Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, and what I said was that the attornies are smart and you are unlikely to have a "tampering with a witness" charge sustained if a victim refuses to testify.

Attornies who stoop to such reprehensible conduct are not smart. It is never smart to sell one's soul to do evil, since one is jeopardizing living forever on streets of gold for such a paltry sum.

[Artiste]

Do you think the Seventh-day Adventist church is also culpable in the coverup that 3ABN has been perpetrating?

If they have been participating in the settlement, as Gailon suggested, they would also benefit from the victims' silence, since they appear to be using 3ABN increasingly, not less than before.

As a platform for some Advent Review regular contributors, for example. 

[Bob Pickle]

What benefit would the Adventist Church obtain by not having Church of God pastor Tommy Shelton convicted?

[Artiste]

I'm not sure what your question is asking.

It looks to me like the SDA church likes the availability of the 3ABN media platform, at least to some degree.

Covering up 3ABN's faults allows them to continue on with their use of 3ABN without looking bad to the public.

[Adam]

I believe Gregory is point on with his comments. It is very possible the victims can or might agree to not testifying against Tommy if such a stipulation is added to the agreement.

Who would blame them? Also, no judge or prosecutor is going to punish them (the victims) for choosing not to testify against TS.

I for one would be for such an agreement if it was worked out.

[Adam]

Let me be clear: I believe it would be in the victims best interest to accept a settlement in exchange for their testimony against TS.

Also these ideas come from myself, and no one else. I am not saying that this is what is going to happen, as I have no knowledge if there is even negotiations taking place.

I am just saying that the victims should consider accepting such an agreement!

[childoftheking]

Then I would imagine that there will continue to be new victims.

[Snoopy]

Ahem.  Good catch.

Let me be clear: I believe it would be in the victims best interest to accept a settlement in exchange for their testimony against TS.

Also these ideas come from myself, and no one else. I am not saying that this is what is going to happen, as I have no knowledge if there is even negotiations taking place.

I am just saying that the victims should consider accepting such an agreement!

[Adam]

Ahem.  Good catch.

Let me be clear: I believe it would be in the victims best interest to accept a settlement in exchange for their testimony against TS.

Also these ideas come from myself, and no one else. I am not saying that this is what is going to happen, as I have no knowledge if there is even negotiations taking place.

I am just saying that the victims should consider accepting such an agreement!

Excuse me?

[Gregory]

I am not suggesting what the plaintiffs might do.

I would not blame them for any decision that they might make.
 
I do not believe that such a stipulation would need to be entered into a written document.

I can immagine some people simply wanting to move on with their lives.  A criminal trial of TS would be very stressful on anyone testifying for the prosecution.

[Bob Pickle]

I'm not sure what your question is asking.

It looks to me like the SDA church likes the availability of the 3ABN media platform, at least to some degree.

Covering up 3ABN's faults allows them to continue on with their use of 3ABN without looking bad to the public.

Covering up 3ABN's faults is not the same as letting an admitted, non-Adventist pedophile off the hook.

The issue under discussion is whether an admitted, non-Adventist pedophile will have to stand trial if a settlement is reached, not whether 3ABN's faults will be covered up or not.

[Bob Pickle]

Let me be clear: I believe it would be in the victims best interest to accept a settlement in exchange for their testimony against TS.

Also these ideas come from myself, and no one else. I am not saying that this is what is going to happen, as I have no knowledge if there is even negotiations taking place.

I am just saying that the victims should consider accepting such an agreement!

Of course they should consider it.

And they should also consider how many people right now are rotting in prison, thinking they ended up there because they didn't have enough money to buy their way out of having to pay for their crimes, thinking it isn't fair that rich folks can get away with all kinds of stuff simply because they have money.

And they should consider the protests sweeping various countries and toppling regimes because the have nots are fed up with the corruption of the haves.

And they should consider ALL Tommy's victims and their families, particularly the ones who hesitated to or decided not to come forward because it was no use, since Tommy was going to get off once again like he always has. They should read the pain in the letters of Moms in Pain #1 and #2, and consider all the hurt and broken dreams and pain and heartache Tommy has caused, and ask themselves if they really want to let Tommy off the hook without any consequences whatsoever, all for the love of filthy lucre.

And then Danny will be able to say once again that he's been totally vindicated, since Tommy never went to trial, and was never convicted, for Tommy's victims decided to not go into court and repeat their lies and slander against man of God Tommy Shelton. So Danny can say he was right in threatening Dryden and suing us and covering it all up since there never was anything to it, because the victims themselves knew they were lying, and all the victims ever wanted was money.

Danny has already pulled this kind of thing twice, remember? The IRS is muzzled by federal law, so Danny can repeat his lies unhindered about total vindication, and not one discrepancy or infraction found. Linda was muzzled to the point that she couldn't even defend herself at her own church trial, while Danny was free to repeat all his lies to anyone he wanted.

Also recall how Danny and his cronies operate, that they talk behind people's backs, and you often never really know who they said what to. That's what Brenda Walsh and Walt Thompson have done.

And if that kind of thing happens, and the victims get wind of it, and they decide they need to defend their reputations, then they can be punished for doing so if they violate the agreement. Like the fellow with the creationist museum who had a dispute over some dinosaur bones with someone, settled with him, and then felt he had to defend his reputation. The judgment he ended up having to pay was supposed to cause the closure of his museum, even after auctioning off various fossils to try to pay the bill, since he couldn't raise enough money.

[Bob Pickle]

Fossil find could lead to ruin of Crosbyton museum owner

Creation museum selling mastodon skull

Fortunately, the skull sold for enough that Taylor was able to keep his museum open. So my previous post was incorrect. I had read the story I think before the auction finished and the sale was made. See the references linked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt._Blanco_Fossil_Museum.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Mr. Gregory;

It is clear you have not examined an adversarial witness!!!

Remember that to get a complaint before the court they must file an information.  In the subject case the victims must have signed complaints and given affidavits. Then, with a probable cause hearing completed, there was a move to the Grand Jury for an Indictment and with that more testimony on the record.  All of these statements can be introduced at trial and can be the basis for a trial on the merits, despite the unwillingness of a plaintiff to testify. Those statements introduced to a jury by simply requiring a victim to read them into the record, a victim “testifies” and may subject him to a perjury case if he in any way alters his testimony…AND I WOULD PROSECUTE A PERJURY CASE WITH IMPUNITY.

Juries are savvy enough to know when the “peace and dignity of the state” has been violated by a sold out victim. And in Virginia, given the tea party movement, the inappropriate utilization of a false prosecution for private enrichment would be seen as a recovery opportunity!!!

I reject the premise that we should EVER allow victims to settle for money and walk away from the criminal indictment and conviction!!! That would allow perpetrators to “fix” criminal cases and would result in a victim using a criminal process for personal enrichment without the proper pursuit of justice.

In fact, this maneuver would not be “good faith” and would leave the state holding the bag for the cost of a prosecution and could entitle them to assess costs to the enriched victims for the bad faith prosecution used by both disreputable counsel and a reprobate victim.  Given the clear position of the Chief Judge in this case, do not bet he will treat such a maneuver with indifference or fear of Mr., Gregory’s purported jury paranoia’s.

While I would expect such a proposal from your “peace-nik theology” that will avoid every conflict in pursuit of peace and safety, it does not serve the best interests of society and avoids accountability. I reject the theology that calls for peace and safety and encourages vacating accountability and is why people like Tommy Ray Shelton still walk free to exploit even more victims. Do you really want that probability on your head, or is there simply no social conscience allowed in the pursuit of peace and safety?

As for you, Alex, given your religious background and given your duty to man and God, it is reprehensible for you to consider such an option and allow this predator to avoid accountability in exchange for 20 pieces of silver!!!

Given that I can comfortably state that I have reliable alternative confirmation that there are “defending” parties that would clearly prefer that this civil case be settled rather than litigated in the very public court system, I will also point out that some “defending parties”  will need considerable time to determine the level of their potential liability in this case with the new and old information now available to them. It is unlikely that a structured settlement will be agreed to and funded prior to a criminal case presentation and therefore is likely a moot issue, win or lose.

 In fact, a criminal conviction will likely enhance the civil settlement as much information will be presented that is not yet available to the pending defendants. I would propose that those revelations to most certainly come into the record at trial will result in the filling of the pants of several 3ABN directors and their insurers. Remember that Adventist Risk Management will have a serious interest to assess any liability of denominational representatives to the 3ABN board over the years.

I trust my point is clear, I have nothing but contempt for those who would even consider a short-cut and the taking of 20 pieces of silver and resulting in the failure to bring accountability to a sexual predator that has evaded punishment and accountability these many years, largely with the help of brother Danny Lee Shelton, et al. Do you wish to now join the enablers?

I trust the answer is: Nay Never, and you will stand for principal first!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

[Gregory]

In the citation below I will cite portions of Gailon’s comments and I will place my comment in brackets with my initials.  E. G.   [ xxxxx—GM]

Mr. Gregory;

It is clear you have not examined an adversarial witness!!!

[I may not have examined an adversarial witness in Federal (or State) Court.  But, that does not negate the truth of what I said could happen.  As you probably know, it has happened and it has been well reported by the media—GM.]

Remember that to get a complaint before the court they must file an information.  In the subject case the victims must have signed complaints and given affidavits. Then, with a probable cause hearing completed, there was a move to the Grand Jury for an Indictment and with that more testimony on the record.  All of these statements can be introduced at trial and can be the basis for a trial on the merits, despite the unwillingness of a plaintiff to testify. Those statements introduced to a jury by simply requiring a victim to read them into the record, a victim “testifies” and may subject him to a perjury case if he in any way alters his testimony…AND I WOULD PROSECUTE A PERJURY CASE WITH IMPUNITY.

[I do not argue what you say above and I have never stated otherwise.  A trial could go forward without the cooperation of the plaintiffs.  That could happen.  However, you are not the prosecutor.  The decision above is neither yours nor mine to make.  It often does not go forward when the plaintiffs do not cooperate—GM.]

•   * * * *

I reject the premise that we should EVER allow victims to settle for money and walk away from the criminal indictment and conviction!!! That would allow perpetrators to “fix” criminal cases and would result in a victim using a criminal process for personal enrichment without the proper pursuit of justice.

[I have never advocated the above.  I did not advocate the above in my posted comments.  I simply stated what could and does happen—GM.]

In fact, this maneuver would not be “good faith” and would leave the state holding the bag for the cost of a prosecution and could entitle them to assess costs to the enriched victims for the bad faith prosecution used by both disreputable counsel and a reprobate victim.  Given the clear position of the Chief Judge in this case, do not bet he will treat such a maneuver with indifference or fear of Mr., Gregory’s purported jury paranoia’s.

[Yes, the State would end up holding the bag for the costs.  As you probably know, it is highly unlikely that the State would attempt to charge the plaintiffs for the costs.  As to the judge: The judge does not decide whether or not to prosecute—GM.]

While I would expect such a proposal from your “peace-nik theology” that will avoid every conflict in pursuit of peace and safety, it does not serve the best interests of society and avoids accountability. I reject the theology that calls for peace and safety and encourages vacating accountability and is why people like Tommy Ray Shelton still walk free to exploit even more victims. Do you really want that probability on your head, or is there simply no social conscience allowed in the pursuit of peace and safety?

[Come on Gailon, you do not know my theology.  It has never been characterized as “peace-nik” by anyone who knows me.  In stating what could happen (and you know that I am correct.) I said nothing about theology.  Theology does not enter into the decision of the State as to whether or nto to prosecute.  You mischaracterize my theology—GM.]

•   * * *

Given that I can comfortably state that I have reliable alternative confirmation that there are “defending” parties that would clearly prefer that this civil case be settled rather than litigated in the very public court system, I will also point out that some “defending parties”  will need considerable time to determine the level of their potential liability in this case with the new and old information now available to them. It is unlikely that a structured settlement will be agreed to and funded prior to a criminal case presentation and therefore is likely a moot issue, win or lose.

[It may very well be true.  But, does not change the truth of my statement of what could happen—GM.]

 In fact, a criminal conviction will likely enhance the civil settlement as much information will be presented that is not yet available to the pending defendants.

[I agree with you.  However, such, in my thinking supports the desire to settle by the defendants—GM.]

•   * * *

I trust my point is clear, I have nothing but contempt for those who would even consider a short-cut and the taking of 20 pieces of silver and resulting in the failure to bring accountability to a sexual predator that has evaded punishment and accountability these many years, largely with the help of brother Danny Lee Shelton, et al.  Do you wish to now join the enablers?

[You may have contempt for them.  But, have you ever walked in their shoes.  As I posted.   Some may simply want to put it all behind them and get on with their lives.  Getting on with their lives may be more important than sending TS to prison—GM.]

[As to your question about joining the enablers,  come on Gailon, you know better than that.  Stating an opinion as to what could happen is not becoming an enabler—GN.]

I trust the answer is: Nay Never, and you will stand for principal first!!!

[Stating an opinion, whether correct or incorrect, is simply that, an opinion of a possible outcome in a legal proceeding—GM.]

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter