Print

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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

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

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

Thank-you for admitting to the "facts" of the case. But, a trial on the MERITS is the only resolution. It is clear the District Court was "clearing the docket" and it is clear the Plaintiffs filed a case that constitutes a misuse of process. A jury will see the truth in its proper venue.

And the appellate court is more cloistered than the US Supreme Court??? What is clear they could not find that the Plaintiff's request for oral arguments would add anything of substance. But, then the response was fellacious and wanton of substance. I bekieve that describes the Plaintiff's entire case!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
 



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

- anyman

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

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

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

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

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

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

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

Now, Mr Gregory,

Since you were a part of the inner circle and had access to all the facts, I am a bit surprised at this substantial rewrite of history!!!

I ALONE, believed that the fine christian gentlemen of 3ABN would move to file suite!!! Even you doubted they would be so foolish as to step into the spider's web of litigation...but they did, AS I PREDICTED THEY WOULD!!!

Fools always do foolish things!!! Predictible is the best term to describe these "Christian Businessmen" OF 3ABN.

I also told you the end result would be a case to counterclaim for misuse of process. It is an inevitable essential final step to bring justice to this MISCARRIAGE of Adventism.

Linda's claims and her failure to pursue them continues to frustrate me, AND YES, I PRAY THAT SHE WILL PRESS THEM IN DUE COURSE.

WE CLEARLY DISAGREE ON THE ISSUE OF DIVORCE!!! And will never find a common ground on this subject and simply must respect our respective views.

AND I AM PLEASED THAT WE SURPRISED YOU, although I had thought you would better access our capability and the weakness of their case.

However, the one area we do agree is that I promised to keep Brandy and her past out of this process. IT SHOULD BE DONE!!!!

She will be as much a victim as Linda but may not be as easy to get rid of. I TRUST SHE WILL NOT BE!!!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Bob Pickle]

I believe that indicates that our brief and the record are clear enough that oral arguments wouldn't add a thing. Do note that we filed maybe 1500 pages, and the other side filed about 61 pages, including their table of contents.

I goofed. The above is not a fair comparison.

If we were talking about a District Court case, the above would be appropriate. But not in the Court of Appeals.

I filed about 156 pages for our brief and addendum. They filed about 61 pages, and didn't file an addendum. Both sides are encouraged to file an addendum.

Both sides can say what they want in the appendix, and then the appellants are the only ones that file the appendix. To see what both sides asked to have in the appendix, see http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-designation-of-appendix-and-issues.pdf and http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellees-designation-of-appendix.pdf.

One thing that is noticeable is that they didn't specify any exhibits for the appendix, and we specified 877 pages, not including the table of contents for the two volumes.

So we did file an awful lot of material on our own initiative, and some on their initiative, and some on the initiative of both sides. But comparing about 1500 pages to about 61 pages isn't quite accurate or fair.

[Bob Pickle]

That the girl's mother did not DEMAND in the contract she signed that the child be protected is beyond inexcusable!

Based on the appeaarance of the signature, Brandy never signed it.

[Bob Pickle]

The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

The question isn't whether the child is Brandy's. The question is whether the child is Trinity.

How many children has Brandy had? Can you prove your answer?

[GrandmaNettie]

The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

The question isn't whether the child is Brandy's. The question is whether the child is Trinity.

How many children has Brandy had? Can you prove your answer?

Has she had more than two?  Can you prove your answer?

The documentation I've read from Dr. Day specifies two (2) with the older being born in 1993.

Per Dr. Day the child in Danny Shelton's arms during the swabbing on April 29, 2009, looked smaller than an average 9-year-old so it is unlikely that the 16-year-old would have been the child tested.

Edited to restate my final sentence.

[Murcielago]

IMO the child in question is the child who was tested. The test may have been handled poorly but its done and it says that Brandy is the mother and Danny is not the father. Question resolved. As I see it, the "higher road" not EVER taken by DS/3ABN should be taken here. Time to say, "Sorry, I was wrong." Time to remove names, pictures, and private info of a little kid from the internet and move on. Just my opinion.

[princessdi]

That is what I am saying George...Game over!......Please tell me there is not a video and/or pictures of this child posted here or somewhere....that is really sick and depraved beyond belief.  There is absolutely NO consideration of this child's feelings or emotional health.   It is also being sacrificed on the altar of "Everything Danny does is wrong/Let's Get Danny".  You can't get any lower than feeling that you(general) need some kind of confirmation by seeing the child's face. I'ts done, people. let it go!  Apparently whatever Danny does, and however, he does it will not please you, even if it were perfect, it would still be worng to you.  Let it go!

IMO the child in question is the child who was tested. The test may have been handled poorly but its done and it says that Brandy is the mother and Danny is not the father. Question resolved. As I see it, the "higher road" not EVER taken by DS/3ABN should be taken here. Time to say, "Sorry, I was wrong." Time to remove names, pictures, and private info of a little kid from the internet and move on. Just my opinion.

[Murcielago]

Yes, there is a picture of the child posted somewhere else. Not here. Danny has absolutely done some things that should be looked into, but nothing pertaining to an adult justifies the sacrifice of a child, ever. In any way.

[Bob Pickle]

The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

The question isn't whether the child is Brandy's. The question is whether the child is Trinity.

How many children has Brandy had? Can you prove your answer?

Has she had more than two?  Can you prove your answer?

Junebug stated that the child almost positively must be Brandy's, and I correctly pointed out that that isn't the question. The question is who was the child that was tested.

Junebug's assertion would be far more convincing if she could prove that Brandy has only had two children. And, since no one has proven who the child was that was tested, that should be the logical next step.

Of course, proving the contrary would be helpful if the opposition takes forever, as they typically do, to lay matters to rest. But the burden of proof is not on me to prove who the child that was tested was or wasn't solely on the basis of how many children Brandy must have had.

Another possibility would be for Danny to foot the bill for Dr. Day to do a second test on a child proven to be the one that was supposed to be tested. Then if that test produced identical results, the matter would probably be forever resolved.

[Pat Williams]

The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

The question isn't whether the child is Brandy's. The question is whether the child is Trinity.

Friends and family, and all who have seen her on 3ABN, and the picture Dr Day published on her website know it is her. Why don't you?

Dr Day isn't a total idiot I hope.

If what you suggest is true, and it wasn't the nine yr old, Trinity,then do you think it likely that Dr Day tested Brandy's 16 yr old and thought she looked like a 6 yr old? For that's what Dr Day said, the girl appeared small for a nine yr old to her and more like she was six.

 Also, the child in the passport photo which Dr Day published is definitely Trinity. Do you think if the child she tested had not looked exactly like the one in the passport photo she would have proceeded with the test?

Don't you think she might have complained over and over on her web site that the girl in the photo and the girl with Danny and Brandy were not the same if that was the case? Just like she has complained about every other little thing she could, to try and undermine the plain documented factual test results?

How many children has Brandy had? Can you prove your answer?

Mr Pickle, Dr Day already reported on her website that Brandy has two children, so even she knows that, as do friends, family, and acquaintances.

 You may think all you have to do is just throw out some false statement or implication to cast doubt on the test results, and then it is up to others to disprove it, or it rides. But that is not the case. Don't be lazy. Do your own work. If you are seriously claiming there are more than 2 daughters, than you attempt to prove that.



I really can't wait to see what kind of straw you try to grasp onto next here.
You are looking very desperate and foolish here with these arguments and protests.

[Pat Williams]

Another possibility would be for Danny to foot the bill for Dr. Day to do a second test on a child proven to be the one that was supposed to be tested. Then if that test produced identical results, the matter would probably be forever resolved.

We all know now that the child is exactly who Danny and Brandy said she was and who her passport shows her to be.

Dr Day did two tests already, they were sent to two different labs and the numbers and results were identical. Those results are posted. Danny is definitely not the Father, Brandy is the Mother.

In addition Brandy and Danny did their own test, so they could ensure that there was no funny business from Dr Day, the numbers and results of the test they sent in are identical to the other two.

It's all done and over with Mr Pickle.

[Fran]

Dr Day did not see original documents or passports.

We learned about doctoring document at 3ABN from Nick Miller!  Danny could cut and paste as easy as I can!  Can anyone be for sure the picture was not one of a cousin?  I have seen cousins that look like twins.

Because Danny failed to fill the requirements of the agreement, I have my doubts that the child is truly Trinity.  Sorry.

[Bob Pickle]

Danny_Defender is purposefully not getting it.

Danny_Defender, didn't Dr. Day say that she was only allowed to see the child's face for 30 seconds? And hasn't she made it clear that she doesn't think the tested child was the age of the one in question? And wouldn't it make sense that she was merely told without proof how many children Brandy has had?

[Snoopy]

Dr Day did not see original documents or passports.

We learned about doctoring document at 3ABN from Nick Miller!  Danny could cut and paste as easy as I can!  Can anyone be for sure the picture was not one of a cousin?  I have seen cousins that look like twins.

Because Danny failed to fill the requirements of the agreement, I have my doubts that the child is truly Trinity.  Sorry.

I agree with Fran, and I am NOT convinced that the child tested is really who D&B said she is.

I think it is time for a document examiner and a handwriting expert.