Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on July 06, 2012, 05:56:36 AM
-
Yesterday a fellow came to my door and handed me a subpoena. I'm being commanded to appear for a deposition by 3ABN in Fergus Falls on July 20 90+ miles away!
3ABN was going to depose me in Moorhead during their case against us, which is less than 40 miles away. Why 90+ miles this time?
I'm being commanded to produce all communications with Alex Walker, Adam McReynolds, and Glenn Dryden. "All"? Their requests to produce in their case against us used that word too, and so I used it in my requests to produce, and then they complained to the court that I had used the word "all," since that was so broad. How would an invitation from Glenn Dryden to join LinkedIn be relevant to Tommy's abuse of Alex?
-
Who is issuing the subpoena? Is it 3ABN or 3ABN lawyer, Anthony J. Alt?
-
Who is issuing the subpoena? Is it 3ABN or 3ABN lawyer, Anthony J. Alt?
According to the rules, the only ones who can issue subpoenas are attorneys and court clerks. This one was apparently signed by Simpson, though the signature is hard to read.
-
I can only WISH I would get such a subpoena. I live for the opportunity to put my thoughts and experiences about the liar, back stabber and coward Glenn Dryden into the court record.
-
Yesterday a fellow came to my door and handed me a subpoena. I'm being commanded to appear for a deposition by 3ABN in Fergus Falls on July 20 90+ miles away!
3ABN was going to depose me in Moorhead during their case against us, which is less than 40 miles away. Why 90+ miles this time?
I'm being commanded to produce all communications with Alex Walker, Adam McReynolds, and Glenn Dryden. "All"? Their requests to produce in their case against us used that word too, and so I used it in my requests to produce, and then they complained to the court that I had used the word "all," since that was so broad. How would an invitation from Glenn Dryden to join LinkedIn be relevant to Tommy's abuse of Alex?
So do you have a pretty good idea of what items you will produce for them?
-
We should have reader's submissions as to which will be the five most interesting questions asked of Bob Pickle.
My take:
1. "Mr. Pickle, do you think Danny Shelton (the brother of admitted child rapist Tommy Shelton), will ever be charged with a felony in the state of Illinois for illegal wiretapping of Linda Shelton?"
2. "Mr. Pickle, would you be willing to share everything you know about any kickbacks/royalty payments made to either Tommy Shelton or Danny Shelton vis a vis any and all books printed and or published by Remnant Publications, Pacific Press, 3ABN Books, DLS Publishing or other entities?"
3. "Mr. Pickle, in your opinion, exactly how many bilkable hours of.... uh, I mean billable hours of time did Attorney Simpson manage to squeeze out of 3ABN by giving them bad advice and poor legal counseld and how do you feel this will affect Tommy's psyche?"
4. "Mr. Pickle, would you hire the non-SDA Tommy Shelton to work with kids, like 3ABN did, in your company, even though you knew he had a problem with this before you rehired him?"
5. "Mr Pickle, who is Trinity's father?"
SDAminister
-
How would an invitation from Glenn Dryden to join LinkedIn be relevant to Tommy's abuse of Alex?
The answer to that question is an easy one:
It very well may be of legal interest to know where you have published your thoughts on the matters up for consideration and to know what you might have said in private messages to people.
From that perspective, the message from Glenn Dryden and/or your response, might be of great interest.
Bob you have posted (published) a lot on the Internet and in private messages. They may simply want to know more about what you have said and to whom?
Bob, you can say what you want to about Simpson. But, he is an experienced trial attorney who knows exactly what he is doing and how to go after it. If he wants to put you under oath, he has a reason, you can be certain.
-
"Mr. Pickle, why would Glenn Dryden sign Tommy Shelton's ordination certificate after writing two letters warning others about allegations against him?"
"Mr. Pickle, why did Glenn Dryden run away like a common coward when the reporter from WUSA 9 asked him a simple question about why he did not go to the authorities with what he knew about Tommy Shelton? Is it because he knows he broke the law?"
"Mr. Pickle, why do you think Glenn Dryden refuses to apologize for the hell he has brought back into the lives of Tommy Shelton's victims? Is it because he is actually a self centered jerk?"
"Mr. Pickle, isn't it true that Glenn Dryden waited until Tommy Shelton moved back to Marion, KY to dig up past allegations against him? Do you think it's because he realized his own total failure as a pastor?"
"Mr. Pickle, don't you believe Glenn Dryden is ashamed and embarrased that he is not as successful as a convicted sexual abuser at not one, but TWO churches?"
"Mr. Pickle, why does Glenn Dryden continue to lie and say he has no idea why Duane Clem has absolutely nothing but anger and comtempt toward him, when he knows it is actually because of the lies he has told about Mr. Clem and his obsession with digging up past experiences that Mr. Clem had already gotten past?"
"Mr. Pickle, why was Glenn Dryden not reprimanded for attacking Mr. Clem on Advent Talk, but was in fact coddled and protected after he called and whined about being exposed as the loser that he actually is?"
-
he is an experienced trial attorney who knows exactly what he is doing and how to go after it.
Gregory, when did you meet and evaluate Greg Simpson?
-
We should have reader's submissions as to which will be the five most interesting questions asked of Bob Pickle.
My take:
1. "Mr. Pickle, do you think Danny Shelton (the brother of admitted child rapist Tommy Shelton), will ever be charged with a felony in the state of Illinois for illegal wiretapping of Linda Shelton?"
2. "Mr. Pickle, would you be willing to share everything you know about any kickbacks/royalty payments made to either Tommy Shelton or Danny Shelton vis a vis any and all books printed and or published by Remnant Publications, Pacific Press, 3ABN Books, DLS Publishing or other entities?"
3. "Mr. Pickle, in your opinion, exactly how many bilkable hours of.... uh, I mean billable hours of time did Attorney Simpson manage to squeeze out of 3ABN by giving them bad advice and poor legal counseld and how do you feel this will affect Tommy's psyche?"
4. "Mr. Pickle, would you hire the non-SDA Tommy Shelton to work with kids, like 3ABN did, in your company, even though you knew he had a problem with this before you rehired him?"
5. "Mr Pickle, who is Trinity's father?"
SDAminister
An interesting and thought-provoking list, SDAminister.
-
Artiste:
I published an evaulation of Simpson some time ago. At that time I posted my basis for evaulating him and I predicted his probable success. Please review those posts for answers to your questisons.
By the way, those who work in the legal field know how to obtain competent, objective evaulations of lawyers.
-
Artiste:
I published an evaulation of Simpson some time ago. At that time I posted my basis for evaulating him and I predicted his probable success. Please review those posts for answers to your questisons.
By the way, those who work in the legal field know how to obtain competent, objective evaulations of lawyers.
I'm afraid I'm not up to reading all your posts since you first came on this forum in order to find the ones you are referring to.
-
Ariste:
O.K. I understand. Well, it should be easy for you to find an objective evaulation of Simpson. Try the peer review sources of Martindale-Hubbell. That should give you a good start. If the attorney is licensed and practiced law for a while, Martindale just might give you an objective rating for competence and for ethics. Martindale rates both.
Of course, there are other sources. A complete evaulation is not going to depend upon Martindale. That will jsut be a start.
Other things to consider are the percentage of cases that go to trial and the per-cent of wins that come after trial. NOTE: Statments made by some on these issues about Simpson were simply not based upon objective statistics. IOW, they were false--some statements.
If you really want in-depth information, any good attorney can assist you in obtaining such.
The basis for my previusoly posted statemets about Simpson were based upon more than one source. But, I will be delighted for you to obtain information on your own.
-
An attorney who represents a client in a case that may go trial will early on obtain information on the lawyers who represent the other side. That information is considered in vaulable in preparing a case. Each attorney on the other side will likely have some areas of speciality. That will indicate the direction that the case may take, and the preparation needed to counter the other side. It will give information as to how likely a settlement can be reached prior to trial. It will suggest whether or not the other side will play "hard ball." This information is so vaulable that it can be easily obtained. It is out thers. You can obtain it.
-
Artiste:
I published an evaulation of Simpson some time ago. At that time I posted my basis for evaulating him and I predicted his probable success. Please review those posts for answers to your questisons.
By the way, those who work in the legal field know how to obtain competent, objective evaulations of lawyers.
What success?
-
He certainly wasn't successful in May 2011 in finding language in the dismissal and/or confidentiality orders that would require the return of documents.
Let us not forget that in Oct. 2008 Gregory Simpson lied to me, and he has never to this day been man enough to apologize. It would seem, therefore, that it is a violation of Seventh-day Adventist principles and standards for 3ABN to hire Simpson to represent it.
-
Someone not man enough to apologize for something they've done? Gee, I wonder what that's like.
-
As I have time I'll post how my deposition went on Friday.
It was to start at noon 92+ miles from here, and Simpson assured me that we should be done well before 6 PM. We got done at maybe 5:45 PM.
The name of the game is to discredit the witness, I think. And I did trip up. I made a mistake in something I said. But I'll share about that later.
I was commanded to bring with me all emails, postings, and other communications with Glenn Dryden, Alex Walker, and Adam McReynolds. So I brought 1300+ postings, 150+ emails, and roughly 10 PM's. I also brought my subpoena of Dryden, and everything I got from Dunn Loring and Dryden in response to that subpoena, except for Tommy's piano concert video. You know, the black Young Chang 7' grand piano Tommy had picked out for the 3ABN set, which 3ABN sold around 1998 to Tommy for just $2,000.
I brought all these materials to the deposition on a CD. Simpson was expecting me to bring paper, but I wasn't told to do so. Under such circumstances I was required by the rules to bring this sort of electronically stored information in the same format it is normally stored in, or in a reasonably usable format. So the emails were in mbox format, the postings and PM's were in a MySQL dump, and the rest was in PDF or MP3.
But Simpson and Garvey weren't prepared for that.
Garvey had a laptop which could read the CD. He had the root directory opened, and at some point I had to find an email from June 5, 2007, which they wanted me to show them, the first contact we had from Alex. At that point they discovered that we needed an email program to read the file. What we ended up doing instead was opening the 28MB file in MS Notepad, and I searched for "You guys" in order to find the email they wanted.
So we were able to proceed in that fashion for a bit, but then Simpson asked me to find the next email after December 10, 2007. I told him there was no way. I would have to check every date header for every email in that file before determining which email was the next one. An email program could do it instantly, but trying to do it manually like that in Notepad just wouldn't work.
I think that was when Simpson decided to take a look at the file to see what he could do, and I ran out to the car to move it a second time. It was in a two-hour parking zone, and it was way past time for lunch anyway, so I brought my lunch back in. I had thought that maybe I would get a chance to eat when I first arrived, while they were looking through the 1500 or so documents, but that wasn't how things worked. (If I had produced the documents on paper, how long would it have taken them to read all those?)
Coming back in I handed Simpson the present I had brought: a rather large cucumber from the garden, something to remember me by. It brought some smiles, which was a good thing, since really this deposition didn't go very well for 3ABN et. al. from what I could tell.
We gave up, I think, at that point trying to manually find emails in Notepad, and proceeded to something else.
-
Interesting about the format of all those materials. Also that Simpson couldn't deal with it. And very funny about the cucumber!
So 3ABN didn't fare too well in the deposition? Can you explain more?
-
Interesting about the format of all those materials. Also that Simpson couldn't deal with it. And very funny about the cucumber!
So 3ABN didn't fare too well in the deposition? Can you explain more?
Yes, I'll explain more. But I should first explain the mistake I made at the deposition. It has to do with the cucumber.
In college I worked for a quarter in the ag department. They had some greenhouses where they grew tomatoes. The tomato plants got cancer pretty bad, or so it seemed, as some sort of fungus devastated them. So they cleaned out the greenhouses and planted a type of cucumber that was long and thin, and was shrunk wrapped in plastic rather than waxed in preparation for market. They made a lot of money on them, but it was hard work for them to keep up with the production.
The cucumbers my sons are growing look the same as I remember. They said they were Asian cucumbers. There's something special about them. So when I gave the cuke to Simpson I told him that I thought they were seedless.
Imagine my horror at potluck Sabbath to see some of these cucumbers getting sliced, and to see seeds in them. Ugh! I got it wrong, and the name of the game at depositions is to find a basis to call into question the veracity of the witness. I sent Simpson an apology yesterday.
I can imagine getting asked in court if Alex's case goes to trial:
"Mr. Pickle, did you give Mr. Simpson anything at your deposition?"
"Lots of documents."
"Anything else?"
"A letter."
"Anything else?"
"I gave him a cucumber."
"What did you tell him about the cucumber?"
"I told him I thought it was seedless."
"Was it seedless?"
"No."
"There you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This witness doesn't know what he is talking about."
This line of reasoning could be called the cucumber defense. But I doubt it would be convincing, and I doubt any competent attorney would use it. So I think I'm safe on that one.
If it did actually get used, it might even become known as the kookumber defense.
As we parted, I told Simpson, "If there is anything wrong with that cucumber, please don't sue me."
It was a little more filled out than when most get picked, so I hope it was still fine. The yellow submarine variety, they can get huge and still be good, with one cuke seeming to fill an entire canning jar, but I don't know what these Asian ones are like when they fill out more.
More to come ....
-
Will you be able to add any documents to www.3ABNvjoy.com soon?
-
:ROFL:
Interesting about the format of all those materials. Also that Simpson couldn't deal with it. And very funny about the cucumber!
So 3ABN didn't fare too well in the deposition? Can you explain more?
Yes, I'll explain more. But I should first explain the mistake I made at the deposition. It has to do with the cucumber.
In college I worked for a quarter in the ag department. They had some greenhouses where they grew tomatoes. The tomato plants got cancer pretty bad, or so it seemed, as some sort of fungus devastated them. So they cleaned out the greenhouses and planted a type of cucumber that was long and thin, and was shrunk wrapped in plastic rather than waxed in preparation for market. They made a lot of money on them, but it was hard work for them to keep up with the production.
The cucumbers my sons are growing look the same as I remember. They said they were Asian cucumbers. There's something special about them. So when I gave the cuke to Simpson I told him that I thought they were seedless.
Imagine my horror at potluck Sabbath to see some of these cucumbers getting sliced, and to see seeds in them. Ugh! I got it wrong, and the name of the game at depositions is to find a basis to call into question the veracity of the witness. I sent Simpson an apology yesterday.
I can imagine getting asked in court if Alex's case goes to trial:
"Mr. Pickle, did you give Mr. Simpson anything at your deposition?"
"Lots of documents."
"Anything else?"
"A letter."
"Anything else?"
"I gave him a cucumber."
"What did you tell him about the cucumber?"
"I told him I thought it was seedless."
"Was it seedless?"
"No."
"There you have it, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. This witness doesn't know what he is talking about."
This line of reasoning could be called the cucumber defense. But I doubt it would be convincing, and I doubt any competent attorney would use it. So I think I'm safe on that one.
If it did actually get used, it might even become known as the kookumber defense.
As we parted, I told Simpson, "If there is anything wrong with that cucumber, please don't sue me."
It was a little more filled out than when most get picked, so I hope it was still fine. The yellow submarine variety, they can get huge and still be good, with one cuke seeming to fill an entire canning jar, but I don't know what these Asian ones are like when they fill out more.
More to come ....
:ROFL:
That is so funny about the cucumber defence!
-
Congratulations, Mr. Pickle!!! I envy you, I am sure my time will come ...and may the investigation continue until the very last pedophile and sexual predator and those who cover up these greivous offenses at 3ABN has been fully exposed and face justice. If they are at all smart, they would learn from the clear example set at Pen State before their legacies are vaporized in the anals of infamy!!!
As another sports legend so aptly put it..."It ain't over, til it is over!!!"
It is too bad they do not have a statue or two to tear down!!! Or did they?
Remember how they wiped out Linda's name from every film in the library, or destroyed the masters? What goes around, most certainly must come around!!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Will you be able to add any documents to www.3ABNvjoy.com soon?
We shall see. Thus far that site has been for actual court documents. As of last Friday I don't think there was anything new filed.
-
This line of reasoning could be called the cucumber defense. But I doubt it would be convincing, and I doubt any competent attorney would use it. So I think I'm safe on that one.
Mr. Simpson has informed me that he doesn't mind eating cucumbers with seeds. It appears to be quite the joke around his office. He'll let me know if it is too tough.
I wrote something similar to the above in my apology, and he has informed me that he understands the above to be a concession that he is competent, for which he thanked me.
I take it from his thanks that he will not try using the cucumber defense at trial. But you never know. Danny may get desperate and tell him he has to.
-
Let's see, there is so much to tell. Which comes first?
Okay, since Gailon is calling for repentance, here's one. What their game plan was was to show that I was trying to destroy 3ABN. But I made it crystal clear that we chose the domain name Save3ABN.com in order to counter Danny's spin that anyone who has concerns is out to destroy 3ABN.
So what was the solution to save 3ABN? Get rid of Danny? A lot of people think so, I said, but that's not the only solution.
What's another solution? Conversion, I said.
What does that mean? Simpson asked. So I quoted 1 Jn. 1:9, referred to the New Covenant promise either then or at another time about writing the 10 Commandments in the heart and mind, mentioned the 7th, 8th, and 9th commandments in particular, and explained it sort of like you might when you're having an alter call, though rather short. You know, I said something like Danny needed to bow at the foot of the cross and let Jesus wash away his sins, but I can't remember the exact words.
Read that to a jury, and I doubt they're going to think that I'm just out to destroy Danny Shelton.
A lot of things kind of backfired like that. But this is just scratching the surface of what happened at that deposition.
-
This line of reasoning could be called the cucumber defense. But I doubt it would be convincing, and I doubt any competent attorney would use it. So I think I'm safe on that one.
Mr. Simpson has informed me that he doesn't mind eating cucumbers with seeds. It appears to be quite the joke around his office. He'll let me know if it is too tough.
I wrote something similar to the above in my apology, and he has informed me that he understands the above to be a concession that he is competent, for which he thanked me.
I take it from his thanks that he will not try using the cucumber defense at trial. But you never know. Danny may get desperate and tell him he has to.
That's nice Mr. Simpson is able to respond to humor.
-
Let's see, there is so much to tell. Which comes first?
Okay, since Gailon is calling for repentance, here's one. What their game plan was was to show that I was trying to destroy 3ABN. But I made it crystal clear that we chose the domain name Save3ABN.com in order to counter Danny's spin that anyone who has concerns is out to destroy 3ABN.
So what was the solution to save 3ABN? Get rid of Danny? A lot of people think so, I said, but that's not the only solution.
What's another solution? Conversion, I said.
What does that mean? Simpson asked. So I quoted 1 Jn. 1:9, referred to the New Covenant promise either then or at another time about writing the 10 Commandments in the heart and mind, mentioned the 7th, 8th, and 9th commandments in particular, and explained it sort of like you might when you're having an alter call, though rather short. You know, I said something like Danny needed to bow at the foot of the cross and let Jesus wash away his sins, but I can't remember the exact words.
Read that to a jury, and I doubt they're going to think that I'm just out to destroy Danny Shelton.
A lot of things kind of backfired like that. But this is just scratching the surface of what happened at that deposition.
That probably wasn't something that an attorney was expecting to hear at a deposition. Maybe you would also get points for being original.
-
Original? There were some things that were probably unique, yes.
Here's how the first or one of the first questions went.
"Q. My name is Greg Simpson, and I represent Three Angels Broadcasting network in this lawsuit. Do you understand that?
"A. No."
Based on how that answer seemed to surprise Simpson, I think it possible that he hadn't had that sort of answer to that sort of question before.
He wanted me to explain what I meant, so I did. And it seemed to me that after my explanation he had sort of tensed up. It was the only time during the whole deposition that anyone seemed less than even keeled.
-
Original? There were some things that were probably unique, yes.
Here's how the first or one of the first questions went.
"Q. My name is Greg Simpson, and I represent Three Angels Broadcasting network in this lawsuit. Do you understand that?
"A. No."
Based on how that answer seemed to surprise Simpson, I think it possible that he hadn't had that sort of answer to that sort of question before.
He wanted me to explain what I meant, so I did. And it seemed to me that after my explanation he had sort of tensed up. It was the only time during the whole deposition that anyone seemed less than even keeled.
I take it that you were explaining -- well, what, exactly?
-
Original? There were some things that were probably unique, yes.
Here's how the first or one of the first questions went.
"Q. My name is Greg Simpson, and I represent Three Angels Broadcasting network in this lawsuit. Do you understand that?
"A. No."
Based on how that answer seemed to surprise Simpson, I think it possible that he hadn't had that sort of answer to that sort of question before.
He wanted me to explain what I meant, so I did. And it seemed to me that after my explanation he had sort of tensed up. It was the only time during the whole deposition that anyone seemed less than even keeled.
I need to explain a little after I say what I said, so make sure you read the whole thing.
Simpson wanted me to explain what I meant by "No," so I said something like this:
"3ABN is a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As such it is expected to uphold certain principles and standards, and it is contrary to those principles and standards to hire a lawyer that lies. So no, I don't understand that."
Think he's ever deposed a witness that answered the first or so question that way?
Simpson brought a lot of printouts of stuff that he wanted me to acknowledge that I had written, but how was I to verify that I really had written everything he was showing me? He certainly hadn't given the stuff to me before noon on Friday, and I wasn't provided with a computer and internet connection that I could verify everything with.
So when this kind of thing came up again and again, and I refused to say I had written this or that without verifying it, I had to get very specific and said something like the following: "On October 17, 2008, you outright lied to me." "In June 2008 you produced a document that didn't include everything you had agreed to include." He didn't deny these things, and I made it clear that I couldn't trust him.
If Alex's attorney shows up at trial with documents that he has never shown Simpson, Simpson will object for the very same reasons I did. It's standard practice. You have to verify that the documents haven't been tampered with.
So at some point Simpson gave up trying to authenticate all the printouts he had brought. And as far as the explanation for my initial "No," he did seem to tense up, but became more relaxed as we continued.
And it went downhill from there. Way downhill.
-
Original? There were some things that were probably unique, yes.
Here's how the first or one of the first questions went.
"Q. My name is Greg Simpson, and I represent Three Angels Broadcasting network in this lawsuit. Do you understand that?
"A. No."
Based on how that answer seemed to surprise Simpson, I think it possible that he hadn't had that sort of answer to that sort of question before.
He wanted me to explain what I meant, so I did. And it seemed to me that after my explanation he had sort of tensed up. It was the only time during the whole deposition that anyone seemed less than even keeled.
I need to explain a little after I say what I said, so make sure you read the whole thing.
Simpson wanted me to explain what I meant by "No," so I said something like this:
"3ABN is a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. As such it is expected to uphold certain principles and standards, and it is contrary to those principles and standards to hire a lawyer that lies. So no, I don't understand that."
Think he's ever deposed a witness that answered the first or so question that way?
Simpson brought a lot of printouts of stuff that he wanted me to acknowledge that I had written, but how was I to verify that I really had written everything he was showing me? He certainly hadn't given the stuff to me before noon on Friday, and I wasn't provided with a computer and internet connection that I could verify everything with.
So when this kind of thing came up again and again, and I refused to say I had written this or that without verifying it, I had to get very specific and said something like the following: "On October 17, 2008, you outright lied to me." "In June 2008 you produced a document that didn't include everything you had agreed to include." He didn't deny these things, and I made it clear that I couldn't trust him.
If Alex's attorney shows up at trial with documents that he has never shown Simpson, Simpson will object for the very same reasons I did. It's standard practice. You have to verify that the documents haven't been tampered with.
So at some point Simpson gave up trying to authenticate all the printouts he had brought. And as far as the explanation for my initial "No," he did seem to tense up, but became more relaxed as we continued.
And it went downhill from there. Way downhill.
That may have been a first for any lawyer! Was your telling him that he had lied to you a response to the fact that he kept asking you to verify documents and you were unable to go online to verify?
Then, in what way did it go downhill from there?
-
That may have been a first for any lawyer! Was your telling him that he had lied to you a response to the fact that he kept asking you to verify documents and you were unable to go online to verify?
I believe so, other than my answer to his first question or so.
You know, they called Gailon and me liars in Danny and 3ABN's lawsuit's complaint against us. But in this deposition it was very clear that I was doing my best to be meticulously accurate, while 3ABN's lawyer had lied to us. I also made clear that Danny and Walt had lied, but didn't get specific about Walt, as far as I can recall.
Interestingly, Simpson never denied that he had lied to me on October 17, 2008. And in the status conference of October 30,, 2008, he never denied it either.
Then, in what way did it go downhill from there?
In lots of ways, both substantive and non-substantive. Which would you like an example of first? An example of the former concerns Brad Dunning, and an example of the latter concerns spelling. Which do you want to hear first?
-
You might remember Brad Dunning's statement (http://www.save-3abn.com/tommy-shelton-victim-brad-dunning.htm) in which he said that Tommy told him that God had shown him that, essentially, if he molested boys he could be healed of his medical problem.
Simpson was pushing me for when Alex gave me details about his abuse. Did he tell me in the summer of 2007? So I backed up to Brad Dunning's statement, described it in detail, told how some of the other guys said, "Tommy told me that too," explained how Brad wasn't embarrassed to describe it since he didn't fall for Tommy's twisted tale while the other guys were embarrassed because they had fallen for it, and ended by saying, "So it doesn't bother me that Alex didn't give me details in the summer of 2007."
Now if you were 3ABN, would you want all that in sworn testimony?
-
That may have been a first for any lawyer! Was your telling him that he had lied to you a response to the fact that he kept asking you to verify documents and you were unable to go online to verify?
I believe so, other than my answer to his first question or so.
You know, they called Gailon and me liars in Danny and 3ABN's lawsuit's complaint against us. But in this deposition it was very clear that I was doing my best to be meticulously accurate, while 3ABN's lawyer had lied to us. I also made clear that Danny and Walt had lied, but didn't get specific about Walt, as far as I can recall.
Interestingly, Simpson never denied that he had lied to me on October 17, 2008. And in the status conference of October 30,, 2008, he never denied it either.
Then, in what way did it go downhill from there?
In lots of ways, both substantive and non-substantive. Which would you like an example of first? An example of the former concerns Brad Dunning, and an example of the latter concerns spelling. Which do you want to hear first?
I don't find it strange that Simpson didn't deny lying, since lawyers are expected to lie as part of their profession -- everyone know that!
Of course it is better if they don't get caught or there is no proof of their lying.
-
You might remember Brad Dunning's statement (http://www.save-3abn.com/tommy-shelton-victim-brad-dunning.htm) in which he said that Tommy told him that God had shown him that, essentially, if he molested boys he could be healed of his medical problem.
Simpson was pushing me for when Alex gave me details about his abuse. Did he tell me in the summer of 2007? So I backed up to Brad Dunning's statement, described it in detail, told how some of the other guys said, "Tommy told me that too," explained how Brad wasn't embarrassed to describe it since he didn't fall for Tommy's twisted tale while the other guys were embarrassed because they had fallen for it, and ended by saying, "So it doesn't bother me that Alex didn't give me details in the summer of 2007."
Now if you were 3ABN, would you want all that in sworn testimony?
No, you are right, I can't see any reason why 3ABN would want that in sworn testimony.
Is this information now in the public record?
-
You might remember Brad Dunning's statement (http://www.save-3abn.com/tommy-shelton-victim-brad-dunning.htm) in which he said that Tommy told him that God had shown him that, essentially, if he molested boys he could be healed of his medical problem.
Simpson was pushing me for when Alex gave me details about his abuse. Did he tell me in the summer of 2007? So I backed up to Brad Dunning's statement, described it in detail, told how some of the other guys said, "Tommy told me that too," explained how Brad wasn't embarrassed to describe it since he didn't fall for Tommy's twisted tale while the other guys were embarrassed because they had fallen for it, and ended by saying, "So it doesn't bother me that Alex didn't give me details in the summer of 2007."
Now if you were 3ABN, would you want all that in sworn testimony?
No, you are right, I can't see any reason why 3ABN would want that in sworn testimony.
Is this information now in the public record?
What Brad said is. What I said in my deposition isn't at this point since we don't even have the transcript back yet.
-
Then I take it that when you get the transcript back, it will be in the public record?
-
Then I take it that when you get the transcript back, it will be in the public record?
Depends.
-
Then I take it that when you get the transcript back, it will be in the public record?
Depends.
Spoken like a true lawyer.
-
Then I take it that when you get the transcript back, it will be in the public record?
Depends.
Spoken like a true lawyer.
Depends on if 3ABN and/or Alex file part of it or all of it or any of it. I have no control over what they do with it, as far as I know.
-
You might remember Brad Dunning's statement (http://www.save-3abn.com/tommy-shelton-victim-brad-dunning.htm) in which he said that Tommy told him that God had shown him that, essentially, if he molested boys he could be healed of his medical problem.
Simpson was pushing me for when Alex gave me details about his abuse. Did he tell me in the summer of 2007? So I backed up to Brad Dunning's statement, described it in detail, told how some of the other guys said, "Tommy told me that too," explained how Brad wasn't embarrassed to describe it since he didn't fall for Tommy's twisted tale while the other guys were embarrassed because they had fallen for it, and ended by saying, "So it doesn't bother me that Alex didn't give me details in the summer of 2007."
Now if you were 3ABN, would you want all that in sworn testimony?
Unbelievable that Tommy Shelton would say that to a young male!
-
A more trivial point that came up at the deposition on Friday was as follows.
Court reporters need to know the right way to spell names when they are doing the transcript. Sometimes you get asked to spell this name or that name.
So maybe around 4pm or so I said something like:
"And for the record, Tommy is spelled T-o-m-m-y, with two M's, not three. I noticed that from February 28 to June 26 on five different occasions you filed documents in which Tommy was spelled with three M's in the caption."
Simpson was looking to the side as I reached the end of that part, and got just a slight smile on his face, but didn't seem to get upset at all.
-
Very strange that anyone would spell it that way, so it didn't bother Simpson much, then.
I get the feeling you were trying to get a rise out of Simpson from time to time. :)
-
It seems that Bob thrives on getting a rise out of people...of pointing out their mistakes and weaknesses...
-
Simpson asked me if I had donated to 3ABN after ... I don't remember, but it may have been after 3ABN sued us, somewhere around that time. He wanted me to say whether or not I had donated to 3ABN since then.
I told him I doubt it, but I'd have to check for sure. "You don't know?" "I'd have to check."
And then I remembered. "I donated over $3500 worth of bank statements when your colleague went into the courthouse and took them in violation of the district judge's order."
"So that was a litigation expense?"
"I wouldn't call it a litigation expense. If I had the documents, then I would call it a litigation expense. But I don't have the documents."
I made clear that it was a donation, against my will. And I think Simpson twice referred to the incident as a $3500 donation.
It was an interesting deposition.
-
It appears this deposition has all sorts of interesting things going on!
-
Understand that I can't remember everything word for word, so things in quotes are likely paraphrases.
"Q. Mr. Pickle, did you see Tommy Shelton molest Alex Walker?
"A. I was not present in Dunn Loring or West Frankfort or Thompsonville in 1997 or 2001 to witness that. So far no video has surfaced either, but you never know."
-
Understand that I can't remember everything word for word, so things in quotes are likely paraphrases.
"Q. Mr. Pickle, did you see Tommy Shelton molest Alex Walker?
"A. I was not present in Dunn Loring or West Frankfort or Thompsonville in 1997 or 2001 to witness that. So far no video has surfaced either, but you never know."
That sounds like a cheeky answer to me...but I am assuming you were serious? Does anyone think that Tommy made any videos?