep sensitive documents. Well, actually, I would be worried with anyone. That is probably the reason it is generally ordered to return such documents.
I think you're wrong on this one, princessdi. Of course BlackSDA was very important to you, but that was not the primary place where Bob and Gailon were posting info.
It was on the Save3ABN site. I don't think you had any jurisdiction there.
Gailon is correct in that they themselves decided not to share the material in question. It had nothing to do with your moderating duties at BSDA.
-
Some of the documents 3ABN wants "returned" they never had. How can you return something to somebody who never had it?
-
Well, then they never had those, but Bob is not saying the never had them, he's saying they were not ordered to return them and have a right to keep them against further legal action by 3ABN.
-
Di,
The confidentiality order is clear that things that are publicly available or don't have sensitive information in them can't be called confidential.
So why then was Catch the Vision called confidential? Why would I have to return that when anyone could download it from 3ABN's website?
And why would a purchase order for sticky notes and pens be confidential?
And why would Form 990's be confidential when the IRS requires them to be public information?
And why would financial statements and Illinois tax returns for 3ABN be confidential when Illinois law requires them to be public information?
So even if the court had ordered us to return documents, why would we have to return these?