Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on December 10, 2009, 07:50:26 PM
-
In light of Friday's decision in the Court of Appeals, it dawned on us that the MidCountry Bank records must be part of the record on appeal for both appeals. So we have filed a motion in district court to forward the MidCountry records to the Court of Appeals.
We have also filed a motion in the Court of Appeals asking it to hold our appeals in abeyance until it receives a copy of those records.
-
What does that mean, or what significance does it have to the case, Bob?
-
Good question. Time will tell.
If the bank records eventually revealed transfers of funds (a) from 3ABN to Danny, (b) from Danny to offshore accounts, or (c) from Danny to Brandy or other women, any of those possibilities would be significant in showing that the lawsuit was frivolous from the get go.
What the bank records actually reveal I don't know, except that they could show large deposits attributable to Danny's income from Remnant, and could show that (a) Danny lied on his July 2006 affidavit when he said he had only two bank accounts, (b) Danny lied on that affidavit when he reported only $2500 in those bank accounts, and/or (c) Danny made large unknown expenditures that brought down his two bank accounts to but $2500.
Given the fact that Remnant's 990's show that Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, the bulk of that in 2006 for a book campaign that occurred in the year, I would think that at least one of the above 6 possibilities would have to be true.
Also note that it was so important that these bank records be kept from us that Danny via Jerrie Hayes lied to the district court in Minnesota by claiming that Danny's personal finances weren't at issue in Danny's lawsuit. Thus, there has to be something in those bank records Danny is trying to hide.
-
I just read the following elsewhere. The courts will speak and rule soon and resolve and clarify this, but I am wondering it Mr Pickle or Mr Joy has any comments or rebuttals here in the meantime.
I don't think the Court has the Mid County Bank Records, nor that they were ever filed in the lawsuit case. They were at most discovery materials.
For those who don't know. In review.
The Mid County Bank records are all the personal bank records (dating back to 1998) which Pickle and Joy had requested of Danny Shelton in the lawsuit during discovery. DS naturally wanted a protection order first before handing over what was needed and relevant, so that only the relevant documents which needed to be disclosed to the Pickle/Joy team were, and so that they would only be used by them in the lawsuit as needed for their case and defense, and not published nor diseminated as was/is their habit. During these negotiations and such, DS and 3ABN also asked that Pickle and Joy's discovery requests be fine tuned and specific rather than a request for everything and all, (ie a fishing expedition to find something or anything to back up what they were already accused of saying and claiming in the the lawsuit filed against them) and also to prevent them from publishing all, and using all to violate DS and 3ABN's privacy rights, and continue slandering DS and 3abn in their attempts to embarass and shame them. So, the Judge/court ordered Pickle and Joy to redo their discovery requests and also although denying Pickle and Joy's motions for sanctions and production of documents, cautioned 3abn that they needed to make their filed claims more specific to enable that, and ordered both parties to not issue further subpoenas without court approval.
What had happened was, that rather than waiting on the discovery issues and arguments to be resolved in the lawsuit and receiving the documents necessary to their case for free from the plaintiffs, Pickle and Joy had went and filed a bunch of 3rd party subpoenas here and there to try and get what they wanted from the Plaintiffs apart from their case in Massachusetts, and from third parties rather than the plaintiffs. In the case of the bank records Pickle and Joy ended up unnecessarily having to pay for the labor and costs for the research and copying etc, but those records were never disclosed to them, instead they were labeled confidential and delivered under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman, and the entire case was transferred to him in the Massachusetts court, per the pending protection order there, according to the ruling of the Judge in the Minnesota court who had heard and weighed all the arguments from both parties in his court.
In addition:
1.) Pickle and Joy argued that DS had no standing to object to their subpoena for his bank records and that his arguments and motions should be stricken from the record, and the Minnesota court denied their motion, and continued to consider Shelton's case and arguments, and quoted them till the end and final judgment where it transferred the case to the Massachusetts Court. So, it makes no sense that Pickle argues in his recent appeal filing that the Judge agreed with him that Shelton had no standing to object although it is easily understood why he in his filing only quotes himself (5 times) about what he claims and thought the Judge was saying, rather than quoting what the Judge actually said, or understanding that that Judge continued to consider Shelton's arguments and POV even after Pickles reinterpreted tale.
and 2.) When Pickle and Joy objected to the Minnesota court ruling and asked that the bank documents be delivered and disclosed directly to them, rather than to Magistrate Judge Hillman, claiming that his protection order had made the Minnesota Judges ruling moot, that Judge said "NO" and for the second time told them:the following: (Note the bold text, plz)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING CASE NO. 08-MC-7 (RHK/AJB)
NETWORK, INC., AN ILLINOIS NON-PROFIT
CORPORATION, AND DANNY LEE SHELTON,
INDIVIDUALLY,
PLAINTIFFS, ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION1
V.
GAILON ARTHUR JOY AND
ROBERT PICKLE,
DEFENDANTS.
This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Arthur J. Boylan, on June 2, 2008, Defendant Robert Pickle filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Court’s March 28, 2008, Order [Docket No. 29]. In that Order, the Court ordered the production of records subpoenaed by the Defendants from MidCountry Bank, N.A. (“MidCountry”). Said production was to be made under seal to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman in the District of Massachusets to accommodate the pending protective order Magistrate Judge Hillman was to
issue. The protective order was issued on April 17, 2008. Mr. Pickle claims that this
confidentiality order “renders obsolete the provision of this Court’s Order to produce the subpoenaed documents under seal to Magistrate Judge Hillman.” See Mem. 1 [Docket No. 30]. Mr. Pickle also asked the Honorable F. Dennis Saylor of the District of Massachusetts in a status conference on May 7, 2008, to allow the subpoenaed documents to be produced directly to him, to which Judge Saylor referred Mr. Pickle back to this Court for such relief. For these reasons,
Mr. Pickle requests that this Court amend its order to allow the subpoenaed records of MidCountry Bank to be produced directly to the office of Mr. Pickle, while in accordance with Magistrate Judge Hillman’s confidentiality order.
Plaintiff Danny Lee Shelton responded in opposition to Defendants’ request on June 18,2008 [Docket No. 34]. Mr. Shelton argues that Mr. Pickle’s motion should be denied as an improper motion for reconsideration pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g). Id. at 3. In particular, Mr.Shelton asserts that Mr. Pickle’s motion should be denied for failure to obtain “express permission of the Court” by means of a letter to the Court of no more than two pages as required by Rule 7.1(g). Id. at 4. Furthermore, upon reaching the merits of Mr. Pickle’s motion, Mr.Shelton contends that Magistrate Judge Hillman’s issuance of a protective order is not a “compelling circumstance” justifying reconsideration of this Court’s previous Order. Id. at 5.
Based upon the record, memoranda, and pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(g), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Pickle’s Request for Reconsideration is DENIED. Mr. Pickle has failed to show compelling circumstances to overturn the Court’s previous Order. Moreover, this Court specifically stated that the March 28, 2008, Order did not preclude the parties from seeking relief from Magistrate Judge Hillman as to the disclosure of the documents produced pursuant to the
MidCountry Bank subpoena. See Order 2-3 [Docket No. 28]. Therefore, the Court directs Mr. Pickle to seek relief from Magistrate Judge Hillman concerning the production of documents by MidCountry Bank subject to the subpoena served in this district.[/u]
Dated: July 1, 2008
s/ Arthur J. Boylan
Arthur J. Boylan
United States Magistrate Judge
Neither Pickle, nor Joy ever sought relief or filed any motion to get the documents disclosed or released to them. So, they were never filed nor admitted into the case nor record... ( many of the discovery materials or possible ones weren't entered and aren't part of the record.)SO, in the motion to dismiss conference/hearing dated over a year ago when Pickle claimed he had paid for the bank records and were his property, and if they were returned it would make him have to do it all over again, the Judge clarified that he ( Pickle) had never filed any counterclaims, and that there was thus no pending case, and told him he could file a motion for necessary costs but said he was promising nothing, nor did he order they be given to Pickle as Hillman's "Confidentiality and Protection Order" already said : "The subject discovery materials will be used for no other purpose than this litigation.”and the litigation was over.... What Judge Saylor did say in administrating that order after Pickle interrupted him was: " Let me -- let me just finish. And any records that were delivered under seal and that are in the custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party that produced those documents." of course that was only the Mid county bank records... and almost 6 wks later a receipt for the return of those documents from Hillman to DS was signed for by his Attorney's office in compliance with that order, and Pickle even included that receipt as an exhibit in his latest filing claiming it makes those possible discovery records part of the Lawsuit case and filed there, but of course it doesn't.... They are gone, and were returned as ordered and Pickle and Joy have no right to them.
Pickle and Joy apparently don't get it and thus their "waaaah!" and their futile arguments. I am pretty sure the courts will enlighten them.... with some help from 3abn and attys, as they wait to file their appeal and ask it be put in "abeyance", but I will post any updates here regardless of what the Courts say and decide.
-
Good question. Time will tell.
If the bank records eventually revealed transfers of funds (a) from 3ABN to Danny, (b) from Danny to offshore accounts, or (c) from Danny to Brandy or other women, any of those possibilities would be significant in showing that the lawsuit was frivolous from the get go.
What the bank records actually reveal I don't know, except that they could show large deposits attributable to Danny's income from Remnant, and could show that (a) Danny lied on his July 2006 affidavit when he said he had only two bank accounts, (b) Danny lied on that affidavit when he reported only $2500 in those bank accounts, and/or (c) Danny made large unknown expenditures that brought down his two bank accounts to but $2500.
Given the fact that Remnant's 990's show that Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, the bulk of that in 2006 for a book campaign that occurred in the year, I would think that at least one of the above 6 possibilities would have to be true.
Also note that it was so important that these bank records be kept from us that Danny via Jerrie Hayes lied to the district court in Minnesota by claiming that Danny's personal finances weren't at issue in Danny's lawsuit. Thus, there has to be something in those bank records Danny is trying to hide.
What all this really means to me is that you are clueless and don't know and have no proof of your accusations but are desperately hoping to find some, and yet can't stop making accusations and insinuating things you have no support for or proof of, still.
Sad...
-
What all this really means to me is that you are clueless and don't know and have no proof of your accusations but are desperately hoping to find some, and yet can't stop making accusations and insinuating things you have no support for or proof of, still.
What do you mean?
We know Danny got lots of money from Remnant that he perjuriously omitted from his July 2006 financial affidavit. That's a proven fact, is it not?
-
Ok say that is true. Do you really believe that the courts are going to let you go digging through his bank accounts to find the money? That is not even legal. Especially since the IRS seems to not have found this money, and you know they went a serious fishing in his records, bank accounts, etc. Hamilton Berger on the old Perry Mason episodes said many a time that Perry was on a fishing expedition. It is just not allowed. This is why they don't want you with any of the docs, not on the premise that you might find something.
-
What all this really means to me is that you are clueless and don't know and have no proof of your accusations but are desperately hoping to find some, and yet can't stop making accusations and insinuating things you have no support for or proof of, still.
What do you mean?
We know Danny got lots of money from Remnant that he perjuriously omitted from his July 2006 financial affidavit. That's a proven fact, is it not?
NO, that is NOT a proven fact. What that is is one of the claims and accusations you were sued for. You have never proven anything was reported falsely or not reported where it should have been. The IRS investigated him and found nothing amiss, deal with it Mr Pickle, and move on.
-
Here is a update on this subject which was posted somewhere else. In compliance with this forum's administrative rules I removed all references and links first so I hope it will be deemed appropriate content and it is acceptable to post it here.
O kaay.. It appears that Pickle and Joy have belatedly realized that the Mid County Bank records were returned to 3abn/DS a year ago, and were signed for and have been in the custody of 3abn's attorneys ever since. I just got done reading the following emails twice in regards to this:
From: Bob [mailto:bob@ ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:29 PM
To: John Pucci
Cc: G. Arthur Joy; Gerald Duffy; Jerrie Hayes; Kristin L. Kingsbury; William Christopher Penwell; Lizette
Richards; Greg Simpson
Subject: re: the return of MidCountry's records to the court
Counselor Pucci:
I just spoke with a clerk of court at the federal courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts. She informed me that the court does not have a copy of the bank statements that MidCountry Bank produced in response to our subpoena, and that the receipt docketed as Doc. 160 in our case shows who those
bank statements were given to.
That receipt, dated December 16, 2008, is signed as follows:
Christine Parizo
Fierst, Pucci & Kane LLP
64 Gothic St. Northampton MA 01060
(413) 584-8067
Thus, you received the only copy of MidCountry’s records that the court had. Would you stipulate to the return of MidCountry’s records to the court, accompanied by your certification that the returned records do not differ in quantity or content from that which you received?
If you do not so stipulate, we shall prepare a motion seeking an order commanding you to return MidCountry’s records to the court. (Such return would need to be accompanied by the same certification.) This letter would then be, pursuant to L.R. 7.1(a)(2), Defendants’ good faith attempt to narrow or resolve the issue before bringing such a motion. If you refuse to stipulate, would you oppose
such a motion?
I would remind you that the district court is without authority to eliminate material from the record on appeal. 20 Moore’s Federal Practice §310.40[2]; Belt v. Holton, 197 F.2d 579, 591 (D.C. Cir. 1952). Therefore, the bank statements must be returned.
Sincerely,
Bob Pickle, pro se
Subject: RE: the return of MidCountry's records to the court
From: "John Pucci"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:57:16 -0500
To: "Bob"
CC: "Gregory Simpson"
Dear Mr. Pickle:
In response to your letter of December 15, 2009, please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will
remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them.
You have moved to have the records sent to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals as part of the district court record. We will oppose your motion by filing an opposition memorandum. It is not appropriate to debate the legal issues raised by your motion informally because they will clearly need to be addressed in an
orderly fashion by Judge Saylor and potentially reviewed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the meantime, you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition at least until the case is over and all rights of appeal are exhausted. Please consider this
response as written assurance that the MidCountry Bank records will be preserved to that extent.
In regards to the Mid county Bank records. Both parties have as indicated in the letter above, filed new documents in the USDC (since yesterday). Both parties also attached the above letters to their affidavits. 3abn filed an "OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO CERTIFY AND FORWARD PART OF THE RECORD" and Joy and Pickle have filed a new Motion. "MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records"
The new documents filed in the USDC been uploaded to our Pacer subforum here:
[Link deactivated per adventtalk rules]Court of Appeals Case 09- 2615 (the Mid County Bank Records)
The Massachusetts Judge, Saylor entered an electronic order this morning in the USDC there concerning both of Pickle and Joy's latest motions.
The entry and his order is as follows. From the Pacer docket:
Filed & Entered: 12/18/2009
Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge
Docket Text: Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Electronic ORDER entered.
REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman
Referred for: ruliings Motions referred:
[204] MOTION to Forward Part of the Record,
[210] MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records (Castles, Martin) Motions referred to Timothy S. Hillman.
Timothy Hillman is the Magistrate Judge that Judge Boylan "ordered the production of records subpoenaed by the Defendants from MidCountry Bank, N.A. (“MidCountry”)" sent to. " Said production was to be made under seal to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman in the District of Massachusets"
Hillman is also the same Judge who issued the "Confidentiality and Protection Order on April 17, 2008, Concerning all documents and information produced, or to be produced in the Massachusetts Laws suit." He did so after hearing the arguments of both sides and ordering them to each submit a "proposed order" If you want to read his order or review it, it is [Link deactivated per adventtalk rules] HERE
On a personal note, I have renamed the lawsuit case filed against Pickle and Joy which was dropped by 3abn and "terminated" by the Court on November 3, 2008: "Three Angels Broadcasting vs the Energizer Bunnies" Pickle and Joy just keep going and going and going.....
-
NO, that is NOT a proven fact. What that is is one of the claims and accusations you were sued for. You have never proven anything was reported falsely or not reported where it should have been.
False. It is a proven fact that Danny received lots of money from Remnant that he perjuriously omitted from his July 2006 financial affidavit.
Are you suggesting that Danny didn't receive any money from Remnant in 2006 for the distribution of about 5 million of his books? If that is what you are suggesting, then say so.
-
No surmising,
Do you believe that John Pucci told the truth when he said that he was simply complying with the judge's order when he had Christine Parizo take those documents from the courthouse in violation of that same order?
-
No surmising,
Do you believe that John Pucci told the truth when he said that he was simply complying with the judge's order when he had Christine Parizo take those documents from the courthouse in violation of that same order?
Those are your words and claims, Mr Pickle. What John Pucci said is in the letter above.
"...please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them..."
and "...you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition..."
Judge Hillman is the one ruling on your motions, so I believe it would be best for you to just stop maligning people and wait for him to issue his judgment in this matter.
I also believe it ridiculous that you think Danny Shelton doesn't have the right to his own personal bank records, but that you do.
But lets wait on the courts to decide.
-
expropriation
n. a taking of property or rights by governmental authority...In such a case just compensation eventually must be paid to the owner, who can make a claim against the taker.
Now, when an attorney (an officer of the court) sends an emloyee into a federal court and expropriates what is not theirs based upon a clearly erroneous interpretation of the courts order, particularly when it is known that those records were clearly ordered delivered to Judge Magistrate Hillman for compliance with the pending confidentiality order and were received by the court and held pending a motion by the plaintiffs for in camera review. The review was denied by the magistrate resulting in a clear requirement that said records should have been turned over to the issuers of the producing subpoena (at a dear cost to the parties requesting the same). The order of the court by Saylor requiring "return" was subject to the confidentiality agreement. We assert that that document will speak for itself and these "Zealous Advocates" can read LEGAL documents. Further, the case was under appeal and those records are clearly relevant to the allegations and counterclaims. In any event, there is NO legal basis for a presumption that "return" would be to former federal prosecutor Pucci.
So, what are the choices the victims of illegal expropriation have?
NOSIRMIZING would argue that there was a court order (see Defendants Motion to Return the Record and the supporting Memorandum for clarification of the facts and the court record on this matter). In summary, a lawyer who actively participated in this case would well know that bank records ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. That has been clearly established. However, NOSIRMIZING has SIRMIZED that the term "return" is somehow construed to mean to the Plaintiffs. YOU WILL SOON FIND OUT THAT THIS IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS and counsel knows better. Is counsel relying upon his prior relationships to the bar to protect himself (why do you think Pucci was selected by 3ABN?).
Further, counsel would know that the documents would have been part of the record on review since they were held by the court pending the appeal as they were formally entered into the record by order of Judge Magistrate Boylan subject to the confidentiality order. And mysteriously, despite several requests and purported searches, the documents were never produced to the "purchasers" of the record. Must we SURMIZE that Pucci may have used his influence in the court to have held the documents in defience of Judge Magistrate Hillman's denial of "in camera review"? And just why were the records suddenly discovered and allowed to be given to the custody of "plaintiff's" counsel with no known interest in the same? Because they THOUGHT they could get away with it...and I believe that this is a substantial BREACH OF ETHICS by the former prosecutor and his cohort, Simpson, a member of the Minnesotta Bars "Ethics Committee"!!!!
Further, upon appropriate request, they have refused to return the records to the US District Court!!! And then oppose the motion...is this also "zealous" advocacy??? Me thinks it goes a bit further than that. Because, while the court simply faces a claim for expropriation, for these "Zealous" Advocates it could represent a far greater issue.
Now, what are our choices to address this FLAGRANT ABUSE?
And so we are left to contemplate the various options:
1) A citizens criminal complaint pursuant to the masachusetts criminal code to recover the misappropriation;
2) A complaint to various bars, Massachusetts, Mass Federal, Minnesotta and the Minnesotta Federal Bar;
3) A complaint to the Federal Administrative Judge;
4) A civil suite pursuant to Massahusetts General Laws 93-A for unfair and deceptive practices seeking treble damages;
5) All the above.
Since NOSIRMIZING is such an "expert" on ethics and the bar, perhaps you could ENLIGHTEN us regarding which of the
above ought to be undertaken? I await your EXPERTIZE on the subject.
And why don't we do a poll to add a little spice to the subject just to liven up the Christmas Season?
And the fun continues!!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
At this point I vote for all of the above.
-
Gailon I already gave my answer and I don't think it was hard to understand. Here it is again:
Those are your words and claims, Mr Pickle. What John Pucci said is in the letter above.
"...please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them..."
and "...you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition..." Judge Hillman is the one ruling on your motions, so I believe it would be best for you to just stop maligning people and wait for him to issue his judgment in this matter.
I also believe it ridiculous that you think Danny Shelton doesn't have the right to his own personal bank records, but that you do.
But lets wait on the courts to decide.
I'll be back to answer further, after that occurs.
Happy Holidays.
-
Gailon I already gave my answer and I don't think it was hard to understand. Here it is again:
Those are your words and claims, Mr Pickle. What John Pucci said is in the letter above.
"...please recall that Judge Saylor ordered that the MidCountry Bank records be returned to us. See Electronic Clerk's Notes of hearing on 10/30/2008 ("Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."). You did not obtain a stay of the October 30 order. Therefore, Judge Hillman obeyed it and delivered the records to counsel for 3ABN where they will remain unless and until we are ordered to do something else with them..."
and "...you may be assured that the MidCountry records are in the custody of counsel for 3ABN, are in the same condition that they were in when Judge Hillman gave them to us, and will be maintained in that condition..." Judge Hillman is the one ruling on your motions, so I believe it would be best for you to just stop maligning people and wait for him to issue his judgment in this matter.
I also believe it ridiculous that you think Danny Shelton doesn't have the right to his own personal bank records, but that you do.
But lets wait on the courts to decide.
I'll be back to answer further, after that occurs.
Happy Holidays.
And can you prove from the record that he is telling the truth? A thus sayeth NOSIRMIZING is hardly the gospel according to the actual record, but then you never have been much for the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, have you?
Now, I dare you too prove from the record that what is said by Pucci is the backed by the record...and to give you a good lead, consider our motion for clues as to where you can find the TRUTH!!!
Pardon my disdain for your misnomer, but I find you to be the most mis-informed SIRMIZER I have ever run into. But, Keep up the great work!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
... In summary, a lawyer who actively participated in this case would well know that bank records ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. That has been clearly established.... And just why were the records ...allowed to be given to the custody of "plaintiff's" counsel with no known interest in the same? Because they THOUGHT they could get away with it...and I believe that this is a substantial BREACH OF ETHICS by the former prosecutor and his cohort, Simpson, a member of the Minnesotta Bars "Ethics Committee"!!!!
Further, upon appropriate request, they have refused to return the records to the US District Court!!! And then oppose the motion...is this also "zealous" advocacy??? Me thinks it goes a bit further than that. Because, while the court simply faces a claim for expropriation, for these "Zealous" Advocates it could represent a far greater issue...
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Hmmmm...
Right to Financial Privacy Act
The Right to Financial Privacy Act (RTFPA) of 1978 became effective on March 10, 1979 (12 U.S.C. 3401). It was enacted because financial institution customers have a right to expect that their financial activities have a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The Act establishes specific procedures for government authorities which seek information from a financial institution about a customer's financial records and imposes limitations and duties on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies.
Prior to the Act, customers could not challenge government access to their financial records. Nor did the customer have any way of knowing that personal records were being turned over to a government authority. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), the Supreme Court held that financial records, because they are kept by the institution, are the property of the institution rather than the customer. As such, the customer had no protectable legal interest in
records kept by the financial institution, nor could he or she limit government access to those accounts. It was principally in response to this decision that the RTFPA was adopted.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The RTFPA generally requires that the customer must receive:
• A written notice of the agency's intent to obtain financial records,
• An explanation of the purpose for which the records are sought, and
• A statement describing procedures to use if the customer does not wish such records or
information to be made available.
Source: Examination Handbook Section 1345-1, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Office of Thrift Supervision, United States Department of Treasury, Approved – FFIEC
The courts will indeed rule on what has and has not been "clearly established".
-
Hey Danny_Defender,
Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!
-
Ok, sooooooooo, that means if I ask for you and Gailon's bank records, I can have them just because I believe you are up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?
Hey Danny_Defender,
Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!
-
I have no legal background, but common sense tells me you have no business poking into Gailon Arthur's financial records unless you have just cause to believe there is something there that concerns a matter you happen to be dealing with. The daily news tell me that most official people, including people on TV or in the entertainments business have to open up a number of their accounts, especially if these people are dealing with public funds or private contributions. This could include a pastor, an elder, a treasurer. The rules may differ greatly in various countries or states. This is why such a great number of business people move to places like London, and a number of other countries where they feel safe from their own authorities -as soon as they realize some journalists are examining their financial records. Believe me, we are listening to the accounts of these journalists several times daily ever since the collapse of some of our banks. It seems like government appreciates what the journalists are snooping into of what seems to be purely private finances. Our government has even hired a special prosecutor to investigate such records.
This is what I learn from our daily news reports, and I must admit I often spend 3-4 hours daily listening and reading to know what is going on in this area.
Ok, sooooooooo, that means if I ask for you and Gailon's bank records, I can have them just because I believe you are up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?
Hey Danny_Defender,
Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!
-
This is basic law that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy in their bank records from the Government. They have full acces to them if they so choose. The logic behind that is the bank already knows what is in your records and so why should not the Government be able to acces the information to obtain the same information.The fourth amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures by the Government. Dealing with issues between private parties the fourth amendment is not implicated because there is not goverment action. If the private party action is between parties to the lawsuit and not a third party then perhaps rule 34, 35 of Federal Rules of Civil procedure are used=discovery etc. If the bank records are wanted from a non-party to the lawsuit then a subpoena duces tecum should be used. :wave:
-
Ok Wendell, English, please.....LOL!!! I completely understand about government....not so much about the private parties.
-
Applying to the parties 3ABN, Pickle, Joy if there is information you believe is relevant to your case which the other party has you can through the discovery process obtain that information. Of course if that information is within the attorney-client privilege then most likely you cannot obtain it. So, if one of the parties to the lawsuit wants the bank records of another party to the lawsuit (by the way bank records and phone records are almost always discoverable and give the other party potentially all kinds of relevant information) then through certain rules they can obtain them. Of course if the party wants to try to deny access to the bank reocrds then they can through the court file motions totry to prevent discovery of them.
-
... In summary, a lawyer who actively participated in this case would well know that bank records ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. That has been clearly established.... And just why were the records ...allowed to be given to the custody of "plaintiff's" counsel with no known interest in the same? Because they THOUGHT they could get away with it...and I believe that this is a substantial BREACH OF ETHICS by the former prosecutor and his cohort, Simpson, a member of the Minnesotta Bars "Ethics Committee"!!!!
Further, upon appropriate request, they have refused to return the records to the US District Court!!! And then oppose the motion...is this also "zealous" advocacy??? Me thinks it goes a bit further than that. Because, while the court simply faces a claim for expropriation, for these "Zealous" Advocates it could represent a far greater issue...
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Hmmmm...
Right to Financial Privacy Act
The Right to Financial Privacy Act (RTFPA) of 1978 became effective on March 10, 1979 (12 U.S.C. 3401). It was enacted because financial institution customers have a right to expect that their financial activities have a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The Act establishes specific procedures for government authorities which seek information from a financial institution about a customer's financial records and imposes limitations and duties on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies.
Prior to the Act, customers could not challenge government access to their financial records. Nor did the customer have any way of knowing that personal records were being turned over to a government authority. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), the Supreme Court held that financial records, because they are kept by the institution, are the property of the institution rather than the customer. As such, the customer had no protectable legal interest in
records kept by the financial institution, nor could he or she limit government access to those accounts. It was principally in response to this decision that the RTFPA was adopted.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The RTFPA generally requires that the customer must receive:
• A written notice of the agency's intent to obtain financial records,
• An explanation of the purpose for which the records are sought, and
• A statement describing procedures to use if the customer does not wish such records or
information to be made available.
Source: Examination Handbook Section 1345-1, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Office of Thrift Supervision, United States Department of Treasury, Approved – FFIEC
The courts will indeed rule on what has and has not been "clearly established".
Defender...
Thanks for the Administrative Procedures Act notice, but these are properly subpoenaed and produced documents under court order of the US District Court in Minnesota and you really do need a good course in discovery. Of course, I would argue you need a good course in a lot more than that, but we should not get too personal at this festive time of the year. But I am required to ask...did you fail civil litigation? It is quite frequently a second semester course.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Ok, sooooooooo, that means if I ask for you and Gailon's bank records, I can have them just because I believe you are up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?
Hey Danny_Defender,
Why did you quote something that says that the government can't go nosing around through someone's bank's records? Gailon and I aren't the government!
You can ask for anything you want...and we can politely decline... but if we are ever stupid enough to then sue you for defamation, you will then unconditionally have the right to subpoena those records under the Federal Rules of Evidence and pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and despite every cry and hue and blocking tactic...yup, you will get them!!!!
Now, I wonder, would I ever be stupid enough to open that door???? Particularly if I am "up to something, illegal, immoral, uneithical, or all of the above?"
People who live in glass houses should really avoid ...!!! I'll let you fill in the blanks.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
At this point I vote for all of the above.
Whoa, Mr. Pickle...I guess you are serious...do those latest Motions set the foundations?
G. Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
... In summary, a lawyer who actively participated in this case would well know that bank records ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. That has been clearly established.... And just why were the records ...allowed to be given to the custody of "plaintiff's" counsel with no known interest in the same? Because they THOUGHT they could get away with it...and I believe that this is a substantial BREACH OF ETHICS by the former prosecutor and his cohort, Simpson, a member of the Minnesotta Bars "Ethics Committee"!!!!
Further, upon appropriate request, they have refused to return the records to the US District Court!!! And then oppose the motion...is this also "zealous" advocacy??? Me thinks it goes a bit further than that. Because, while the court simply faces a claim for expropriation, for these "Zealous" Advocates it could represent a far greater issue...
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Hmmmm...
Right to Financial Privacy Act
The Right to Financial Privacy Act (RTFPA) of 1978 became effective on March 10, 1979 (12 U.S.C. 3401). It was enacted because financial institution customers have a right to expect that their financial activities have a reasonable amount of privacy from federal government scrutiny. The Act establishes specific procedures for government authorities which seek information from a financial institution about a customer's financial records and imposes limitations and duties on financial institutions prior to the release of information sought by government agencies.
Prior to the Act, customers could not challenge government access to their financial records. Nor did the customer have any way of knowing that personal records were being turned over to a government authority. In United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435(1976), the Supreme Court held that financial records, because they are kept by the institution, are the property of the institution rather than the customer. As such, the customer had no protectable legal interest in
records kept by the financial institution, nor could he or she limit government access to those accounts. It was principally in response to this decision that the RTFPA was adopted.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
The RTFPA generally requires that the customer must receive:
• A written notice of the agency's intent to obtain financial records,
• An explanation of the purpose for which the records are sought, and
• A statement describing procedures to use if the customer does not wish such records or
information to be made available.
Source: Examination Handbook Section 1345-1, Right to Financial Privacy Act, Office of Thrift Supervision, United States Department of Treasury, Approved – FFIEC
The courts will indeed rule on what has and has not been "clearly established".
Well, 3ABN_Defender, you have proven that you have no problem running your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about, so why should anyone believe you?
-
In light of Friday's decision in the Court of Appeals, it dawned on us that the MidCountry Bank records must be part of the record on appeal for both appeals. So we have filed a motion in district court to forward the MidCountry records to the Court of Appeals...
You were/are wrong.
They were never part of the record, they were at most possible discovery materials which were never ordered disclosed to you, or filed in the case. That is why when 3abn filed their motion to dismiss the lawsuit and specifically asked that they be returned, the Judge granted their motion and ordered that
From Pacer - the court docket entry
01/29/2010 Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying 204 Motion to Forward Part of the Record by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.
-
... In summary, a lawyer who actively participated in this case would well know that bank records ARE NOT THE PROPERTY OF THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. That has been clearly established.... And just why were the records ...allowed to be given to the custody of "plaintiff's" counsel with no known interest in the same? Because they THOUGHT they could get away with it...and I believe that this is a substantial BREACH OF ETHICS by the former prosecutor and his cohort, Simpson, a member of the Minnesotta Bars "Ethics Committee"!!!!
Further, upon appropriate request, they have refused to return the records to the US District Court!!! And then oppose the motion...is this also "zealous" advocacy??? Me thinks it goes a bit further than that. Because, while the court simply faces a claim for expropriation, for these "Zealous" Advocates it could represent a far greater issue...
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Magistrate Judge Hillman who drafted the protection order and who Judge Saylor sent your "motion to compel" to for a ruling, quite obviously doesn't agree with you, Gailon.
From Pacer - the court docket entry:
01/29/2010 Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying 210 Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle. ..Entered: 01/29/2010)
-
Well, 3ABN_Defender, you have proven that you have no problem running your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about, so why should anyone believe you?
Do the decisions of the Magistrate Judge answer your question?
-
Well, 3ABN_Defender, you have proven that you have no problem running your mouth when you have no idea what you're talking about, so why should anyone believe you?
Do the decisions of the Magistrate Judge answer your question?
It certainly should. How many judges have now taken a look at everything and decided that the efforts to extend this case is merely an effort to clog the courts?
-
That is why when 3abn filed their motion to dismiss the lawsuit and specifically asked that they be returned, the Judge granted their motion and ordered that
Come on, Cindy, leave the spin machine behind and get it right. 3ABN could not have truthfully asked that the MidCountry records be "returned" to it since they never had them. And the judge ordered them to be returned to MidCountry, which was not what 3ABN requested.
-
It certainly should. How many judges have now taken a look at everything and decided that the efforts to extend this case is merely an effort to clog the courts?
Thus far, not one judge has "decided" such.
-
That is why when 3abn filed their motion to dismiss the lawsuit and specifically asked that they be returned, the Judge granted their motion and ordered that
Come on, Cindy, leave the spin machine behind and get it right. 3ABN could not have truthfully asked that the MidCountry records be "returned" to it since they never had them. And the judge ordered them to be returned to MidCountry, which was not what 3ABN requested.
You appear to be in denial, sorry, but that won't change the facts. You already argued this in court, and the Magistrate Judge quite obviously did not agree with you, just as Judge Saylor did not in the status conference. You were/are wrong and you lost.
And, spin machine?!?
:ROFL: Don't even try to go there, Bob.
No spinning is necessary. Here is the documentation and the truth in black and white for all to see. --oh, and some bold red for emphasis-- All with zero commentary or interpretations or explanations from me. You should try it sometime... ;)
Pacer Docket Entry:
120 Filed & Entered: 10/23/2008
Terminated: 10/30/2008 Motion to Dismiss
MOTION to Dismiss voluntary by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., Danny Lee Shelton.(Simpson, M.) (Entered: 10/23/2008)
Pacer Document:
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 120 Filed 10/23/2008
MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL AND REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
MOTION
Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Shelton hereby move the Court for an Order as follows:
1. Ordering dismissal of the above-captioned lawsuit without prejudice;
2. Ordering return to Plaintiffs of all materials supplied to Defendants that Plaintiffs designated as Confidential under the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued in this case on April 17, 2008 (ECF Doc 60), including but not limited to the records of MidCountry Bank which were delivered under under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge Hillman and records of Remnant Publications produced directly to Defendants on September 22, 2008;
3. Ordering Defendants to dismiss any pending third party subpoenas that have been issued on the basis of this case; and
4. Staying discovery pending resolution of this motion, including but not limited to the pending obligation to respond to document
requests served by the Defendants.
This Motion is based upon Plaintiffs’ Motion for Voluntary Dismissal, Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Support of the same, and any affidavits filed herewith, the arguments of counsel and all other files, records and proceedings herein.
REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court set a day and time for oral argument to be heard on this Motion, and further request that leave be granted for the parties to appear by telephone. Respectfully Submitted: Attorneys for Plaintiffs Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. and Danny Shelton
Dated: October 23, 2008
....
s/ M. Gregory Simpson
Relevent exerpt from the "Status conference/Motion for Voluntary Dismissal BEFORE: The Honorable F. Dennis Saylor, IV
United States District Court Courtroom No. 2 595 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts October 30, 2008" :
...
THE COURT: All right. Here's what I'm going to do.
I'm going to grant the motion. I'm going to dismiss it without
prejudice and with some conditions, which include the condition
that any claims brought by the plaintiffs, based on the same
facts and circumstances or -- or -- or nucleus of operative
events may only be brought in the Central Division of
Massachusetts, but let me be more formal about that.
The motion for voluntary dismissal is granted. I
order that this lawsuit be dismissed without prejudice. I make
no finding of any kind as to the merits or lack of merits of
any of the claims or factual defenses set forth in the
pleadings, and I'm dismissing the claim principally based on the representation by the plaintiff that there is no longer any purpose for the litigation, because plaintiffs do not believe
that they can accomplish -- or achieve any meaningful relief
based on the facts and circumstances as they now exist,
including, but not limited to, the bankruptcy of one of the
defendants.
I am imposing this dismissal with the condition that
any claim or claims brought by plaintiffs based on the same or
similar facts and circumstances may only be brought in the
Central Division of the District of Massachusetts, so that if
this lawsuit in some ways comes back to life, it will be in
front of me, and I'll have all the facts and circumstances at
my disposal at that point and can make such orders as I think
are just under the circumstances.
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.
Any pending third-party subpoenas are deemed moot, and
the party will -- any party having issued such a third-party
subpoena will take reasonable steps to notify the recipient of
the subpoena that the lawsuit has been dismissed, and the
subpoenas are no longer in effect.
MR. PICKLE: Your Honor, could I -- could I --
THE COURT: Let me -- let me just finish. And any
records that were delivered under seal and that are in the custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party that produced those documents.
Yes, sir. Is this Mr. Pickle?
MR. PICKLE: Yes, it is.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. PICKLE: Your Honor, one of the concerns that the
case law brings up is that -- see -- a voluntarily dismissal
without prejudice, one of the questions is well, will there be
plain legal prejudice to the defendants, and one of the things
that is, like, undue expense.
We've had -- and one of the factors they look at is
amount of time and effort and expense the defendants have
expended. We bring this out in our memorandum. Okay. What
the -- what the plaintiffs are doing -- see, our basis for
counterclaim --
THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on, Mr. Pickle. There's no
counterclaim filed, as I understand; is that right?
MR. PUCCI: Right.
THE COURT: In this case.
MR. PICKLE: That is correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: You know, and -- and, you know, whether
you have some future claim against the plaintiffs, I make no
comment on of any kind whatsoever.
MR. PICKLE: It is --
THE COURT: In terms of -- just let -- let me, if I
can. Just in terms of your costs and expense and attorney's
fees, my understanding is that but for a brief appearance by
Mr. Heal, I think, at the beginning of the litigation, you've
been proceeding pro se; and let me add as a further condition
that I will at least permit defendants to seek recovery of
reasonable costs, fees, expenses -- reasonable cost of
attorney's fees or expenses, if they file something within 21
days of the date of this order. I'm not promising that I will
allow those to be paid, and I'll permit plaintiffs to oppose
it, but I will give you the opportunity to make that argument
formally and with a specific itemized detailing of your costs
and expenses.
MR. PICKLE: Okay. Your Honor, if the discovery in
this case and work product is not transferable to -- to the
other -- the future actions, either by the plaintiff or
ourselves, that would prejudice the defendants.
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 --
MR. PICKLE: That would mean, your Honor, that we
would have to spend months and months litigating again to get
the documents from Remnant, for example.
THE COURT: There is going to be no lawsuit pending. You'll have -- we'll have to wait and see how that plays out and in what court.
MR. PICKLE: And the one other thing, your Honor, is
that the MidCountry Bank records, as far as I know, they were
never designated confidential by MidCountry Bank, and it cost
us $3,500 to get those.
THE COURT: Again, I'm giving you 21 days to file
something with me setting forth what you believe are your
reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred in
this litigation. Again, I'm not promising I'm going to pay any of them, or permit them to be paid, but I will entertain any filing you wish to make.
MR. JOY: Your Honor, are you looking for -- this is
now Gailon Joy again.
Are you looking for our motion's total cost or --
THE COURT: Please characterize it as a motion, so
that it -- under the computer system, it -- it's flagged as
something requiring my action.
MR. JOY: Thank you.
THE COURT: But you can, you know, designate it
however you wish or think it's appropriate, and I'll permit
plaintiffs to oppose whatever it is you file, and I'll make
whatever decision I think is right under the circumstances.
I'll simply give you that opportunity is all I'm doing at this
point. Okay?
And if I do award -- decide to award any kind of costs
or expenses or fees, it will obviously be a further condition
of the order of voluntary dismissal, but we'll -- we'll take
that up as it comes.
MR. SIMPSON: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: And I'll retain jurisdiction for that
purpose.
Okay. All right. If there's nothing further, then
we'll stand in recess...
Pacer Docket Entry:
Filed: 10/30/2008
Entered: 10/31/2008 Order on Motion to Dismiss
Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: Status Conference held on 10/30/2008. Case called, Counsel and dft's pro-se appear for status conference, Court hears arguments of counsel re: motion to dismiss, Court rules granting 120 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice; The Court orders dismissal with conditions stated on the record, Any renewed claims brought by plaintiff shall be brought in this division in the District of MA. as ordered on the record, Court orders all confidential documents returned, All subpoenas are ordered moot, Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned, Court orders any motion for costs to be filed by 11/21/08. Order of dismissal to issue, (Court Reporter: M. Kusa-Ryll.)(Attorneys present: Simpson,Pucci/Dft's Joy and Pickle - Pro se) (Castles, Martin) (Entered: 10/31/2008)
Pacer Docket Entry:
210 Filed & Entered: 12/18/2009 Motion to Compel
Terminated: 01/29/2010
MOTION to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle.(Pickle, Robert)
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 210 Filed 12/18/2009
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFFS’ COUNSEL TO RETURN THE MIDCOUNTRY RECORDS
Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 11(a) and the court’s inherent power, Defendants move this Court to order Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the bank records produced by MidCountry Bank (“MidCountry records”) to this Court.
Defendants have designated the MidCountry records to be part of the record on appeal, and have requested these records to be forwarded to the Court of Appeals. Contrary to this Court’s order of October 30, 2008, Plaintiffs’ counsel obtained the only copy of these sealed records from the federal courthouse in Worcester, Massachusetts. Plaintiffs’ counsel must therefore return the MidCountry records to the Court, certifying that the returned records do not differ in quantity or content from that which he/they received. The clerk of court’s act of surrendering the Court’s sole copy of the MidCountry records to a party that did not own them, was not entitled to them, and had not paid for them, all contrary to this Court’s order of October 30, 2008, constituted a profound expropriation of Defendants’ property and a violation of the Fifth Amendment by the Court. Since this Court’s order of October 30, 2008, has never yet been executed by returning them “to the party that produced” them (Doc. 141 p. 13), that order should be stayed until the conclusion of Defendants’ appeals, if a stay is required to prevent such return. By this motion, Defendants do not waive their right to pursue other forms of redress.
WHEREFORE, Defendants pray the Court to compel Plaintiffs’ counsel to return the MidCountry records to this Court, certifying that the returned records do not differ in quantity or content from that which he/they received; Defendants pray the Court to forward the MidCountry records to the Court of Appeals; Defendants pray the Court to stay the not yet executed order of October 30, 2008, if such a stay is required to prevent the return of the MidCountry records to MidCountry; and Defendants pray the Court to grant whatever further relief this Court deems equitable and just.
Dated: December 18, 2009
and
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Gailon Arthur Joy, pro se
....
/s/ Robert Pickle, pro se
.....
Pacer Docket Entry:
Filed & Entered: 01/29/2010 Order on Motion to Compel
Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying [210] Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle. (Belpedio, Lisa)
edit: to add quote box
-
You appear to be in denial, sorry, but that won't change the facts. You already argued this in court, and the Magistrate Judge quite obviously did not agree with you, just as Judge Saylor did not in the status conference. You were/are wrong and you lost.
Cindy, based on what you yourself posted, you are the one in denial, not me. In the only status conference we have had since the motion to dismiss was filed, Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.
As far as whether the Magistrate Judge did or did not agree with this indisputable fact, he did not say.
-
leave the spin machine behind and get it right..
you are the one in denial, not me.
You are a character, Mr Pickle.
"Oho!' said the pot to the kettle;
"You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you're given a crack."
"Not so! not so! kettle said to the pot;
"'Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean -without blemish or blot-
That your blackness is mirrored in me"
* Maxwell's Elementary Grammar.
What are the Origins of the Phrase "the Pot Calling the Kettle Black"?
The origins of the phrase date back to at least the 1600s, when several writers published books or plays which included wordplays on the theme of the pot calling the kettle black. Despite suggestions that the phrase is racist or nonsensical, the meaning is actually quite obvious when one considers the conditions of a medieval kitchen.
Typically, pots and kettles were made from heavy materials like cast iron, to ensure that they would last and hold up to heat. Cast iron tends to turn black with use, as it collects oil, food residue, and smoke from the kitchen. Both pots and kettles would also have been heated over an open fire in a kitchen of the medieval period. As a result, they would have become streaked with black smoke despite the best cleaning efforts.
Since both are black, the pot calling the kettle black would clearly be an act of hypocrisy. The act could also be described by “it takes one to know one,” and it suggests a certain blindness to one's personal characteristics. There is another explanation for the term, involving the pot seeing its black reflection reflected in a polished copper kettle. In this sense of the pot calling the kettle black, the pot does not realize that it is describing itself.
* "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye,
but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
* "People who live in glass houses should not throw stones".
-
I backed up my comments with concrete, indisputable facts. You have not.
Come on, Cindy, leave the spin machine behind and get it right. 3ABN could not have truthfully asked that the MidCountry records be "returned" to it since they never had them. And the judge ordered them to be returned to MidCountry, which was not what 3ABN requested.
Be specific: what did I state above that is not 100% correct and accurate?
Cindy, based on what you yourself posted, you are the one in denial, not me. In the only status conference we have had since the motion to dismiss was filed, Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.
As far as whether the Magistrate Judge did or did not agree with this indisputable fact, he did not say.
Again, be specific and state what above is not 100% correct and accurate.
It is very easy to make vague assertions.
-
You appear to be in denial, sorry, but that won't change the facts. You already argued this in court, and the Magistrate Judge quite obviously did not agree with you, just as Judge Saylor did not in the status conference. You were/are wrong and you lost.
Cindy, based on what you yourself posted, you are the one in denial, not me. In the only status conference we have had since the motion to dismiss was filed, Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.
No, Bob. You are saying he explicitly and specifically ordered that "the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank" That is your interpretation, that is your understanding, and that is what you claim he meant. But you are adding the words "Mid County Bank" Judge Saylor didn't say that. What he actually said was this, and unlike you I can quote what he said in that status conference:
"And any records that were delivered under seal and that are in the custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party that produced those documents."
The party you requested bank records from in your discovery requests during the lawsuit was Danny Shelton. Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena for his bank records to his bank didn't change that.
You even filed a Motion in the subpoena case asking the court to Dismiss his motion to quash the subpoena for his bank records calling them the bank's business records, and claiming he had no standing, and asking that his oppisition and arguments be stricken from the record, and you claimed that you had issued the subpoena to a "non-party", and again I quote, and I am quoting you, Mr Pickle, from your memorandum:
"Since Plaintiff Shelton has not made or demonstrated a claim of privilege in the information contained in the business records of the bank, he lacks standing to challenge a subpoena to a non-party, and his motions should therefore be dismissed."
Your motion was of course denied, and the court allowed DS to keep challenging the subpoena for his records. --Which should have given you a clue imo, that he did have priveledge and rights,but no, you are in denial about that too for I read you repeating that same claim in one of your latest filings and actually claiming the court agreed with you, as if that too is some indisputable fact cuz you say the Judge asking questions meant that.--
Now you can continue living in your own little fantasy apart from reality if you choose, and you can argue with yourself, if you want about why you referred to your subpoena to the Mid County Bank as a subpoena to a non-party and are now claiming that the order to return the records "to the party that produced those documents" means the Mid-County Bank, but I am not going to keep trying to argue about the obvious to you on this topic beyond this post.
Judge Saylor explicitly and specifically ordered the bank records to be returned to MidCountry Bank.
As far as whether the Magistrate Judge did or did not agree with this indisputable fact, he did not say.
Bob, what you think and say is not an "indisputable fact". :wave: here I am disputing what you are claiming, because Judge Saylor did not say that, and Judge Hillman didn't have to use the exact words you require. He DENIED your Motion. That says it. That is enough for rational people to understand he did not agree with or accept your arguments.
Common sense and logic should tell you that if he agreed with it, and DS/3ABN were not the party that the records were supposed to be returned to, and the correct meaning of the order was that they be returned to the Mid County Bank, he would have ordered that. He would have granted your motion and ordered 3ABN to return the records to the court as you were asking. He didn't! Get a clue.
You know Bob, there's an old saying, I am sure you have heard of it, it goes like this: "Actions speak louder than words" You may, perhaps, be excused for misunderstanding what the Judges meaning and intent was in ordering that the records be returned to the party that produced them, but there is no excuse to not understand the intent or meaning from the actions which have followed. There is no excuse for you not to see or comprehend that the attorneys, the Judges and the clerks all had a different understanding. There is no excuse for you to arrogantly claim in the face of that that your understanding is the only correct one and that it is an "indisputable fact" That is extremely arrogant and despotic in mo.
Those records were in the possession of a magistrate Judge, he read the order to return them issued by the District Court Judge and he understood it to mean 3abn was the party referred to. How do we know that? because he returned them to 3ABN! 3ABN's attorneys asked that the records be returned to them in their motion:
Ordering return to Plaintiffs of all materials supplied to Defendants that Plaintiffs designated as Confidential under the Confidentiality and Protective Order issued in this case on April 17, 2008 (ECF Doc 60), including but not limited to the records of MidCountry Bank which were delivered under under seal to, and remain in the custody of, Magistrate Judge Hillman
Judge Saylor Granted their Motion and ordered:"Records in possession of Mag. Judge will be returned."
You filed your Motion asking them to be returned to the court, and you made your arguments about how they were given to the wrong party and why, and the Magistrate rejected them, and denied your motion, He allowed 3abn to keep them.
The lawsuit is over Danny's bank records are his, and they are not your business and you have no business with them. It's done, get over it, and move on!
Now I am done about this, and just as Judge Hillman did after denying your motions I am withdrawing from this particular topic.
--
Filed & Entered: 01/29/2010
Order on Motion to Compel
Docket Text: Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman: Electronic ORDER entered denying [210] Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Counsel to Return the MidCountry Records by Gailon Arthur Joy, Robert Pickle. (Belpedio, Lisa)
--
Filed & Entered: 01/29/2010
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge
Docket Text: Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge Timothy S. Hillman. (Belpedio, Lisa)
-
"And any records that were delivered under seal and that are in the custody of the magistrate judge shall be returned to the party that produced those documents."
The party you requested bank records from in your discovery requests during the lawsuit was Danny Shelton.
Judge Saylor referred to the party that produced those records, not the party I requested them from. His wording couldn't be clearer.
Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena for his bank records to his bank didn't change that.
Again, stop the spin and deceit.
The first subpoena we served on MidCountry Bank is dated Dece,ber 6, 2007. See p. 49 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-42.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-42.pdf).
My requests to produce for Danny Shelton were served on December 7, 2007. See p. 37 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-42.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-42.pdf).
The plaintiffs did not even file their motion for a confidentiality order until December 18, 2007. See p. 3 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-40.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-40.pdf).
... and you claimed that you had issued the subpoena to a "non-party", and again I quote, and I am quoting you, Mr Pickle, from your memorandum:
Nice try. But you ought to realize what the difference is between a non-party to a lawsuit and a non-party to a subpoena. MidCountry was a non-party to the lawsuit, and Danny was a non-party to the subpoena.
Your motion was of course denied, and the court allowed DS to keep challenging the subpoena for his records. --Which should have given you a clue imo, that he did have priveledge and rights,but no, you are in denial about that too for I read you repeating that same claim in one of your latest filings and actually claiming the court agreed with you, as if that too is some indisputable fact cuz you say the Judge asking questions meant that.--
Come on, Cindy, get it right. My motion to dismiss was denied as moot by Magistrate Judge Boylan because he denied Danny's motion to quash. See http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mnd-08mc00007/mnd-08mc00007-doc-28.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mnd-08mc00007/mnd-08mc00007-doc-28.pdf). In other words, since he denied Danny's motion to quash, there wasn't any point to grant my motion and dismiss Danny's motion.
... here I am disputing what you are claiming, because Judge Saylor did not say that, ...
Sure he did. You've quoted it multiple times now. Even Simpson admits that those words don't apply to Danny.
Those records were in the possession of a magistrate Judge, he read the order to return them issued by the District Court Judge and he understood it to mean 3abn was the party referred to. How do we know that? because he returned them to 3ABN!
Then if Hillman gave them to 3ABN when Danny was squawking about them being given to anyone other than himself, there was no reason not to give them to us too.
The lawsuit is over Danny's bank records are his, and they are not your business and you have no business with them. It's done, get over it, and move on!
Then Danny ought to reimburse us for what we had to pay for those records. And he should also sign a stipulation not to file an anti-SLAPP motion if there is future litigation. Both these provisions are only fair if he wants to try to stack things in his favor despite case law and legal precedent.
-
And this round goes to . . . Ian. You can manipulate the info RJP, but that doesn't make you right. Happens all the time on Capitol Hill. Both sides use the info to make their case. A judge on the other hand, takes the info and makes an impartial decision. The judges decisions support Cindy completely.
What is your legal record so far? Maybe 3 wins and 25 loses?
Speaks volumes.
-
anyman, vague assertions are easy. Try being specific.
For example, Cindy asserted that our subpoena of MidCountry was an end run around the confidentiality issues Danny wanted to bring up after I served my requests to produce on him. And yet, according to what his side filed, our subpoena of MidCountry is dated before my requests to produce.
So in what specific way did Cindy win on that point?
And in what way did Cindy win when what she quoted proves beyond any doubt that Saylor ordered the MidCountry records to be returned to MidCountry?
I'd say that if you stacked everything up, we've probably won more than the other side, and lost less.
-
There was no vagueness in my comments.
A goodly amount of your subpoenas were "end arounds" as you knew there was no chance you were going to get all the unnecessary documentation you wanted. The fact that the subpoena was dated a day before the discovery request is simply evidence that you had no idea what to do, so you used the shot gun approach hoping you would score something, some how. Ineffective lawyering on your part and evidences you were unsure what to do.
The other aspect of the whole subpeona fiasco is that it tells the world you knew you had nothing to substantiate your defamatory claims and you had to collect as much discovery material as you could in the hope that you might find something you could knit into substantiation of your claims. Your footing has been weak from day one. Anyone following this should be able to ascertain the sandy foundation you built your house on.
On the other hand, Ian has not had to edit, couch, or manipulate one piece of the documentation used to substantiate her case. When judges consider any documentation - especially an order - the default to the plain meaning of the text. You need to spend some time reading the portion of opinions that establish "Standard of Review." Judges don't sit around trying to work their interpretation into a case the way you do - constantly do. They have no vested interested so the plain language interpretation of a statute is all that concerns them. You can berate them, libel them, they are still going to do what judges do - render impartial decisions based on the plain language. Over and over again judges have done this and you have made your accusations, accused judges of misconduct, lawyers of malpractice . . . and yet consistently you have lost. While that doesn't seem to have opened your eyes, had it, you would have realized early on that you had not a leg to stand on.
I don't need to be specific, and if I was it would take a multitude of posts to cover your inaccuracies, misrepresentations, lies, and efforts to defeat God. Your Jesuit training is serving you well. Cindy made her case, made if convincingly, and your response is one of your weakest yet.
The most amusing aspect of your response is your belief that you have "won" more than you have lost - that is unless you don't count your own soul in the lost column, because it's there at this point.
-
Your comments are uncalled for and inappropriate.
I will respond to one point:
The other aspect of the whole subpeona fiasco is that it tells the world you knew you had nothing to substantiate your defamatory claims and you had to collect as much discovery material as you could in the hope that you might find something you could knit into substantiation of your claims.
Not so, and any paralegal wannabe lawyer ought to know that.
Danny Shelton's allegations against us included defamation per se. The per se part put the burden of proof on us to some extent. That being so, we had to prove the truth of our statements rather than Danny having to prove the falsehood of our statements.
If Danny had been content with just suing us for defamation, it wouldn't have been that way. But he would have then had the burden of proof, not us.
A journalist needs two sources before going to press. He doesn't have to be able to prove a point in court before printing a story. He just needs two sources.
So it is readily apparent that the evidence one needs when defending one's self in a defamation per se case goes well beyond what one needs before printing a story.
Now if you are interested in having a meaningful discussion, kindly state what report we made that you believe wasn't accurate, and/or didn't have two corroborating sources.
Start about at the beginning if you want.
- Danny said Linda's Toyota Sequoia was titled in his name too, but his name never was on the title.
- Walt Thompson never contacted any of Tommy Shelton's alleged victims.
- Walt said that Danny told him that the allegations were all 30 years old, even though both Walt and Danny had a letter that suggested that there were quite recent allegations in Virginia.
Nothing looks wrong with any of those three.
It was Danny and 3ABN that never had evidence to substantiate their claims, not us. The problem is they knew that even if they did extensive discovery, they wouldn't have found any.
-
Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.
-
Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.
Why are you asking Bob about why we are addressing his minutia? How would he know?
Why do you prefer to talk about people and surmise then talk directly to those people and get your answers from them?
-
anyman, vague assertions are easy. Try being specific.
For example, Cindy asserted that our subpoena of MidCountry was an end run around the confidentiality issues Danny wanted to bring up after I served my requests to produce on him. And yet, according to what his side filed, our subpoena of MidCountry is dated before my requests to produce.
So in what specific way did Cindy win on that point?
My bad. I should know better by now than to try and be done with a topic as you continually bring up and argue about some other or new piece of minutia, instead of moving on and starting a new topic or thread....
First off, Can we try and keep in mind what is important here? It's not really about winning Bob. It's about HOW you play the game. (sound familiar?) It's not really about you being right, it's not even about me being right, it's about WHAT is right.
In this instance for me, it's about telling the truth, as in the whole truth, and not just telling half the truth like you do. I believe that telling the whole story and being open and honest (regardless of personal pov andjudgments) should come before self (as in you or me winning or you trying to prove you are right to others).
I think it is important when talking to all publicly to present all and let all decide for themselves what to believe, instead of presenting part, or telling them what to think and believe. IMO, your half truths lead others to believe lies. I don't like that. I believe that is wrong. Furthermore, I believe you know that and believe it too. Half truths in my book are the same as mixing truth with error which is babble and causes confusion (aka Babylon). I know you are well acquainted with that concept so it is hard for me to comprehend how you have gotten so far off the straight and narrow path here and keep running willy nilly down the expressway you are on, constantly trying too justify yourself and prove you are right.
Case in point, your self serving half truth here:
For example, Cindy asserted that our subpoena of MidCountry was an end run around the confidentiality issues Danny wanted to bring up after I served my requests to produce on him. And yet, according to what his side filed, our subpoena of MidCountry is dated before my requests to produce.
I know what I meant and I have stricken out what you say I said and meant above, here's what I actually said:
"Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena.."
I meant exactly that. Your subpoena (actually all of them, not just the one to Mid County bank) were an attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in the lawsuit in regards to discovery. Those issues were brought up and discussed back and forth between both parties long before they were forced to file that Motion and ask the court to decide and rule, because you and Joy wouldn't reason together with them, you wouldn't compromise and come to any kind of agreement about confidentiality, and you refused to stipulate to anything, but instead ran out and started issuing subpoenas.
You were never asked to compromise the truth, you were never refused any relevant materials you needed disclosed to you to argue and settle the case. All they wanted was assurance that you wouldn't make confidential information available to the public. They wanted a stipulated agreement which would afford you that same protection, consideration and respect.
The U.S District court Judge and the Magistrate Judge in the Massachusetts lawsuit case would have insured that all you needed and that was relevant as far as discovery material in the lawsuit was provided to you and Joy, but you didn't want that, you asked for and wanted all. You know it, and I know it, and you know God knows it and you know that the court documents prove it. Your explanations, sadly, very sadly, are always disingenuous at best and outright sewing of confusion and deception at worst. You want specifics and not vague assertions?
ok.
See my next post where I fill in the blanks you left when you told half the truth. Those blanks reveal another part of your story and support what I just posted above...
I'll be back to post that as soon as I can find the citations to the references and things I am referring to. ;)
-
You were never asked to compromise the truth, you were never refused any relevant materials you needed disclosed to you to argue and settle the case.
It's really remarkable that after pontificating about your desire to tell the whole truth, you would make such a clearly false statement. For just one example, consider the fact that they refused to give us the Sept. and Nov. 2004 issues of 3ABN World, documents that were clearly never confidential.
All they wanted was assurance that you wouldn't make confidential information available to the public. They wanted a stipulated agreement which would afford you that same protection, consideration and respect.
At the time they were pushing the confidentiality thing, Gailon told me that what they really wanted was to prevent us from being able to litigate by making it difficult for us to enter stuff in the record. At the time I didn't see, partly because I didn't understand why we neede3d to get stuff in the record, and partly because I didn't see how the confidentiality issue could do that.
But now I understand since they used the confidentiality order to improperly prevent us from filing relevant documents with the court, even under seal.
I know what I meant and I have stricken out what you say I said and meant above, here's what I actually said:
"Your attempted end run around the protection and confidentiality issues in that case by issuing a subpoena.."
I suppose that if you want to make arguments Hayes and Simpson never made, I suppose you can. But it's not an end run and never was.
Remember, Danny Shelton is a very dishonest man. You can't trust him, or his lawyers. Thus, every document he ever produces would potentially have to be challenged. And the only way to realistically challenge any bank statements he produces would be to subpoena them from the bank. I would think it unlikely that Danny could convince a bank to tamper with the documents. What a firestorm that would cause.
-
Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.
Personally, George, I think they want to go round and round about nonsense to try to keep us from recognizing what legal blow we need to deliver next, and what deadlines exist for that blow.
-
Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.
Personally, George, I think they want to go round and round about nonsense to try to keep us from recognizing what legal blow we need to deliver next, and what deadlines exist for that blow.
I am absolutely certain you make such statements with complete sincerity but the comic relief such statements provide suggests you take yourself far too seriously, Bob.
-
Bob, why do you suppose this sudden interest in the minutiea of a case they seem to feel is gone and off the table.
Personally, George, I think they want to go round and round about nonsense to try to keep us from recognizing what legal blow we need to deliver next, and what deadlines exist for that blow.
I am absolutely certain you make such statements with complete sincerity but the comic relief such statements provide suggests you take yourself far too seriously, Bob.
It also, IMHO, reveals his propensity to just make things up based on paranoia and
a bent to believe evil of others and thus only look for and only find or see that.
Maybe, Mr Pickle will let us know what the next legal blow was and the time for that deadline was after it comes to pass? I certainly don't want to overlook it as I have not noticed any legal blows so far. The case hadn't even moved out of the discovery faze or into trial when it was dismissed over a year ago.
-
The case hadn't even moved out of the discovery faze or into trial when it was dismissed over a year ago.
I wonder why that was? (Did you mean "discovery phase", by the way?)
-
I think everything is up to date at 3ABNvJoy.com (http://www.3ABNvJoy.com/) now. Including the objections we filed the other day to the magistrate judge's orders.
Artiste, they asked to have the case dismissed in order to try to prevent us from getting any more material as damaging as the Remnant documents, and to try to insulate themselves from liability for pursing a frivolous case.
It is interesting that the judge stated clearly more than once that he wanted things to move along quickly, but they kept dragging their feet.
-
So now you can read people's minds Pickle? How could you possibly know "they" were trying to keep you from getting any more information. I really have my doubts about that scenario.
The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging. You have offered no proof for this statement and so it would be better not to even say it. Otherwise, bring forth your proof.
I'd like to think that people work hard all week and like to enjoy quiet evenings with their families? Why should they continue to try to dig up information for you when they have done nothing wrong? It is a waste of their time and waste of time for the Judges and Courts.
****************************************
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.
-
Junebug - Do you have proof for your statement "The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging." ??? Maybe in the same vain it would be better for you not to say it, otherwise, bring forth your proof.
-
I sure do have evidence!!! We have many friends at Remnant, including Dwight. They are hard workers for the Lord and doing His will. Their lives testify to the Lord blessings on them. Hundreds of baptisms are the results.
THAT is my evidence. And THAT is how I know Pickle is wrong.
"That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God." Col 1:10
"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Matt 5:16
"Blessed are they which do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." Rev 22:14
-
THAT is your opinion, not evidence. Evidence would be open financial records.
-
...We have many friends at Remnant, including Dwight... Hundreds of baptisms are the results.
So that's the proof...
-
Let me explain a little further.
1 Tim 5:25 says "Likewise also the good works of some are manifest beforehand; and they that are otherwise cannot be hid." "They that do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate; Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they maylay hold on eternal life." 1 Tim 6:18
2 Tim 3:17 says, "...throughly furnished unto all good works."
1 Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles; that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation..."
James 2:18 "Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works and I will show theee my faith by my works."
And Jesus Himself said to those who hated him that if they didn't believe He was the Son of God to at LEAST believe for HIS WORKS SAKE.
I know John Martin and Dwight Hall. They have stayed in my home. These are wonderful friends who are good men. We keep in touch by phone since they've moved further away from us. They work hard for the Lord. They have published the writings of Mrs. White and sent them out to thousands. They have devoted their whole lives to publish truth. God has blessed their work abundantly!!
The proof is in their very works! The Bible says our works will follow us (Rev 14:13) The works of Remnant Publishing are honest and true.
-
None of that is proof that they did not do some financial shady deal with Danny Shelton or 3ABN. I know a man in our church that most would say the same things about. Godly man, baptisms, preaches the truth, etc. I worked with him for 10 years as a business partner. The rules of the government and God were made for others to follow. ( He would cheat at golf.)
Man looks on the outward appearance but God looks and judges by the heart. And only He knows what is in the heart. If God judges the man I am talking about as a goat I am sure he will be shocked. "But Lord, I worked in Your Name for all those years for Your Church and in independent ministries. I preached about the evils in the church. I led many to baptism. I always had an Ellen White quote to give someone when they had problems." You know the rest.
-
The same kinds of arguments have been around for a long time. In a discussion about 3ABN a few years back (October 2005) I was told the following incident that happened in Africa.
A "great" evangelist was getting ready for a new campaign where everybody expected he'd be winning at least another hundred souls for Christ. At that point it was discovered that the evangelist had two sets of families in different towns. Yes, he had a wife in each place with whom he had children. It was also discovered the evangelist had been involved in terrible crimes.
When Church authorities wanted to dismiss this man from the ministry he was supposed to have begged them to let him at least finish the planned evangelistic effort where he promised he'd deliver at least a hundred new souls to the church. The church administrators reluctantly agreed to let him do this because it would benefit the Church.
The argument, as it was presented to me by a 3ABN defender, was that if the lord could use a man like that, then he certainly could use a man like Mr. Danny Shelton. Wasn't this a "good" argument?
-
Shocking illustration, Johann!
-
I was told this by a financial administrator. I suppose the church had already spent a large amount of money preparing for the great campaign. It would have been a waste of money if they had dismissed the evangelist as soon as they found out what he had done, and if they kept him on the payroll for a while they were certain of winning a great number of souls. And that counts on the reports of progress.
-
Junebug - Do you have proof for your statement "The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging." ??? Maybe in the same vain it would be better for you not to say it, otherwise, bring forth your proof.
Grat, -I know for a fact that you, yourself, have not seen the remnant materials, so should not be saying anything here yourself.
Isn't it better to be gracious, and to balance mercy and justice?
Believing evil of another and assuming guilt until you see proof of innocence, or demanding that others presume guilt and not say anything in defense unless they can prove the person they are defending is worthy of that is not what we are called to do as God's people, is it?
-
Grat, -I know for a fact that you, yourself, have not seen the remnant materials
How do you know that, N.S.?
If you know for a fact...by sleuthing, P.I. investigation, or how?
-
Junebug, since you are a good friend of Dwight's, could you tell us how much money he and his family make from Remnant each year?
Remember to include not just his salary, but also the payments they receive from renting the building Remnant is in, and from renting the plane.
And don't forget the 6% interest on the $460,000 or $500,000 or whatever it might be now that Remnant pays to the Halls.
Somehow I think that given the fact that you can't find a bank to pay you 6% these days, that 6% is a bit high.
-
The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging. You have offered no proof for this statement and so it would be better not to even say it. Otherwise, bring forth your proof.
Gladly. Just get me a signed statement by Danny and 3ABN saying that they relinquish their alleged confidentiality designation of the Remnant documents, and I'll be happy to.
But I highly doubt they want the truth out in the light. They would much rather keep everything hidden.
But let me ask you, since it is indisputable that Danny failed to report that Remnant income on his July 2006 financial affidavit, would you proclaim that your husband had done nothing wrong if he had refused to disclose perhaps half a million dollars in income in divorce related proceedings? In other words, if you and your husband were getting a divorce, and he was trying to hide assets from you so that you couldn't get your fair share, how would you feel?
And if he then sued those who were exposing his perfidy in order to cover it all up, how would you feel? And how would you feel when others trashed you for complaining about his perfidy?
-
One could always move on and become a motivational speaker. Bob, have you ever considered a career in that? You could perhaps charge a fee and go tell motivational miracle stories. I'm sure you could come up with a few, and they might be worth some money. Maybe you could talk to Remnant about publishing them.
-
Of course that could result in living in a van down by the river. (...and he body-slams the coffee table)
-
Junebug - Do you have proof for your statement "The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging." ??? Maybe in the same vain it would be better for you not to say it, otherwise, bring forth your proof.
Grat, -I know for a fact that you, yourself, have not seen the remnant materials, so should not be saying anything here yourself.
Isn't it better to be gracious, and to balance mercy and justice?
Believing evil of another and assuming guilt until you see proof of innocence, or demanding that others presume guilt and not say anything in defense unless they can prove the person they are defending is worthy of that is not what we are called to do as God's people, is it?
Nosir Myzing - You seemed to sir Myze that I sir Myzed that I had seen the remnant materials. I never even came close to saying such a thing and you know it. You are not that stupid and knew exactly what I was saying. I pointed out something that you didn't like to have pointed out. What was good for the goose should be good for the gander.
-
One could always move on and become a motivational speaker. Bob, have you ever considered a career in that? You could perhaps charge a fee and go tell motivational miracle stories. I'm sure you could come up with a few, and they might be worth some money. Maybe you could talk to Remnant about publishing them.
Of course that could result in living in a van down by the river. (...and he body-slams the coffee table)
So do you think Mr. DannyShelton.com (http://www.DannyShelton.com/) will have to move?
Interesting how his home page has 4 + 2 pictures of himself on it. Just seems like a bit much.
I remember going across the bridge to St. Louis for the 2005 GC session. That big billboard with that big picture of him. At least every page of 3ABN's website doesn't have his picture on it anymore ... so far.
-
Interesting web site...and quite impressive!
-
Going to try to book him?
-
Well..probably not...
-
Glory to Danny Shelton
SAMPLE 8.5" x 11" Full Color Flyer
(1 Sided)
Use the image file HERE (1.1mb JPEG) to build your own Danny Shelton Flyer. Use Word, InDesign, or another layout program.
"Build your own [Glory to] Danny Shelton Flyer." Superb ingenuity.
-
Oh my!
-
Junebug, since you are a good friend of Dwight's, could you tell us how much money he and his family make from Remnant each year?
Remember to include not just his salary, but also the payments they receive from renting the building Remnant is in, and from renting the plane.
And don't forget the 6% interest on the $460,000 or $500,000 or whatever it might be now that Remnant pays to the Halls.
Somehow I think that given the fact that you can't find a bank to pay you 6% these days, that 6% is a bit high.
I don't see any proof of your assertions. Where is it? Need the documentation.
-
The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging. You have offered no proof for this statement and so it would be better not to even say it. Otherwise, bring forth your proof.
Gladly. Just get me a signed statement by Danny and 3ABN saying that they relinquish their alleged confidentiality designation of the Remnant documents, and I'll be happy to.
But I highly doubt they want the truth out in the light. They would much rather keep everything hidden.
But let me ask you, since it is indisputable that Danny failed to report that Remnant income on his July 2006 financial affidavit, would you proclaim that your husband had done nothing wrong if he had refused to disclose perhaps half a million dollars in income in divorce related proceedings? In other words, if you and your husband were getting a divorce, and he was trying to hide assets from you so that you couldn't get your fair share, how would you feel?
And if he then sued those who were exposing his perfidy in order to cover it all up, how would you feel? And how would you feel when others trashed you for complaining about his perfidy?
NO, it isn't Danny's permission you need. It is the Judge's as this was a Court action by a Judge!!
LS has not been trashed at all. It is a figment of her imagination. But she has felt free to trash 3ABN and Danny and much of what was said was untrue. I don't know how many times it needs to be said but THERE ARE NO HIDDEN ASSETS Pickle. Don't throw out your accusations unless you can back them up with documented proof.
-
I'm done on this topic. Good-by.
-
I'm done on this topic. Good-by.
:goodpost:
-
I'm done on this topic. Good-by.
It would appear that the reason you are done is that you don't answer questions, can't carry on a decent conversation, and would prefer to obfuscate rather than deal with matters honestly and openly.
NO, it isn't Danny's permission you need. It is the Judge's as this was a Court action by a Judge!!
The court ordered confidentiality order only applies to things that Danny and 3ABN declare to be confidential, and then it really only applies to things they honestly believe qualify for protection.
Thus, you get the signed statement, and I'll then post. But I don't think you really want to see the proof.
LS has not been trashed at all. It is a figment of her imagination. But she has felt free to trash 3ABN and Danny and much of what was said was untrue.
I didn't say anything about that in the post you were replyng to. But your assertion is patently false.
I don't know how many times it needs to be said but THERE ARE NO HIDDEN ASSETS Pickle. Don't throw out your accusations unless you can back them up with documented proof.
I think you have to know that what you just said is a bald faced lie, since it is an indisputable fact that Danny failed to disclose 1¢ of income from Remnant on his July 2006 financial affidavit, and even Simpson admitted that the Remnant documents prove that Danny got income from Remnant.
And based on Simpson's own statements, we can say that it is an indisputable fact that Danny got kickbacks from remnant for sales by Remnant of Danny booklets published by PPPA.
I don't see any proof of your assertions. Where is it? Need the documentation.
For the info about the building and plane rentals, see the article on Save-3ABN.com (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-remnant-hides-royalties.htm). For info about the 6% interest on the $460,000 to $500,000 loans, see Remnant's financial statements and 990's which can be obtained from the Michigan Attorney General's office.
Or, simply call up Dwight and ask him. He should be happy to tell you.
According to the available records, of the three Halls that had loaned Remnant money through 2008, Dwight only loaned $40,000, which was paid off during 2008.
The loans are identified as being working capital. It would be interesting to know whether these loans were necessary because of any fines or whatever that had to be paid to the IRS.
-
The Remnant ministries materials were NOT damaging. You have offered no proof for this statement and so it would be better not to even say it. Otherwise, bring forth your proof.
Gladly. Just get me a signed statement by Danny and 3ABN saying that they relinquish their alleged confidentiality designation of the Remnant documents, and I'll be happy to.
But I highly doubt they want the truth out in the light. They would much rather keep everything hidden.
But let me ask you, since it is indisputable that Danny failed to report that Remnant income on his July 2006 financial affidavit, would you proclaim that your husband had done nothing wrong if he had refused to disclose perhaps half a million dollars in income in divorce related proceedings? In other words, if you and your husband were getting a divorce, and he was trying to hide assets from you so that you couldn't get your fair share, how would you feel?
And if he then sued those who were exposing his perfidy in order to cover it all up, how would you feel? And how would you feel when others trashed you for complaining about his perfidy?
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
I'm only replying here to point this DATE of July 2006. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE. 2006 is TWO YEARS after the divorce. It doesn't matter what DS made because LS does not get ANY of it. So continue to snoop into the lives of these people and proceed to make it public--no one cares.
No Pickle, I'm not running away or refusing to answer your questions. You REFUSE to put on your glasses and see the TRUTH. You are a hopeless case of obsession. :hamster:
-
I'm only replying here to point this DATE of July 2006. WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE. 2006 is TWO YEARS after the divorce.
Junebug, for all your boasted conservatism, what am I to make of your comment above? That not only do you think that a minor being consenting makes a difference, but also that you think that a financial affidavit filed two years after a divorce can contain perjury? That being two years later sanctifies perjury?
Could you please explain your comment, how you think that the date of the affidavit being two years later means that the affidavit can contain false information, and that then Danny Shelton is off the hook?
Danny's salary in 3ABN's 2004 Form 990 (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2004.pdf) was reported as being $59,294, in 3ABN's 2005 Form 990 (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2005.pdf) was reported as being $70,944, and in 3ABN's 2006 Form 990 (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2006.pdf) was reported as being $72,802. Since the financial affidavit reported monthly income of $5,991, it seems that Danny was reporting what he thought his 2006 income would be, not what his 2004 income was.
$5,991 a month x 12 months = $71,892.
$72,802 - $71,892 = $910.
Maybe he got a $910 Christmas bonus or a raise or something, instead of a pink slip like he should have gotten.
But that's all irrelevant, since Danny failed to report any book income on that financial affidavit, whether it was book income from 2004, 2005, or the killing he made in 2006.
It doesn't matter what DS made because LS does not get ANY of it.
This would be true if Danny succeeds in perpetrating what heaven must consider theft.
Antichrist Agenda is part of Danny and Linda's marital property. So also are Danny's PPPA booklets. Linda has a right to part of the kickbacks and royalties Danny has gotten for those books, unless Danny needs to pay back some of the money he got improperly.
So continue to snoop into the lives of these people and proceed to make it public--no one cares.
You may not care if you have abandoned conservative Christian family values. But not everyone has.
You REFUSE to put on your glasses and see the TRUTH. You are a hopeless case of obsession.
You might want to see an optometrist.
-
Regarding minor's being consenting - did anyone watch Opra yesterday? She interviewed 4 convicted child molesters. She asked one what effect his molestation had on his victim. His answer was that he had killed her. That his actions had changed forever who she was or would have been and that it was just as if he had murdered her.
This may not be the place for this as it is off topic but I couldn't get the thought out of my mind. I believe it is so true!
-
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
Junebug, Pastor Johann has spent 50 years of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in seven different countries; he has the perspective to make valid observations about what he observed going on at 3ABN while he was there.
-
Well, Junebug, since you did leave, I will respond......I will definitely agree that there is probably nothing more to the "hidden assets of DS and 3ABN"(at least nothing Bob can find).
However, I have to disagree about LS not being trashed. She was done wrong whether you all want to admit it or not. Danny and 3ABN did the right "corporate" thing to do, but not the right Godly thing to do. She was a co-founder of 3ABN, and they cheated her. simple as that. Later at least one defender reducing her contribution as little more than a glorified secretary. they will never be convicted in an earthly court of law of wrong doing for this, but when they answer to God about that, He won't be looking at it through "corporate: eyes. I think we can agree by now that Danny got way more than that just to "fade to bla........errr.......make that gray". LOL!!!
NO, it isn't Danny's permission you need. It is the Judge's as this was a Court action by a Judge!!
LS has not been trashed at all. It is a figment of her imagination. But she has felt free to trash 3ABN and Danny and much of what was said was untrue. I don't know how many times it needs to be said but THERE ARE NO HIDDEN ASSETS Pickle. Don't throw out your accusations unless you can back them up with documented proof.
-
I agree, princessdi, with you about LS. Linda was a person folks loved, sitting on the porch with her friendly and inspirational talks and music. Secretary? We who watched 3ABN in those days never had an inkling that she was just that. Too bad the listeners today won't be blessed by her presence. We don't watch very much 3ABN these days. I admit that I have a bad attitude :help: when it comes to Danny, but I either go out of the room or turn it off when Danny or Jim are on. Too much blab and pretending to be something they aren't. HOPE channel is a blessing.
-
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
Junebug, Pastor Johann has spent 50 years of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in seven different countries; he has the perspective to make valid observations about what he observed going on at 3ABN while he was there.
Edited to remove inappropriate content. You need to watch yourself, anyman.
-
HOPE channel is a blessing.
:amen:
-
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
Junebug, Pastor Johann has spent 50 years of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in seven different countries; he has the perspective to make valid observations about what he observed going on at 3ABN while he was there.
He certainly has a right to give his point of view and opinion on what he personally saw or experienced. I have never had a problem with that. As to whether it is valid or not, well that depends on whether the facts support it, and looking at what he has to say in context. One must also consider what all (not just Johann) observed and experienced and what their testimony is about those same things.
My problem with Johann's testimony is that he really has very little to say about what he observed while at 3abn, as he was very rarely even there. Most of what he has to say came from Linda's telling him these things while he was far off in another country. he says he was in constant contact. So what? He didn't witness these things himself. He simply believed what she told him and acted on it, and repeated them. He also refused to believe Walt Thompson, Danny Shelton or anyone else as he interpreted all they had to say and do based on what Linda and even Darrell Mundall told him.
He has made a case and tells the story of being fired for not saying what Danny Shelton told him to, that may be true to a fault. Danny Shelton told him that it wasn't about he, Danny Shelton and it wasn't about Linda Shelton it was about the ministry of 3ABN and putting the ministry and what was right first. He didn't and still doesn't believe that.
******************************************
******************************************
This is my observation and I believe it to be just as valid and appropriate as Artiste trusts that Johann's is.
3D
MODERATOR HAT ON
It appears that some are not aware of the administrative position that Johann holds at the Advent Talk site. Please show appropriate respect to that position. Failure to do so may affect your further posting privileges at Advent Talk.
MODERATOR HAT OFF
-
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
Junebug, Pastor Johann has spent 50 years of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in seven different countries; he has the perspective to make valid observations about what he observed going on at 3ABN while he was there.
He certainly has a right to give his point of view and opinion on what he personally saw or experienced. I have never had a problem with that. As to whether it is valid or not, well that depends on whether the facts support it, and looking at what he has to say in context. One must also consider what all (not just Johann) observed and experienced and what their testimony is about those same things.
My problem with Johann's testimony is that he really has very little to say about what he observed while at 3abn, as he was very rarely even there. Most of what he has to say came from Linda's telling him these things while he was far off in another country. he says he was in constant contact. So what? He didn't witness these things himself. He simply believed what she told him and acted on it, and repeated them. He also refused to believe Walt Thompson, Danny Shelton or anyone else as he interpreted all they had to say and do based on what Linda and even Darrell Mundall told him.
He has made a case and tells the story of being fired for not saying what Danny Shelton told him to, that may be true to a fault. Danny Shelton told him that it wasn't about he, Danny Shelton and it wasn't about Linda Shelton it was about the ministry of 3ABN and putting the ministry and what was right first. He didn't and still doesn't believe that.
****************************************
****************************************
This is my observation and I believe it to be just as valid and appropriate as Artiste trusts that Johann's is.
3D
Very well said. My prayer is that readers may open their minds and be teachable. When we think we know everything we cease to learn. Heads up people!
Donna
-
Danny Shelton told him that it wasn't about he, Danny Shelton and it wasn't about Linda Shelton it was about the ministry of 3ABN and putting the ministry and what was right first. He didn't and still doesn't believe that.
Well, then, why didn't Danny Shelton practice what he preached? Why did he cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton in 2003, the year before the divorce? That wasn't right, and that wasn't putting the ministry first.
And why didn't Danny Shelton do the godly thing at the end of 2006 when this corruption came to light? Why didn't he simply apologize from the heart, and resign? That would have been right, and that would have put 3ABN's ministry first.
If any of the board members had opposed his resignation, he could have simply told them, "Don't be so stupid."
Then again, Danny Shelton's concern has been Danny Shelton, not 3ABN. Otherwise, he wouldn't have siphoned off about $749,000 to $809,000 from 2005 to 2007.
-
Well, Junebug, since you did leave, I will respond......I will definitely agree that there is probably nothing more to the "hidden assets of DS and 3ABN"(at least nothing Bob can find).
Problem is, Di, I can't tell you what I found in the Remnant documents, so you don't know what I did or did not find. But if some media outlet wanted to, they could probably petition the court to see the documents and affidavit we filed with the First Circuit.
-
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
Junebug, Pastor Johann has spent 50 years of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in seven different countries; he has the perspective to make valid observations about what he observed going on at 3ABN while he was there.
He certainly has a right to give his point of view and opinion on what he personally saw or experienced. I have never had a problem with that. As to whether it is valid or not, well that depends on whether the facts support it, and looking at what he has to say in context. One must also consider what all (not just Johann) observed and experienced and what their testimony is about those same things.
My problem with Johann's testimony is that he really has very little to say about what he observed while at 3abn, as he was very rarely even there. Most of what he has to say came from Linda's telling him these things while he was far off in another country. he says he was in constant contact. So what? He didn't witness these things himself. He simply believed what she told him and acted on it, and repeated them. He also refused to believe Walt Thompson, Danny Shelton or anyone else as he interpreted all they had to say and do based on what Linda and even Darrell Mundall told him.
Who told you this? Who are you, and what did you experience? There are a number of untruths in what you have stated here.
I have hardly any information from Linda Shelton nor Darrell Mundall in comparison with information gained from Walt Thompson and Danny Shelton himself.
Were you in Norway when Linda was there? What did you experience during her stay there? False rumors of what happened there started all of this. And then you dare claiming that I did not experience anything myself. Your claims make you untrustworthy.
When I later on different occasions confronted a couple of members of the board with what I had experienced I was told that what really happened did not matter. Their only concern was that, according to their opinion, 3ABN could not go on without Danny Shelton, and therefore it made no difference who was telling the truth. I also have an e-mail from Danny himself where he claims that the truth is only what he thinks will benefit himself - and thereby 3ABN.
He has made a case and tells the story of being fired for not saying what Danny Shelton told him to, that may be true to a fault. Danny Shelton told him that it wasn't about he, Danny Shelton and it wasn't about Linda Shelton it was about the ministry of 3ABN and putting the ministry and what was right first. He didn't and still doesn't believe that.
Who is "he" here? Danny Shelton?
This is my observation and I believe it to be just as valid and appropriate as Artiste trusts that Johann's is.
3D
And what is your observation?
-
I'd do anything to protect and support a ministry that is doing the Lord's work. But when a ministry with lofty claims uses lies and false rumors to demolish one of it's co-workers, then my support comes to an end.
In spite of what some claim, I tried in vain to help both Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson, John Lomacang, and others to see what the Lord requires of them to do, and what is the Christian way to handle such issues. It was when they refused to listen that I shared my concern with leaders of our Church and others.
-
However, my point is that the IRS looked over all of the documents, right, and they did not find anything out of line, not even worth a fine or slap on the wrist. What do you believe you found there? It really doesnt' make a difference, because you cannot tell
Problem is, Di, I can't tell you what I found in the Remnant documents, so you don't know what I did or did not find. But if some media outlet wanted to, they could probably petition the court to see the documents and affidavit we filed with the First Circuit.
-
I'd do anything to protect and support a ministry that is doing the Lord's work. But when a ministry with lofty claims uses lies and false rumors to demolish one of it's co-workers, then my support comes to an end.
In spite of what some claim, I tried in vain to help both Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson, John Lomacang, and others to see what the Lord requires of them to do, and what is the Christian way to handle such issues. It was when they refused to listen that I shared my concern with leaders of our Church and others.
Makes a lot of sense, Johann.
-
Di, I quote here from pp. 11-12 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-motion-to-enlarge-record-11-19-07.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-motion-to-enlarge-record-11-19-07.pdf):
"The Remnant documents decisively address the issue of the possibility of IRS exoneration, since they prove conclusively that Shelton received kickbacks and sought to conceal his income. One detail in particular would be of special interest to the IRS, destroying any chance of exoneration. (Pickle Aff. pp. 7–9 at ¶¶ 29, 32)."
We heard that 3ABN or some of its directors paid a huge amount to the IRS. They wouldn't have done so if the IRS hadn't found anything out of line.
However, my point is that the IRS looked over all of the documents, right, and they did not find anything out of line, not even worth a fine or slap on the wrist. What do you believe you found there? It really doesnt' make a difference, because you cannot tell
Problem is, Di, I can't tell you what I found in the Remnant documents, so you don't know what I did or did not find. But if some media outlet wanted to, they could probably petition the court to see the documents and affidavit we filed with the First Circuit.
-
We heard that 3ABN or some of its directors paid a huge amount to the IRS. They wouldn't have done so if the IRS hadn't found anything out of line.
But I thought they said that nothing had to be paid to the IRS.
-
If they had to pay out such a huge amount to the IRS, wouldn't this show up in a future financial report?
We heard that 3ABN or some of its directors paid a huge amount to the IRS. They wouldn't have done so if the IRS hadn't found anything out of line.
But I thought they said that nothing had to be paid to the IRS.
-
We heard that 3ABN or some of its directors paid a huge amount to the IRS. They wouldn't have done so if the IRS hadn't found anything out of line.
But I thought they said that nothing had to be paid to the IRS.
You are correct, Artiste. They did and do say that.
Mr Pickle is again only reporting what he heard. (repeating gossip) In this instance his source(s) are wrong and he is bearing false witness.
If anything had been found out of line as Mr Pickle claims must be the case and if 3ABN had to pay a huge amount as Mr Pickle is also claiming? Amended filings would have been required along with the payment of that huge amount. There are none.
-
Johann, for being a retired Pastor, what you said above was really not very representative.
Junebug, Pastor Johann has spent 50 years of ministry in the Seventh-day Adventist church in seven different countries; he has the perspective to make valid observations about what he observed going on at 3ABN while he was there.
He certainly has a right to give his point of view and opinion on what he personally saw or experienced. I have never had a problem with that. As to whether it is valid or not, well that depends on whether the facts support it, and looking at what he has to say in context. One must also consider what all (not just Johann) observed and experienced and what their testimony is about those same things.
My problem with Johann's testimony is that he really has very little to say about what he observed while at 3abn, as he was very rarely even there. Most of what he has to say came from Linda's telling him these things while he was far off in another country. he says he was in constant contact. So what? He didn't witness these things himself. He simply believed what she told him and acted on it, and repeated them. He also refused to believe Walt Thompson, Danny Shelton or anyone else as he interpreted all they had to say and do based on what Linda and even Darrell Mundall told him.
He has made a case and tells the story of being fired for not saying what Danny Shelton told him to, that may be true to a fault. Danny Shelton told him that it wasn't about he, Danny Shelton and it wasn't about Linda Shelton it was about the ministry of 3ABN and putting the ministry and what was right first. He didn't and still doesn't believe that.
******************************************
******************************************
This is my observation and I believe it to be just as valid and appropriate as Artiste trusts that Johann's is.
3D
MODERATOR HAT ON
It appears that some are not aware of the administrative position that Johann holds at the Advent Talk site. Please show appropriate respect to that position. Failure to do so may affect your further posting privileges at Advent Talk.
MODERATOR HAT OFF
Edited to remove inappropriate content. Read the rules, 3D!!!
-
If they had to pay out such a huge amount to the IRS, wouldn't this show up in a future financial report?
Not necessarily, if 3ABN wasn't the one that paid it. What if some of the directors paid the IRS a million or two or three? That wouldn't necessarily appear on 3ABN's books.
Amended filings would have been required along with the payment of that huge amount. There are none.
Danny_Defender, could you cite where the Internal Revenue Code would require amended filings if a consent decree was signed?
-
You heard? come one, Bob, you have to give me better than that. AND are you quoting yourself? Come on, Bob. You know I believe Danny is shady as all get out, but you have got to give me better than that.
Di, I quote here from pp. 11-12 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-motion-to-enlarge-record-11-19-07.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-motion-to-enlarge-record-11-19-07.pdf):
"The Remnant documents decisively address the issue of the possibility of IRS exoneration, since they prove conclusively that Shelton received kickbacks and sought to conceal his income. One detail in particular would be of special interest to the IRS, destroying any chance of exoneration. (Pickle Aff. pp. 7–9 at ¶¶ 29, 32)."
We heard that 3ABN or some of its directors paid a huge amount to the IRS. They wouldn't have done so if the IRS hadn't found anything out of line.
-
If they had to pay out such a huge amount to the IRS, wouldn't this show up in a future financial report?
Not necessarily, if 3ABN wasn't the one that paid it. What if some of the directors paid the IRS a million or two or three? That wouldn't necessarily appear on 3ABN's books.
"What if?" You really need to stop, Mr Pickle.
Let's consider what you are saying here, a director, or more than one ( you apparently didn't hear this part) paid one, or two, or three million dollars to the IRS on behalf of 3ABN, (That's a huge difference in amounts. You apparently didn't even 'hear" how much the huge amount was either? ) and this wouldn't have to appear on any books, or any future financial reports, and the IRS was ok with that? (no documentation, evidence, or support included)
What are you claiming now? That a huge amount of money changed hands and there is no record of when, why or how, or what it was for? No money trail? How then would your sources, or you, know it occurred?
Please tell everyone you are not claiming the IRS accepted a payoff or bribe offered illegally by "some" on the 3ABN board? because that is just too fantastical, Mr Pickle. Especially as it is only based on a vague supposition that you "heard", and ran with.
If that isn't it, and if you aren't just trying to muddy the waters, what in the world are you trying to claim here?
Amended filings would have been required along with the payment of that huge amount. There are none.
Danny_Defender, could you cite where the Internal Revenue Code would require amended filings if a consent decree was signed?
No, Danny_Attacker, I will not. The IRS, themselves, state they have a practice of making wrongdoing and problems public in order to deter others, so I have no idea why you think they would abandon that practice where 3ABN is concerned. IMO your arguments are ridiculous and not even supported by the least little bit of evidence.
It is apparently your *new theory*and *claim* that 3ABN signed a "consent decree" so first of all you need to do the work yourself and support your theory yourself! It is your assertion a "consent decree" was signed. It is your assumption and claim that a "consent decree" requires no amended filings or corrections.
You need to explain why you are claiming this, what it was for and why 3ABN would need to do so,(documented) or what circumstances and statutes, precidents etc, if that occurred, would cause the IRS to hide that from the public and leave errors or fraud or whatever untouched and uncorrected in the governmental records and public filings and on the parties books. Feel free to quote from the Internal Revenue Code yourself. If you get it wrong, then and only then I will come back and point out your errors, and answer your question.
Have fun!
3D
-
I'd do anything to protect and support a ministry that is doing the Lord's work. But when a ministry with lofty claims uses lies and false rumors to demolish one of it's co-workers, then my support comes to an end.
In spite of what some claim, I tried in vain to help both Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson, John Lomacang, and others to see what the Lord requires of them to do, and what is the Christian way to handle such issues. It was when they refused to listen that I shared my concern with leaders of our Church and others.
Makes a lot of sense, Johann.
The part which doesn't make sense is why he (and you) couldn't, and still don't understand that in fairness, they of course all heard him. Disagreeing with, is not 'refusing to listen". They also listened to, and heard all the other witnesses and looked at the big picture ( not just his one side) with all the facts in front of them and so had to disagree with him. They tried to help him see that and why, and he refused to change course or "listen" ( as he puts it) and still believes only he did and is doing the righteous thing with lofty claims, and using lies and false rumors to demolish them. All in the name of, and on behalf of, Linda Shelton.
It is because he "refused to listen" that I share my concerns with you all.
-
Who told you this? Who are you, and what did you experience? There are a number of untruths in what you have stated here.
Kindly be specific, don't just generically call me a liar please, identify each thing you are claiming is a lie, and I will provide the documents and quotes to support what I said. Sound fair, Johann?
I have hardly any information from Linda Shelton nor Darrell Mundall in comparison with information gained from Walt Thompson and Danny Shelton himself.
You keep saying that but the problem is that in all the communications which have been published between you and them, you are seeking them out, and disagreeing with and attacking them based on information and stories you heard from Linda, and not based on what you yourself saw or witnessed. Please name one piece of information which you gained, from Walt Thompson or Danny Shelton or judgment you formed against them which is independent of her influence and your bias and preconceived notions based on what she told you.
Were you in Norway when Linda was there? What did you experience during her stay there? False rumors of what happened there started all of this. And then you dare claiming that I did not experience anything myself. Your claims make you untrustworthy.
You came for a short visit and then returned home within hours. You, yourself, only know what you were told, as you weren't there, Johann. You are not in a position to be a witness as to what is or is not true during her first stay there.
As to her later visits, you cannot say either, in fact you on numerous occasions on BSDA and elsewhere testified she never returned until you wife, Irmgard's funeral, so it sounds like you had no personal knowledge of what did or did not happen when she visited the Dr again.
When I later on different occasions confronted a couple of members of the board with what I had experienced I was told that what really happened did not matter. Their only concern was that, according to their opinion, 3ABN could not go on without Danny Shelton, and therefore it made no difference who was telling the truth. I also have an e-mail from Danny himself where he claims that the truth is only what he thinks will benefit himself - and thereby 3ABN.
You almost never identify anyone, or even quote them, and this testimony of yours about the board members doesn't match what I know of them and of the circumstances. I am not calling you a liar here, but I am saying at best that is how you viewed it, and how you remember it, but I don't believe that is what they actually said or meant.
As Far as your claim about Danny's email "he claims that the truth is only what he thinks will benefit himself - and thereby 3ABN." If you have the letter , produce it, unedited, and prove he said that, for I don't believe that either.
3D
{quote]
He has made a case and tells the story of being fired for not saying what Danny Shelton told him to, that may be true to a fault. Danny Shelton told him that it wasn't about he, Danny Shelton and it wasn't about Linda Shelton it was about the ministry of 3ABN and putting the ministry and what was right first. He didn't and still doesn't believe that.
Who is "he" here? Danny Shelton?
No. I am sorry "he" is you, Johann. They kept telling you it was about 3ABN and God's ministry, and doing the right thing but you kept making it all about Linda, and how Danny was wrong and how Linda had been wronged, so had to believe they were lying and it was really all about Danny as far as they were concerned, in order to keep justifying yourself and your view.
This is my observation and I believe it to be just as valid and appropriate as Artiste trusts that Johann's is.
3D
And what is your observation?
**********************************
Edited to remove inappropriate content.
-
3ABN_Defender,
I've followed the Linda/Danny saga on BSDA, etc. for years, and it is still unclear just what the evidence is that Linda had sexual relations with the Dr., giving Danny Biblical grounds for divorcing Linda and marrying Brandy.
Exactly what is this evidence that convinced the 3ABN board that Danny was Biblically justified in divorcing Linda and marrying Brandy?
Would it be enough proof that would hold up in court if Danny divorced Linda on the grounds of adultery?
-
You heard? come one, Bob, you have to give me better than that.
Di, I was responding to your statement where you said, "However, my point is that the IRS looked over all of the documents, right, and they did not find anything out of line, not even worth a fine or slap on the wrist." Thus far, the best anyone has been able to come up with to substantiate such a claim is what they heard. Walt Thompson's affidavit to that effect only repeats what he heard.
AND are you quoting yourself? Come on, Bob. You know I believe Danny is shady as all get out, but you have got to give me better than that.
Did you notice carefully what I quoted? "One detail in particular [in the Remnant documents] would be of special interest to the IRS, destroying any chance of exoneration." The facts are the facts.
Now if Danny wants to come on here and explain in detail how that one detail would not be of interest to the IRS, and would not destroy any chance of exoneration, that's fine with me.
Di, I quote here from pp. 11-12 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-motion-to-enlarge-record-11-19-07.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/1st-cir-08-2457/1st-cir-08-2457-appellants-motion-to-enlarge-record-11-19-07.pdf):
"The Remnant documents decisively address the issue of the possibility of IRS exoneration, since they prove conclusively that Shelton received kickbacks and sought to conceal his income. One detail in particular would be of special interest to the IRS, destroying any chance of exoneration. (Pickle Aff. pp. 7–9 at ¶¶ 29, 32)."
We heard that 3ABN or some of its directors paid a huge amount to the IRS. They wouldn't have done so if the IRS hadn't found anything out of line.
-
The IRS, themselves, state they have a practice of making wrongdoing and problems public in order to deter others, so I have no idea why you think they would abandon that practice where 3ABN is concerned.
The IRS is forbidden statutorily to share tax return information, except for items that are open to public inspection, unless the tax payer signs a release. Thus, if a consent decree was signed which ended the criminal investigation without charges being filed, and if no provision was made for the IRS to share any information, the IRS can't make anything public.
Get Danny and 3ABN to sign a release and then post it here. We can then use that release to request information from the IRS which might settle this controversy.
Without a release, my understanding is that the IRS can't even admit there ever was an investigation.
As to the rest of your post, I'm not sure what needs responding to. If you think payments made in connection with a consent decree need to appear on 3ABN's books if others, not 3ABN, paid those amounts, then I think you are the one who needs to support your assertion. And if the amounts paid constitute a significant portion of what the IRS would have obtained if the IRS had prevailed, I can't see how anyone out there could rightfully call that a bribe.
-
I understand that ten days from now there will be a historic hearing in an attempt to make a settlement in Danny Shelton's second marriage. In that connection it might be interesting to know if and how and when the settlement is or has been made in Danny Shelton's third marriage? Has it been possible for him to finalize a settlement of his third marriage before reaching a settlement in his second marriage?
-
I understand that ten days from now there will be a historic hearing in an attempt to make a settlement in Danny Shelton's second marriage. In that connection it might be interesting to know if and how and when the settlement is or has been made in Danny Shelton's third marriage? Has it been possible for him to finalize a settlement of his third marriage before reaching a settlement in his second marriage?
Oh please! Enough of the needless hyperbole.
-
I understand that ten days from now there will be a historic hearing in an attempt to make a settlement in Danny Shelton's second marriage. In that connection it might be interesting to know if and how and when the settlement is or has been made in Danny Shelton's third marriage? Has it been possible for him to finalize a settlement of his third marriage before reaching a settlement in his second marriage?
Oh please! Enough of the needless hyperbole.
Am I being obtuse? Usually I recognise hyperbole as it is not something for which I have great admiration....but I am struggling to see any in Johann's post. Is the word "historic" drawing your fire, Anyman?
-
Hyperbole is a commonly used literary device found in Scripture, used both by Jesus Christ, David, and Solomon, according to my English teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College. Is that the reason some people do not read the Bible?
-
I understand that ten days from now there will be a historic hearing in an attempt to make a settlement in Danny Shelton's second marriage. In that connection it might be interesting to know if and how and when the settlement is or has been made in Danny Shelton's third marriage? Has it been possible for him to finalize a settlement of his third marriage before reaching a settlement in his second marriage?
Oh please! Enough of the needless hyperbole.
Am I being obtuse? Usually I recognise hyperbole as it is not something for which I have great admiration....but I am struggling to see any in Johann's post. Is the word "historic" drawing your fire, Anyman?
I believe it would be referring to the next scheduled event in the settlement case as a "historic hearing" that is the exaggeration. It is routine and not in any way unusual
as far as divorce proceedings and settlement issues go.
It would be more interesting if Johann would have explained those two latest failure to show cause/ failure to appear notices... I am sure Linda's friends would have been all over it if they had been against Danny.
Johann is often not very helpful to Linda, although I am sure that is his intention. He has all along exaggerated and portrayed her as without and yet back in 2004 when she received a total of 490,000, that should have been more than enough for one single woman without any dependents to live on for awhile, considering the average family income in Illinois was 49,028 then and it would have taken them about a hundred years to make that same amount. Yet 6 years later she is selling her house: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/birds-eye-view-map/75512555_zpid/#birds-eye-view and not only hasn't paid off the alleged loan she got from her Doctor friend, but has him paying her legal fees as she can't afford that either.
Even apart from the issue of Danny or Linda's divorce and who is right and who is wrong issues, I really have no patience for the whining and complaining and poor little Linda stories (lies) or how she can't have a ministry,( anyone can have a ministry if they choose to, you don't have to be a star to do so, and if God be for you who can be against you) because immediately after her divorce she went traveling in Europe, returned home and bought her house in Springfield in Sept 2004 . She published the following letter to her supporters just days afterword stating she had been in Southern Illinois the entire time licking her wounds.
"Many people have been asking "Where is Linda Shelton?" Well, she's been tucked away in the woods here in Southern Illinois nearly three months. It's been a wonderful quiet retreat where I can heal from the scars of spiritual and mental warfare."
A lie which is easily proven by her own letters given to Pickle and Joy to publish where she explains to Danny she needs to go,(June 2004) and another letter discussing her return and wanting to move the furniture to her new house (Sept 2004)
And despite the 240,000 from 3ABN, and an additional 150,000 from Danny she could not afford to pay 5-6000 to start her own ministry? For those who don't know what I am referring to. The same time she put the above letter on her website (Sept 2004) the following was also added. quote:
"The Lord has laid on my heart to begin a production studio which will produce Christ-centered programs on a full-time basis. These programs can be shown on other networks and local Christian stations. One thing I learned at 3ABN is that there is never too many Christian programs. There is a huge demand for high quality Christ-centered programs that bring God’s message to the hearts of searching people. Already I have been approached by some who are willing to support this production studio. Although their funding is not available right now, their desire to help has encouraged me so much...and I’m ready to get started. It is estimated that the legal work to obtain a non-profit status in Illinois will cost approximately 5-6 thousand dollars. This is the first step. If the Lord is laying a burden on your heart to help with this stepping stone of faith, please send your donations to P.O. Box 2202, Carbondale, IL 62902. THANK YOU so much!!"
She hasn't done that to this day, and that cannot be blamed on DS or 3ABN, nor has she done anything else and all her supporters and representatives give all these pathetic excuses why she isn't able to get a regular job like regular people do, and has no ministry nor money 6 years later. No explanation has ever been given for what happened to those donations she solicited for over a year.
No surprise they portray her that way. Linda claims the same in her oral arguments in court.. ( Many thanks to one of her friends and supporters who has made documents from the property case available)
Now I am not even able to make a living for myself because every time I am invited to sing or speak somewhere, my ex-husband and members of the Board of 3 ABN call those who invite me and threaten them if they do not dis-invite me...Without a means of making a living, I could not buy a home. No one will loan money to a single woman who has no job and no source of income. Fortunately, the man also accused in this case,... was concerned enough about me and my plight to loan me money to buy a home. I signed legal papers for this loan which I intend to pay back as soon the harassment by my ex-husband, my former “best friend”, and 3 ABN stops, so I can begin to make a living....Because of the harassment by my ex-husband and my former employer, 3 ABN, against anyone who invites me to speak or sing, I have no income. I have even had to rely on the good graces of this man to loan me enough money to pay my attorney in order for both of us to appear here in court today. Other than my two grown children, this man is practically the only friend I have left who cares about what happens to me."
Interesting, with all of you, including Gregory Matthews, Johann, Mundall, and sonshineonme who have stood by her and defended her, she claims in court that with the exception of her grown children, Doctor Abrahamsson is practically the only friend she has left who cares what happens to her. You people need to wake up!
I understand you all probably don't want to hear this and won't like it, the truth can hurt, so if you feel you need to delete my post here, I will have someone copy it elsewhere
Hyperbole is a commonly used literary device found in Scripture, used both by Jesus Christ, David, and Solomon, according to my English teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College. Is that the reason some people do not read the Bible?
It seems to me that rather it would be those who read it, but regard the Word of God as hyperbole (an obvious and intentional exaggeration, an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally) who are more of a problem as they are less inclined to take what is said seriously, and treat the bible as a salad bar, picking and choosing only what they want to accept or believe, and disregarding the parts they don't, while proclaiming they are sheep rather than goats.
NSM
-
It would be more interesting if Johann would have explained those two latest failure to show cause/ failure to appear notices... I am sure Linda's friends would have been all over it if they had been against Danny.
But weren't those against Danny?
He has all along exaggerated and portrayed her as without and yet back in 2004 when she received a total of 490,000, that should have been more than enough for one single woman without any dependents to live on for awhile, considering the average family income in Illinois was 49,028 then and it would have taken them about a hundred years to make that same amount.
Are you sure $490,000 is the correct amount?
Why are you saying that $49,028 x 100 = $490,000?
Remember, Linda was married to Danny for a long time. Based on Remnant's 990's, Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, and yet reported $0 of that income on his July 2006 financial affidavit. Where did all that money go?
Regardless of everything else you have written, it is still wrong for Danny Shelton to refuse to disclose his assets and income, and to fairly divide those with his former wife. It's going on 6 years after the divorce!
-
Did you notice carefully what I quoted? "One detail in particular [in the Remnant documents] would be of special interest to the IRS, destroying any chance of exoneration." The facts are the facts.
Really Bob, who cares what you said or think when it comes to proving something? Just because you say it, or quote yourself saying it doesn't make it a fact.
The fact is the IRS already had all your complaints to investigate as you know very well. They already had copies of all the documents, and they exonerated them and asked 3abn if they wanted the documents back or if they should just destroy them as they weren't needed anymore.
Get over yourself!
If you think payments made in connection with a consent decree need to appear on 3ABN's books if others, not 3ABN, paid those amounts, then I think you are the one who needs to support your assertion. And if the amounts paid constitute a significant portion of what the IRS would have obtained if the IRS had prevailed, I can't see how anyone out there could rightfully call that a bribe.
There is no consent decree, and even if there had been it wouldn't matter who paid it, it would have had to be credited as a payment for 3ABN. The amount owed would be in 3abn's name and part of their records and books as well as the governmental records...
Why are you claiming there was a consent decree anyway? You should know full well it requires a Judge, and that there was no IRS court case or litigation filed against 3ABN by the IRs where a Consent Judgment was even made leading to a Judge either issuing a consent decree, or signing and administrating to a stipulated one.
That is why you didn't answer what was asked of you, you can't. Your claims are ridiculous and made up. Again, get over yourself!
-
It would be more interesting if Johann would have explained those two latest failure to show cause/ failure to appear notices... I am sure Linda's friends would have been all over it if they had been against Danny.
But weren't those against Danny?
Smile. You tell us, Bob.
He has all along exaggerated and portrayed her as without and yet back in 2004 when she received a total of 490,000, that should have been more than enough for one single woman without any dependents to live on for awhile, considering the average family income in Illinois was 49,028 then and it would have taken them about a hundred years to make that same amount.
Are you sure $490,000 is the correct amount?
I seem to remember a 3abn settlement of 240,000
a payment from Danny for her half of the house for 150,000
and 100,000 from Arvild Abrahamsson.... of course she also got the rights to all the music she had sole or partial contributions to, as well as whatever she got for selling the mobile home she had purchased and which Johann said he and the Dr went to see when they came to Illinois in May of 2004.
Why are you saying that $49,028 x 100 = $490,000?
lol, my quess is Nosir Myzing can't multiply or is practicing using hyperbole.
Remember, Linda was married to Danny for a long time. Based on Remnant's 990's, Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, and yet reported $0 of that income on his July 2006 financial affidavit. Where did all that money go?
Regardless of everything else you have written, it is still wrong for Danny Shelton to refuse to disclose his assets and income, and to fairly divide those with his former wife. It's going on 6 years after the divorce!
Remember Linda is only entitled to her part of the Marital property they had before the divorce in June of 2004 which was not included in the property division agreement which was faxed to her Lawyer back in May of 2004 and which she voluntarily signed on June 4th. What happened after that whether financial, personal, business or ministry wise is none of her business, or concern or yours either.
Good-bye
-
3ABN_Defender,
I've followed the Linda/Danny saga on BSDA, etc. for years, and it is still unclear just what the evidence is that Linda had sexual relations with the Dr., giving Danny Biblical grounds for divorcing Linda and marrying Brandy.
Exactly what is this evidence that convinced the 3ABN board that Danny was Biblically justified in divorcing Linda and marrying Brandy?
Would it be enough proof that would hold up in court if Danny divorced Linda on the grounds of adultery?
Amazinggrace,
The following is my understanding. Even though, Linda's friends and supporters have been claiming on her behalf that she was fired for adultery/spiritual adultery.(The claim that she was fired for adultery fuels their claim that she was wrongfully terminated, as she claims she has never committed adultery) 3ABN on the other hand has always maintained they did not fire her for adultery or remove her from her position on the board and as vice President for adultery- spiritual or otherwise.
They have never responded to the demands that the evidence all be made public by themselves because IMHO it is a non issue with them where she is concerned.
In the letter of explanation after Danny's remarriage in March of 2006 almost 2 years later, the Chairman of the 3abn board, Dr Thompson, wrote that the board did carefully go through all the evidence when the issue of Danny's remarriage came up. They needed to determine as the ministry board whether there was a problem with him doing so. If there had been it would have affected his role and position at 3ABN, so the evidence was needed by them as far as Danny was concerned. They were satisfied at that time that Danny had a biblical right to remarry. That was their job, and their business and not public information. Without seeing it themselves others IMHO have no right to criticize or accuse them.
The issue of infidelity and the divorce in June of 2004 is a private one, and is actually one between Linda and Danny. I do know that her Lawyer early on sent a letter on her behalf to Danny threatening a lawsuit if anything was said or revealed. I know there is the letter allegedly from Linda demanding that the evidence be revealed, but there is some question of which parts of that letter was written by her and which by another as was posted on BSDA the first time it was published. She apparently hadn't authorized it and it wasn't in it's final form. In addition there have been more than several occasions where she could have had all revealed and didn't for various reasons. One being at her own Church when she decided to drop her membership rather than attend and deal with a possible censure and have it all presented,another the attempted ASI resolution where they agreed to consider the issue of the divorce and remarriage and she said nothing, while her representatives tried to bring up many other issues. Even within the last year one of her supporters wanted to see all the evidence and Danny asked them to go back to Linda and get her authorization and promise not to hold him liable before handing it over, and Linda would not agree and has not given that.
That's all I can really tell you.
What I am saying is I don't know if you or anyone outside of those who's business it was to know and look at it will ever see the so called evidence. I am not convinced Linda even wants anyone to, and even if she did, I am not convinced it is our business.
3D
-
All this discussion brings to mind a pertinent question, Who is really the father of T. . . . D. . . M. . . ?
-
The following statement made by Dr. Arild Abrahamsen 4 years ago answers the main arguments brought below by the various DSDefenders.
June 20, 2006
Greetings from Norway;
My name is Dr. Arild Abrahamsen. I live in Svindal, Norway. I have been a medical doctor for more than 35 years. I am a member of the Moss SDA Church. I've been the Sabbath School Superintendent for 14 years and the head elder for 4 years, which position I am presently serving. I am the Norwegian
doctor who has been slandered by Dr. Walt Thompson, chairman of the board of 3ABN, Danny Shelton, John Lomacang and others.
Since I have observed the situation and the slander only getting worse, I feel it best to share my experience. I share my personal experience, what I have seen and heard. Much of this information has been verified by other sources, which include emails, letters and the personal experiences of others. I share my experience not to attack any ndividual or organization, but to bring the truth of this situation to the surface.
I have been shocked to observe the events of the last two years. I have made no public statement until now. I had hoped things would resolve themselves.
I visited Johann and Irmgard Thorvaldsson at 3ABN the last week of 2003. The purpose of the trip was to see them and visit the ministry, which I personally had been supporting for some time. I had never been to 3ABN previously, nor had I met the Shelton's. During this visit I discovered from the Thorvaldsson's that Linda Shelton's son, Nathan, was in a dangerous state of health because of an addiction to drugs and working in coalmines. I offered to see him. This visit resulted in an invitation for Nathan to come to Norway for treatments. Nathan came to Norway around January 20, 2004 along with his friend, Dava Vice. Linda came for a 3-½ day visit to support her son, the first week of February together with Brenda Walsh. This was the last time I saw Linda until the weekend she was fired.
I had a chance to visit with Nathan regularly. I learned from my conversations with Nathan that the roots of his drug problems were the relationships with his father and stepfather. Specifically he told me that Danny had turned his back on him. I shared this information with his mother
on the phone. She told me that Danny said he had no responsibility towards Nathan since he was a product of her first marriage, so she felt she had to do what she could to help her son. There was nothing unusual in the
occasional phone reports I gave Nathan's mother while he was in Norway. After Nathan returned home, I asked Linda to keep me updated on Nathan's progress.
I was shocked to discover in early March of 2004 that Danny was threatening to get Linda fired from 3ABN because of some conversations on the phone. In fact, she was threatened immediately with divorce. By this time Nathan had started with drugs again and Linda was seeking advice. I was also shocked to discover that Brenda had started circulating untrue statements as well. (Was it because Danny had admitted to some emotional involvement with Brenda?) I
talked to Danny one time on the phone and found him to be unreasonable, unbalanced and very difficult to communicate with. Johann Thorvaldsson, a
retired pastor of the SDA Church of 50 years, also was in communication with Danny, both by phone and email. We talked together and shared the same opinion that Danny was acting completely irrational and unreasonable towards his wife. It appeared he was attempting to leave an email trail filled with untruths to verify a position at a later time. The decision was made to stop the communication by phone with Linda.
Some weeks went by. Johann and Irmgard were getting treatments at my clinic and staying in my home during the Easter week in April, so I discovered from
them that the situation was not improving for Linda. She was being harassed, threatened, and unreasonable demands by her husband were repeatedly being made to confess things she had not done. By this time, she was also suspended from her job at 3ABN, an order that was issued and enforced by her husband with no Board action. Things were so bad in the home that she found it necessary to go to her daughter's home in Springfield, Illinois for safety and rest on several occasions. Derrell Mundall, who was traveling often for 3ABN, reports rumors of Linda's so-called "affair" were in
SDA churches in April 2004, when Linda was still living with Danny. When he inquired about the source of the rumors, people always pointed to Danny Shelton.
I could see from my 35 years of experience as a physician that Danny was a psychopath. Accusations were directed at me that I had done "mind control" over Linda. (Walt Thompson made the same accusations in his letters.) Linda was accused of sending "secret messages" to me over the television. Danny's emails and communications with Johann were completely crazy, and his reasoning often conflicted with his previous emails. Danny targeted Linda's few inner circle confidants and slandered her to the point that even they backed away from her at this critical time. (Linda's "friends" did not want to lose their television privileges.) Johann and I concluded this was a man who was determined to get rid of his wife. We also concluded that Linda was in danger.
Things eventually progressed from emotional and mental abuse to physical abuse. In the midst of all this harassment Linda asked Danny, 'Why are you treating me like this?' He answered, 'Because I want you to get out.'
Considering the urgency of the situation I allowed the conversations to resume. Linda knew, with her high profile status, that confiding with local people regarding these issues would be very bad for the ministry. I had given counsel to people in difficulty in the past and felt I could be helpful from a distance in this situation. I encouraged Linda to fight for her marriage and ministry many times. This she really did, but she often had to leave her home to find refuge at her daughter's apartment in Springfield, even in the middle of the night because of Danny's behavior. At times like these she was afraid of him. She always returned to her home after a couple of days seeking to try to mend the marriage, but Danny would not allow this.
During the spring of 2004 Danny called my pastor in Norway. Danny tried to get me kicked out as an elder and as a member of the church. My pastor told me about the conversation and he said, "He is mentally sick, he needs professional help."
I find it very disturbing that Walt Thompson defended and continues to defend Danny although he was a witness repeatedly to the emotional and mental abuse that was taking place. At one point he witnessed Danny "trashing" his wife for five hours. I also find it disturbing that John
Lomacang, Linda's former pastor, claims to have counseled extensively with
Danny and Linda when this was far from the truth. During the months of April and May of 2004, when most of the activity was occurring in this situation, Linda NEVER saw John, who was supposed to be her pastor.
Coincidentally the handful of people supporting Danny and defending his actions has gained either power, position, airtime, homes, public endorsement or all of the above.
At one point I had a conversation with Walt Thompson, Chairman of the Board of 3ABN. He asked me to stop all communication with Linda. This had also been communicated to Johann and Irmgard Thorvaldsson and others. I told him
that it was obviously Danny's plan to isolate Linda from everyone at a time when she needed help. To me it was the Christian thing to answer her phone calls and the only humane thing to do for someone who was in crisis. Others did not come to Linda's aid because they did not want to lose
whatever benefit they gained from 3ABN, whether it be a job, programming, promotions, etc. Walt was also the one who phoned Linda when she was suspended from the ministry by her husband. He instructed her that she must not come to the ministry (which she co-founded) without calling ahead of
time because she must be supervised when at 3ABN. Danny broke into a locked bathroom to forcefully take her keys to 3ABN from her. Her hard drive of her computer was confiscated, her contact information taken and even her filing cabinets ravaged, all without any kind of Board action.
Linda was living in an impossible situation. Danny was "in her face" on a regular basis. At times he would say, "If you don't say you're a pathological liar, the marriage and 3ABN is over. If you don't say you're an adulterous woman the marriage and 3ABN is over for you. If you don't say you've given your heart to another man and that he is a demon the marriage and 3ABN is over..... etc." It even reached the point when he demanded her to say "Repeat after me." Johann and I received a couple emails, which said they were from Linda, but they were written by Danny. Linda saw her ministry being destroyed one day at a time. All of this was dehumanizing and terrifying to Linda, who was trying to hold things together. She very much realized what was at stake.
An "investigative committee" was put together by Walt Thompson to look into this situation. They were Walt Thompson, Bill Hulsey, Nick Miller and Kay Kuzma. Danny talked privately at length with each of these people. Linda did not. The committee as a whole never met with Linda at all. In one brief phone conversation with Kay Kuzma she told Linda, "The Board is not interested in you and Danny's personal problems. It is only interested in the fact that the President no longer wants his Vice-President." Johann
Thorvaldsson testifies that he spoke with Kay the following day. She told him she was instructed to get Linda used to the idea of not being at 3ABN anymore and to try to get her involved in another ministry.
It's interesting that at the time Danny accused Linda for speaking on the phone to me, that he was in the practice of speaking regularly with Brenda, Linda's "friend." He also visited often with her in her 3ABN apartment in the night. A worker at 3ABN states that Brenda even went golfing with
Danny behind Linda's back while she was working. As soon as Brenda saw where the tide was turning, she was no longer Linda's friend. She became an accuser as well.
About May 1, 2004 instructions were given to the production staff to wipe Linda's face off of the network by June 1, again with no Board action. All CD's, videos, literature and photos of Linda were stripped out of the Call Center. She was sent a document a few days later specifying that she was
advised to get 30 days of counseling by counselors of their" choice. If she did not agree to this in writing within 24 hours, her employment could be gone. She requested time for an attorney to look at the document. This was refused. Mail was flooding into the network with Linda's name on it. They were all returned to sender. Her scheduled speaking appointments for women's ministries were sabotaged by those in leadership at 3ABN.
Danny told those who worked for Linda that she was a pathological liar and to stay away from her. (He did not want them to hear the other side of the story.) At one point Linda told Walt that Dan was purposefully ruining her
reputation and that she was not willing to be a martyr for 3ABN. Walt's response was "How else are we going to save the ministry?"
Rumors of Linda's so-called "affair" were flying throughout the churches and the General Conference in May of 2004, rumors which were begun by her husband. It was communicated to me that Linda was going to be fired at the Board meeting, which would occur in May, following the 3ABN camp meeting.
Johann and I decided to go to the camp meeting and talk to the Board members and tell them the truth about the situation. When we walked into the 3ABN building we were surrounded by about 10 people. One person stood directly
behind me for the entire service. Walt Thompson and Nick Miller (3ABN's attorney) asked us to leave. We stayed until nearly the end of the service. (At this camp meeting an announcement was made regarding Linda. There were tearful appeals by Danny, which raised a record-breaking amount of money for 3ABN. Danny also claims that an additional two million dollars was raised the year of their divorce.) When Johann and I went to the door, once again we were followed by a small crowd of people. I spoke to Mark Finley about
the situation at length in the parking lot. John Lomacang tried to stop the conversation. He said 'It is not good for you to talk to him alone.' What was he afraid of? He was standing with me when Danny drove up and said that if I returned to camp meeting I would be arrested and thrown in jail. He had already talked to the Sheriff. I decided to not return, as it was Mark Finley's suggestion to avoid the possibility of disrupting the camp meeting for all of the people attending. Linda was staying in her daughter's apartment in Springfield, so we drove there on Saturday to
stay in a hotel for the weekend. During this weekend we were followed by three private investigators all the time. What kind of actions was that, for a man that REALLY wanted to save his marriage?
It is my understanding that a one-sided conversation was illegally taped by Danny towards the end of May. With a mind set on framing his wife, her words have been misconstrued into saying what he wants people to think. She mentions a trip to Las Vegas. He explains to all that she is planning a
rendezvous with "the doctor." In reality for weeks he has offered Linda larger and larger sums of money for her to go to Las Vegas and stay with her mother for six weeks to acquire residency, a requirement for couples that want a quick divorce. For weeks she refused. SHE NEVER WANTED A DIVORCE.
The events of the previous months eventually bring her to the place where she thinks this is maybe what she should do. She knew a separation was necessary. Danny takes her words from the phone call and adds his insinuations. He makes photo copies of her one sided conversation and distributes it. This is his main source of "proof" for his actions and
re-marriage. They call it circumstantial evidence." To further cover their tracks Linda's accusers say that for her sake they don't want to tell "all she has done." They say this so people will accept their statements and imagine the worst. This is slander of the worst kind all coming from
professed Christians.
Johann says he was fired from 3ABN for refusing to attest to something false Danny wanted him to put in writing about Linda. Derrell Mundall, Danny's ex-son-in-law, says he was given the option to resign or be fired because of his actions defending Linda. Others quit their jobs because
they could not support the actions of the leaders. There is one thing many of these people have in common. Anyone who disagrees with Danny is slandered and discredited.
It's interesting that Danny's daughter recently was found to be pregnant out of wedlock. A quick wedding followed when Derrell, (her ex-husband & father of their four children), claims she had no grounds for re-marriage. It's also interesting that nobody asked Derrell about the issue of grounds at all when he was still a resident in Thompsonville. Also another married Shelton
family member had a romantic encounter recently with a married employee of
3ABN. They were instructed to keep it quiet. They did. They all still work at 3ABN, and Melody is featured on the network. Is 3ABN all about standing for principle and values, or standing for those who happen to be in good
graces with the President and the Shelton family ?
Another question that seems to be in the minds of many is "Why was Linda given $240,000 when all claim she was fired for a wrongdoing?" The only reason Linda signed this 3ABN contract was because she needed money to escape from a very irregular, abusive and impossible situation. Danny
forced her to sign not only this contract, but another contract which sold him her half of their joint-owned home the same day.
Linda has suffered much emotional trauma and humiliation from all of this. She still has nightmares about these events. She did not feel ready to face the people of the SDA church for six months after all of this occurred. I encouraged her to begin again. She went for the first time around the end of November of 2004 in Springfield. The people welcomed her. She requested her membership to be transferred out of the Thompsonville church into the
Springfield church in December of 2004. The Springfield pastor had previously worked at 3ABN and knew Linda. He did not believe the rumors and encouraged the church to put her to work. It was a healing time for her to teach Sabbath School and occasionally preach.
In June of 2005 things changed. Pastor Grady was transferred out of the Springfield church, although he wanted to stay, and a pastor from 3ABN was moved into the church. Within two weeks John Stanton met with Linda and told her she would be doing nothing on the platform. She told him that the church really needed the help and she hoped that if she was asked once in two months to teach a Sabbath School class that she would be able to do this. He told her that the orders had come from the conference level. (The Illinois conference President sits on 3ABN's Board and his parents work for 3ABN.) During our visit to the General Conference Session Johann and I visited with this pastor. He told us he
thought Linda was a liar. I TOLD HIM THAT LINDA HAD NEVER BEEN UNFAITHFUL TO HER HUSBAND and that all the rumors from her husband were lies. But this man had TV interests to pursue and he was in close connection with Danny and John Lomacang.
The last week of October 2005, a letter came to Linda from John Lomacang, the pastor of the Thompsonville (3ABN) church. It stated that the church board had voted "to call a church business session to recommend to the church that you be placed under censure." Linda called John to ask him why.
He said it was because she had abandoned her marriage and ministry, which led to her divorce. (This is what Danny refers to as "grounds" to re-marry.) Linda planned to address the church business meeting. She wrote to Danny requesting a release from the restrictions of the contract she signed so she could openly share her side of the story. Danny denied this request. Because of this she felt forced to drop her membership there and then join another SDA church. This decision was made after much counsel with several SDA's. It's interesting that this recommendation for censure came almost 18 months after the fact. (Which kind of practice is this? Special for USA?) It's also
interesting that all of this occurred while Danny was trying to gather evidence against Linda so he could re-marry.
Danny Shelton and the leadership of 3ABN are responsible for using the ministry of 3ABN to bring character assassination to Linda and others. In Linda's case, television and radio announcements were made denouncing her character. There was an announcement on the front page of 3ABN's website
for many months. About 180,000 letters about Linda were sent to the mailing list at 3ABN. Videos about her were made and distributed. Magazine articles were written and submitted. Mailings were made to church officials. Many calls were taken at 3ABN where slanderous remarks about
Linda were given over the phone. Many letters containing completely false statements were sent to many individuals. Danny even made his personal email address available over 3ABN so people could write to him and obtain his side of the story. They did a thorough job of character assassination.
Now two years later the "trashing" continues. It is inexcusable, especially for a proclaimed Christian ministry.
In conclusion I want to clearly state that I have not committed adultery (emotional, physical, "spiritual"), and neither has Linda. The conversations we had were not unusual or inappropriate. Linda is the victim of domestic violence, only this has resulted in worldwide effects for our Church.
Linda has sought for help at the General Conference level. She has sought the aid of pastors. No one has an answer. She has tried repeatedly to meet with a committee from the Board of 3ABN. This request has not been granted. Still the bulk emails and letters flow from 3ABN slandering the innocent.
This has been the most ungodly situation I have observed in my entire life. Any who find themselves not in good graces with Danny Shelton will find that their name is discredited and slandered in an attempt to destroy their influence. Linda has suffered the most with the loss of her job, her
influence and reputation. But many others, including myself, have felt the heat coming from what is supposed to be a ministry representing Jesus Christ. This is an outrage. This is unacceptable. Accountability of leaders is a must. (Can bad fruits come from good trees?) As Christians, it
is our duty to demand accountability and a high standard from leaders. I hope this testimony will fulfill the mission intended.
Respectfully,
Dr. Arild Abrahamsen
-
Now two years later the "trashing" continues. It is inexcusable, especially for a proclaimed Christian ministry.
Dr. Arild Abrahamsen
I believe this sequence is the truth in detail. a person telling truth can be believable as the sequence is held in the mind as actual fact and with this much detail only one that lives it can obtain it as their thought can remember truth much more then lies or.......their stories are not the same!. something becomes admis even if only a smidgen. Many lies cannot mostly be remembered in exact sequence.
Danny Shelton is guilty as sin or there would never have been the "trashing." no matter what. I'd like to see Mark F. act like this. He just would not and I am confident of that. (But I do not even want to hear the entaglement of 3abn and the church as it is much discouragement for me too. The guilty always put the blame on the other! It continues as long as he is guilty!! That is clear as a bell. A psychopath is the correct name for his problem! No matter what Linda has done or did not do, no one can live with that and God knows when it is time to separate the difficult from the impossible when one has chose to cross the line of no return! Is it a line of no return? Only God knows, but the Blessing is for Linda to get off the boat when the bottom is blown out from the ship. Sometimes God has to do it for what is worth sparing. An honest soul will go down with the weight trying to save what they love in another. Think this is not so. It broke the heart of the Father for His Son and all the hosts of Heaven. We are just human and sometimes have to be saved from ourselves in spite of it all.
-
3ABN_Defender,
The circumstances of Danny and Linda's divorce would be nobody's business if they were private people, but they are not. Both are in Christian ministry. Danny is a public figure who is supported by thousands of donors who give their money to spread the gospel, not to support an adulterer. Donors have every right to know what kind of people are benefiting from their donations.
Either Linda was an adulterer, which freed Danny to marry, or she was not, which makes Danny and Brandy adulterers. The idea that it's nobody's business whether or not Danny is an adulterer is astounding.
Anyone in Christian ministry needs to be above reproach, not having even the appearance of evil. The fact is that Danny, not Linda, got married soon after the quickie divorce was final - and to a twice-divorced, newly baptized woman younger than his daughter. And now, even she has left him. This just doesn't pass the smell test.
-
It would be more interesting if Johann would have explained those two latest failure to show cause/ failure to appear notices... I am sure Linda's friends would have been all over it if they had been against Danny.
But weren't those against Danny?
Smile. You tell us, Bob.
I shouldn't have to. Nosir Myzing made a definite statement, and thus proved that he/she has wrongly surmised.
In actuality, though, I think those were more against Jim Gilley for failing to comply with a subpoena.
He has all along exaggerated and portrayed her as without and yet back in 2004 when she received a total of 490,000, that should have been more than enough for one single woman without any dependents to live on for awhile, considering the average family income in Illinois was 49,028 then and it would have taken them about a hundred years to make that same amount.
Are you sure $490,000 is the correct amount?
I seem to remember a 3abn settlement of 240,000
a payment from Danny for her half of the house for 150,000
and 100,000 from Arvild Abrahamsson.... of course she also got the rights to all the music she had sole or partial contributions to, as well as whatever she got for selling the mobile home she had purchased and which Johann said he and the Dr went to see when they came to Illinois in May of 2004.
Thus it should be clear that Nosir Myzing was playing loose with the facts. There was no $490,000 given to her in 2004. The $100,000 loan shouldn't even be included.
Remember, Linda was married to Danny for a long time. Based on Remnant's 990's, Danny made between $749,000 and $809,000 from 2005 to 2007, and yet reported $0 of that income on his July 2006 financial affidavit. Where did all that money go?
Regardless of everything else you have written, it is still wrong for Danny Shelton to refuse to disclose his assets and income, and to fairly divide those with his former wife. It's going on 6 years after the divorce!
Remember Linda is only entitled to her part of the Marital property they had before the divorce in June of 2004 which was not included in the property division agreement which was faxed to her Lawyer back in May of 2004 and which she voluntarily signed on June 4th. What happened after that whether financial, personal, business or ministry wise is none of her business, or concern or yours either.
Good-bye
False. Danny's PPPA booklets were part Linda's. They even had Linda's picture on them. Post-divorce income from those booklets is part Linda's.
The same would be true about the Antichrist Agenda manuscript that existed before the divorce.
If Danny didn't want me asking questions about the falsehoods he put in that affidavit, he shouldn't have sued me over the falsehoods he put in that affidavit. He made it my business by doing so.
-
In addition there have been more than several occasions where she could have had all revealed and didn't for various reasons. One being at her own Church when she decided to drop her membership rather than attend and deal with a possible censure and have it all presented,another the attempted ASI resolution where they agreed to consider the issue of the divorce and remarriage and she said nothing, while her representatives tried to bring up many other issues.
You appear to be distorting the facts.
1) Linda asked Danny if she could be released from the gag order in order to defend herself at her church trial, and Danny told her she would have to pay a huge amount of money.
2) The ASI process was supposed to cover a lot of different issues. That the 3ABN Board decided otherwise was never communicated to us until 10 weeks later.
What I am saying is I don't know if you or anyone outside of those who's business it was to know and look at it will ever see the so called evidence. I am not convinced Linda even wants anyone to, and even if she did, I am not convinced it is our business.
It clearly has been my business since Danny sued me over the question of whether he and/or Linda committed adultery. Yet he and 3ABN refused to provide in discovery the evidence to support their claims. Thus they repeatedly refused to allow us to see the evidence even though we had a clear legal right to see that evidence.
-
Warning! Some of the information in this post is under protective order by the court. So you, Danny Shelton, divulging this information here might well get you into trouble. As I have said so many times before, Danny Shelton's worst enemy is Danny Shelton!!!
I understand that ten days from now there will be a historic hearing in an attempt to make a settlement in Danny Shelton's second marriage. In that connection it might be interesting to know if and how and when the settlement is or has been made in Danny Shelton's third marriage? Has it been possible for him to finalize a settlement of his third marriage before reaching a settlement in his second marriage?
Oh please! Enough of the needless hyperbole.
Am I being obtuse? Usually I recognise hyperbole as it is not something for which I have great admiration....but I am struggling to see any in Johann's post. Is the word "historic" drawing your fire, Anyman?
I believe it would be referring to the next scheduled event in the settlement case as a "historic hearing" that is the exaggeration. It is routine and not in any way unusual
as far as divorce proceedings and settlement issues go.
It would be more interesting if Johann would have explained those two latest failure to show cause/ failure to appear notices... I am sure Linda's friends would have been all over it if they had been against Danny.
Johann is often not very helpful to Linda, although I am sure that is his intention. He has all along exaggerated and portrayed her as without and yet back in 2004 when she received a total of 490,000, that should have been more than enough for one single woman without any dependents to live on for awhile, considering the average family income in Illinois was 49,028 then and it would have taken them about a hundred years to make that same amount. Yet 6 years later she is selling her house: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/birds-eye-view-map/75512555_zpid/#birds-eye-view and not only hasn't paid off the alleged loan she got from her Doctor friend, but has him paying her legal fees as she can't afford that either.
Even apart from the issue of Danny or Linda's divorce and who is right and who is wrong issues, I really have no patience for the whining and complaining and poor little Linda stories (lies) or how she can't have a ministry,( anyone can have a ministry if they choose to, you don't have to be a star to do so, and if God be for you who can be against you) because immediately after her divorce she went traveling in Europe, returned home and bought her house in Springfield in Sept 2004 . She published the following letter to her supporters just days afterword stating she had been in Southern Illinois the entire time licking her wounds.
"Many people have been asking "Where is Linda Shelton?" Well, she's been tucked away in the woods here in Southern Illinois nearly three months. It's been a wonderful quiet retreat where I can heal from the scars of spiritual and mental warfare."
A lie which is easily proven by her own letters given to Pickle and Joy to publish where she explains to Danny she needs to go,(June 2004) and another letter discussing her return and wanting to move the furniture to her new house (Sept 2004)
And despite the 240,000 from 3ABN, and an additional 150,000 from Danny she could not afford to pay 5-6000 to start her own ministry? For those who don't know what I am referring to. The same time she put the above letter on her website (Sept 2004) the following was also added. quote:
"The Lord has laid on my heart to begin a production studio which will produce Christ-centered programs on a full-time basis. These programs can be shown on other networks and local Christian stations. One thing I learned at 3ABN is that there is never too many Christian programs. There is a huge demand for high quality Christ-centered programs that bring God’s message to the hearts of searching people. Already I have been approached by some who are willing to support this production studio. Although their funding is not available right now, their desire to help has encouraged me so much...and I’m ready to get started. It is estimated that the legal work to obtain a non-profit status in Illinois will cost approximately 5-6 thousand dollars. This is the first step. If the Lord is laying a burden on your heart to help with this stepping stone of faith, please send your donations to P.O. Box 2202, Carbondale, IL 62902. THANK YOU so much!!"
She hasn't done that to this day, and that cannot be blamed on DS or 3ABN, nor has she done anything else and all her supporters and representatives give all these pathetic excuses why she isn't able to get a regular job like regular people do, and has no ministry nor money 6 years later. No explanation has ever been given for what happened to those donations she solicited for over a year.
No surprise they portray her that way. Linda claims the same in her oral arguments in court.. ( Many thanks to one of her friends and supporters who has made documents from the property case available)
Now I am not even able to make a living for myself because every time I am invited to sing or speak somewhere, my ex-husband and members of the Board of 3 ABN call those who invite me and threaten them if they do not dis-invite me...Without a means of making a living, I could not buy a home. No one will loan money to a single woman who has no job and no source of income. Fortunately, the man also accused in this case,... was concerned enough about me and my plight to loan me money to buy a home. I signed legal papers for this loan which I intend to pay back as soon the harassment by my ex-husband, my former “best friend”, and 3 ABN stops, so I can begin to make a living....Because of the harassment by my ex-husband and my former employer, 3 ABN, against anyone who invites me to speak or sing, I have no income. I have even had to rely on the good graces of this man to loan me enough money to pay my attorney in order for both of us to appear here in court today. Other than my two grown children, this man is practically the only friend I have left who cares about what happens to me."
Interesting, with all of you, including Gregory Matthews, Johann, Mundall, and sonshineonme who have stood by her and defended her, she claims in court that with the exception of her grown children, Doctor Abrahamsson is practically the only friend she has left who cares what happens to her. You people need to wake up!
I understand you all probably don't want to hear this and won't like it, the truth can hurt, so if you feel you need to delete my post here, I will have someone copy it elsewhere
Hyperbole is a commonly used literary device found in Scripture, used both by Jesus Christ, David, and Solomon, according to my English teacher at Emmanuel Missionary College. Is that the reason some people do not read the Bible?
It seems to me that rather it would be those who read it, but regard the Word of God as hyperbole (an obvious and intentional exaggeration, an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally) who are more of a problem as they are less inclined to take what is said seriously, and treat the bible as a salad bar, picking and choosing only what they want to accept or believe, and disregarding the parts they don't, while proclaiming they are sheep rather than goats.
NSM
-
Other than the sale of Linda's house, all the other information here has appeared in part or whole on Club Adventist, Maritime Online, BSDA, or in GJA/RJP's court filings. Nothing here (other than the sale) is new information that might have been hidden by a protective order. Anyone can test that out by independently searching for the info. And, the sale appears on at least three public websites.
You can obfuscate Johann, but it doesn't make you right or believable.
-
Warning! Some of the information in this post is under protective order by the court. So you, Danny Shelton, divulging this information here might well get you into trouble. As I have said so many times before, Danny Shelton's worst enemy is Danny Shelton!!!
I hope you are not calling me Danny Shelton, or trying to say Danny Shelton gave my material which is under a protective order to post whether directly or indirectly, Johann, because both those things would be lies.
You need to calm down and point your finger elsewhere.
1st off if it was under a protective order then YOU shouldn't know about it.
2nd- If it's under a protective order then Linda shouldn't have given it to the person who made it available.
-
Amazinggrace,
I don't care about your smell test, as far as I am concerned Brandy and Danny getting married almost two years after Linda and Danny's divorce is not evidence of sin or wrongdoing, nor does it stink except in some noses attached to dirty minds. **********************************
Maybe you could go back and read what I wrote again. I certainly didn't say it was nobody's business.
Clearly the issue of Linda's alleged adultery and her and Danny's divorce was their Churche's business, but Churches don't reveal that stuff publicly and shouldn't. The bible explains how to handle problems and so does the spirit of prophecy, and there are different levels in the organization to appeal to.
Clearly the 3abn board considered the issue of Danny's divorce and remarriage their business when that came up and responsibly handled it as they should.
But the evidence they looked at, the nitty gritty details are not the public's business, and they are not your business. That's what I meant.
3ABN_Defender,
The circumstances of Danny and Linda's divorce would be nobody's business if they were private people, but they are not. Both are in Christian ministry. Danny is a public figure who is supported by thousands of donors who give their money to spread the gospel, not to support an adulterer. Donors have every right to know what kind of people are benefiting from their donations.
Either Linda was an adulterer, which freed Danny to marry, or she was not, which makes Danny and Brandy adulterers. The idea that it's nobody's business whether or not Danny is an adulterer is astounding.
Anyone in Christian ministry needs to be above reproach, not having even the appearance of evil. The fact is that Danny, not Linda, got married soon after the quickie divorce was final - and to a twice-divorced, newly baptized woman younger than his daughter. And now, even she has left him. This just doesn't pass the smell test.
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content.
-
I should think that the term "dirty mind" is more applicable to those who believe that Linda committed adultery with a man she barely knew and whom she had visited only a few days. That whole scenario is preposterous.
By the way, I have not had "inappropriate" comments removed from my posts, whereas you.......
-
So, whats going on to cause to new advent of panic and anger over Johann? Johann, is something new happening?
-
So, whats going on to cause to new advent of panic and anger over Johann? Johann, is something new happening?
Perhaps devouring the gnats while ignoring the tiger?
-
Amazinggrace...I like you! You have nearly mirrored my own thoughts on this situation. Danny was the one with the quickie divorce and even quicker marriage, before the ink could dry on the divorce papers. I just add one thing more........
You know that not that many people outside of the SDA church are even aware of 3ABN, Danny or Linda......Heck, in some circles of Adventism nobody's heard of them....LOL!!!....but I digress..........They are just not that well known to to most Americans or the world population. I believe that is by choice as they cater to a certain demographic even within Adventism, and Adventism just doesn't "do" PR like that.
I said that to say that their business would have stayed pretty much private had Danny and 3ABN not placed it in the street, mistakeningly believing that they could put Linda's "business" in the street without Danny's going with it. Once again I say, Danny and 3ABN went to great lengths to assure Linda's(and Linda's only. Danny took his show on the road with his broken heart on his sleeve..............sigh) silence about about their divorce, and it was to their disadvantage. Now, no matter what went on with Linda and Danny, cooked financial records, faulty hiring practices, etc., and Linda's part in any of it, Danny is the only one left to answer. I don't blame Linda, contract up or not, I still would be as quiet as a church mouse. LOL!! Ooops! Sorry, could not help myself.......
3ABN_Defender,
The circumstances of Danny and Linda's divorce would be nobody's business if they were private people, but they are not. Both are in Christian ministry. Danny is a public figure who is supported by thousands of donors who give their money to spread the gospel, not to support an adulterer. Donors have every right to know what kind of people are benefiting from their donations.
Either Linda was an adulterer, which freed Danny to marry, or she was not, which makes Danny and Brandy adulterers. The idea that it's nobody's business whether or not Danny is an adulterer is astounding.
Anyone in Christian ministry needs to be above reproach, not having even the appearance of evil. The fact is that Danny, not Linda, got married soon after the quickie divorce was final - and to a twice-divorced, newly baptized woman younger than his daughter. And now, even she has left him. This just doesn't pass the smell test.
-
Clearly the issue of Linda's alleged adultery and her and Danny's divorce was their Churche's business, but Churches don't reveal that stuff publicly and shouldn't. ...
But the evidence they looked at, the nitty gritty details are not the public's business, and they are not your business. That's what I meant.
Then are you of the opinion that Pastor John Lomacang was wrong to tell me in detail about the evidence against Linda Shelton, the phone card phone records that document hundreds of hours of phone calls to Norway?
Or would you be of the opinion that Pastor John Lomacang was not man enough to answer the simple question of whether those hundreds of hours were actual time spent on the phone, or billed units, which could have divided the "hundreds of hours" by a factor as high as 20?
And was Pastor John Lomacang in the wrong for promising me that I and whoever wanted to come with me could see those phone records, or was he in the wrong for never explaining to me why he told me that if it wasn't true?
And was Pastor John Lomacang simply confused when he spoke about this, or was he lying, or was he just mistaken, or did Danny Shelton obtain the phone card phone records illegally, since AT&T doesn't give out such records, according to multiple people in AT&T's customer service?
And after you answer those questions, you could tell me what you think about Hal Steenson telling me about Danny Shelton's illegally obtained recording of a phone conversation, which John Lomacang illegally played for someone else? Was Hal Steenson wrong for revealing this alleged evidence of Linda Shelton's adultery to me?
And then you could also tell us what you think of Walt Thompson and (cough!) Tommy Shelton making public the bogus alleged evidence of the pregnancy test. And Walt Thompson's and Brenda Walsh's making public the bogus alleged evidence of the Delta plane ticket to Florida.
-
Warning! Some of the information in this post is under protective order by the court. So you, Danny Shelton, divulging this information here might well get you into trouble. As I have said so many times before, Danny Shelton's worst enemy is Danny Shelton!!!
I hope you are not calling me Danny Shelton, or trying to say Danny Shelton gave my material which is under a protective order to post whether directly or indirectly, Johann, because both those things would be lies.
Johann's post seems to be adjacent and subsequent to a post by Nosir Myzing. You're just trying to add a little bit of your professional, organized, orchestrated confusion, right? They have a degree in that at UCLA.
-
Warning! Some of the information in this post is under protective order by the court. So you, Danny Shelton, divulging this information here might well get you into trouble. As I have said so many times before, Danny Shelton's worst enemy is Danny Shelton!!!
I hope you are not calling me Danny Shelton, or trying to say Danny Shelton gave my material which is under a protective order to post whether directly or indirectly, Johann, because both those things would be lies.
Johann's post seems to be adjacent and subsequent to a post by Nosir Myzing. You're just trying to add a little bit of your professional, organized, orchestrated confusion, right? They have a degree in that at UCLA.
No, I was simply confused myself, that happens sometimes. ( it is probably due to my advanced age. ;) ) It has been implied more than once that I am Danny Shelton, but I should have read all before replying. I am sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing that out...
Have a good day.
-
No, I was simply confused myself, that happens sometimes. ( it is probably due to my advanced age. ;) ) It has been implied more than once that I am Danny Shelton, but I should have read all before replying. I am sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing that out...
Have a good day.
There are a number of things in this whole case which can be confusing,, so I don't blame anyone for being confused aat times.
Back in 2004 when this whole thing started and I "discovered" that a number of untruthful stories were being presented to the board of 3ABN, I could well see how these stories would confuse the members of the board. They certainly felt they should be loyal to the institution, and what then?
After this thing started I wrote a letter to one of the board members where I told him that what I had seen, heard and experienced completely contradicted what had been presented to the board. He never wrote me a reply, at least I never received one. But shortly after that he resigned as a member of the board of 3ABN, probably without giving the real reason for his resignation. To Whom was he loyal?
A couple of other members of the board whom I talked to told me they were not interested in what had happened, or who was telling the truth. Their only concern was the future of 3ABN, they told me.
Wherein is true loyalty - and to Whom? Can the issues be confusing?
-
Had the board properly investigated and shown due diligence, the world would be far different today. But, they trusted a man who had successfully tainted the view of the board on many a critical subject, usually to the benefit of Danny Lee Shelton. Sooner, rather than later, the board will be held accountable for their error and ommission in so many cases. Justice will most certainly be had, slowly, deliberately and decisively. If 3ABN is to maintain its relevancy, best wake up before the inevitable fall.
You can "seal" an aweful lot, but the Lord sees it all and justice will prevail in His great time.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Thank you for sharing this. You are not alone.
I agree, princessdi, with you about LS. Linda was a person folks loved, sitting on the porch with her friendly and inspirational talks and music. Secretary? We who watched 3ABN in those days never had an inkling that she was just that. Too bad the listeners today won't be blessed by her presence. We don't watch very much 3ABN these days. I admit that I have a bad attitude :help: when it comes to Danny, but I either go out of the room or turn it off when Danny or Jim are on. Too much blab and pretending to be something they aren't. HOPE channel is a blessing.