Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on December 21, 2008, 11:03:26 AM
-
Docket entry # 92, pp. 17-29 list what Magistrate Judge Hillman said they should have given us with the documents they produced. Those pages identify what they gave us and which request they claim those documents were responsive to. Of course, they are possibly or probably wrong in their claims.
My original requests to produce consisted of 36 requests to 3ABN, and the same requests to Danny (to be answered to the extent that 3ABN didn't or couldn't produce the requested documents) plus #'s 37-44.
The highest number I see that the attorneys claim that the produced documents are responsive to is #34. Thus, Danny never produced documents responsive to #'s 37-44, documents first requested by me in this lawsuit in 2007.
Danny is one shady dude, don't you think? Claimed he had the goods on Linda and would bring it out in court, and then refused to do what he said he would do.
-
Here's what Ronnie Shelton wrote to Gailon on February 5, 2007, under the pen name Joe Smith.
The red is Ronnie and the black is Gailon's message that Ronnie is replying to.
Unlike an ASI tribunal, Federal Courts could care less about ones reputation,
or what they think, but rather just what did you personally observe. Since their
observations are clearly limited, I am not sure they have a lot to contribute. You,
on the other hand, apparently have seen quite a bit and I trust are honest, although
clearly prejudiced. You really need to stop the name calling if you want people to communicate with you. That may be some of the problems that you are having communicating with 3ABN.. this is my opinion.. I have to assume you know much of the real story. I also
assume you have a familial interest in seeing some conclusion to this mess before
the distraction from ministry becomes a futile clash that may ultimately prove
nothing for years and have us all on the sidelines as others are preparing for
the final conflict. I am thinking very much along those lines, but how to get there is another matter. You mentioned trust and honesty. There would have to be a trust in what I am telling you, and I would have to trust you. I know you have the reputation for posting private email. If I see this on the internet, it will be all over. I'll step right out of the role of mediator! If this happens... there is no need to go further. You may have trouble believing what I am going to tell you, but here it is anyway. I do have close information about some things. I think, rather I know, that you have been deceived by Linda. She did have an inappropriate relationship with the doctor. I know for sure, I know the evidence. Any court would have no trouble finding Linda quilty. This is certain... you were given bad information. What you are quilty of most of all is receiving bad information, and publishing it. It seems an appropriate time for a comprehensive resolution
of all the issues. .
Since you have pastoral license and are a potential party ot witness, can you tell
me from your observation what it would take to bring some sanity to this process
and lead to a clear path of reconciliation of all the parties. I can tell you what I think may help. The posting of propaganda by you and Bob P. and G Matthews... against Danny and the 3ABN staff and board would have to stop, dead in its tracks. It may be that that already is too much for you, I don't know. I don't believe negotiations can start any other way. A quick, very quick response from you has to be made if you want to halt the process against you that has already started.. I need to know within 24 hours.
-
Kind of sick, isn't it, to see someone who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist pastor threatening someone else with a lawsuit if they don't shut up about their very real and legitimate concerns?
But note what Ronnie says: "I think, rather I know, that you have been deceived by Linda. She did have an inappropriate relationship with the doctor. I know for sure, I know the evidence. Any court would have no trouble finding Linda quilty. This is certain..."
So Ronnie made it clear that the evidence against Linda would be brought out in court, and then Danny stubbornly and persistently refused to do that. So was Ronnie bluffing or lying, or was he merely duped by Danny into believing a lie?
-
Here's more of that Feb. 5, 2007, email by Ronnie Shelton:
I, for one, am very disturbed by the level of growing bitterness exhibited in the
process, particularly on the forums. It was never the intent to foster such a
bitter contention and there simply must be a way to cool this process down!!! There is... you must be willing to make a statement, something to the effect of, you thought you were doing the right thing however your conclusions were wrong. They were based on bad information.
I would like to see a process that would bring all the parties to a reasonable
discussion that would lead to some reconciliation and healing for all sides.
There simply must be a way to turn this entire process into a positive recocil-
iation and work to the benefit of the work of Gospel mission. .Danny and 3ABN are ready for court. They are not worried about the spreading of the facts. All their ducks are in a row. Linda's testimony will be shown to be false and you and Bob P and Mathews will be shown to have been mislead... and maybe much more liability than you want.
I await your input and assume you would prefer to serve the role of mediator
and conciliation author rather than keep up the bitter debate. If not, I understand
as ASI found it an untenable position for whatever reason. I await your response.
-
The audacity of Ronnie Shelton, Danny's henchman on that occasion! "Admit you were wrong without seeing one shred of the evidence we say we have, or else we'll sue you." What justice is there in that?
-
But notice that in talking about us being sued, Ronnie Shelton twice refers to Gailon, myself, and Gregory Matthews. How come Gregory didn't get sued too?
-
From mid to late February 2007, Ronnie Shelton was in contact with me, first through a mutual friend. During that time period I called my friend, and at that very moment Danny Shelton was talking to him trying to get me to back down or else I was going to be sued.
So both Ronnie and Danny were ganging up on me at the same time, trying to convince me to shut up, even though Danny was making no effort to make any wrongs right. When Danny threatened Nick Miller to back down, Nick said he didn't because he's not that kind of lawyer. And I'm not that kind of preacher.
It was wrong for Danny to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy. It was wrong for Danny to threaten Glenn Dryden and the Dunn Loring church with a lawsuit over that. And I'm not about to back down and say there was nothing wrong with that simply because some little bully tells me he's going to sue me.
-
Okay, now from the above posts you can see that Danny's henchman, Ronnie Shelton, was involved in trying to get Gailon and I to back down lest we be sued. You can also see that Gregory Matthews was on their hit list at the time, and yet he wasn't sued.
Perhaps Gregory could enlighten us here as to what sort of contact Ronnie or any of Danny's other henchmen or cronies had with him around about that time period, and what his response was at that time.
-
The other day I ran across the following statement written by Gregory elsewhere on 10/24/08 regarding the motion for dismissal:
It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit. That attempt failed. Therefore 3-ABN is moving ahead with a motion to dismiss which Gailon and/or Bob are likely to oppose.
In what way has 3ABN worked behind the scenes to get us to dismiss the lawsuit? Could Gregory please elaborate? Or would that put him in danger of being sued?
Garwin did make contact with me through a mutual friend early this year. What he wanted me to do was agree to release them of all claims in writing, without any negotiating whatsoever, without them agreeing to anything in writing. Now is that fair? Is that just? Is that right?
I told the mutual friend that we wanted to be able to sit down with the board and share our concerns. I was told that Garwin wasn't going to waste their time with that. I responded something to the effect that they've been willing to waste my time with this lawsuit. What's wrong with sitting down and sharing concerns? Mark Finley had advocated that idea.
I know of nothing else that could be construed into being a behind the scenes effort by 3ABN. But even the above could have been merely Garwin acting on his own. There was nothing in the conversations that indicated that Garwin was authorized by 3ABN to do any of this.
By the way, Danny is a party to the case too. Did Danny ever engage in any such behind the scenes efforts?
-
On Nov. 29, 2008, Gregory wrote elsewhere:
In an interesting development in this case, Bob Pickle has filed a motion in Federal Court in which he requests that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton compensate people for dropping the lawsuit against he and Gailon Joy.
Could Gregory please explain this statement? Dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) are often conditioned upon payment of costs to the defendants. But it appears that Danny is so stingy that he doesn't want to spare any of the who knows how much of 3ABN's donor funds he has taken over the years to pay our costs.
Edited after looking up "bilk" in the dictionary. Since evidence indicates that Walt Thompson approved of at least some of the transfers of 3ABN's assets or revenue to Danny, the word "taken" seems more accurate than "bilked."
-
On Nov. 29, 2008, Gregory also wrote:
As a point of interest, at one point they say: "In the annals of jurisprudence, it is doubtful that anybody ever sought reimbursement for a shower as a litigation cost. . . .Presumably he [Bob Pickle] would have showered anyway." Perhaps Bob will file a rebuttal which states that he would not have showered if he had not been involved in litigation?
We filed our response I believe on Dec. 8. It is now Dec. 21. How come Gregory has not yet corrected the obvious error in the above statement?
-
So how much of donor funds did Danny take over the years from 3ABN? Since 3ABN refused to allow us access to their records, we can't say.
But the 1998 house deal netted Danny almost $129,000 in one week, and the Remnant deals gave Danny somewhere between $749,000 and $808,000 from 2005 through 2007. Add those amounts together, and you've got nearly $1 million, just from that.
That wouldn't include all the money he got from 3ABN's purchases from D & L Publishing and DLS Publishing.
So certainly Danny can afford to reimburse me for a $6 shower taken while traveling because of the stupid, frivolous, unconstitutional, and anti-Seventh-day Adventist lawsuit Danny filed against us. Unless, of course, Danny is a scrooge.
Imagine, running a ministry and raking in millions in donations from unsuspecting widows and others, lining your pockets in the process, and then being such a tightwad that you hire an attorney at $300 an hour to object to reimbursing one of your poor victims for a legitimate, $6 shower travel expense!
-
Here's another correction that can be made. Stan wrote:
I had stated earlier that Bob should go after the person who made statements that sounded like a well qualified interpreter of financial statements, when in reality there seemed to be a significant overstatement of skills. The person sounded knowledgeable and skilled, and, in my opinion he took the analysed as it sounded confident. It clearly was not.
His is mistaken in this regard. I did not base my opinions on Fran's statements or analysis, though I certainly valued whatever she or anyone else had to say.
My opinions about the horse deals was based on what Danny himself said, what Danny himself put down on his 2001 through 2003 tax returns, and what the IRS instructions plainly state regarding IRS Form 8283. Facts are facts. Danny tried to evade following the instructions by wrongfully and knowingly reporting donations of property as cash. And the figures he wanted to report for 2004 were bloated by 4 to 40 times according to his own statements.
My opinions regarding the 1998 house deal are based on courthouse records signed by Danny and Walt, and by IRS instructions regarding section 4958 excess benefit transactions. Additionally, and Stan should be able to appreciate this since he is involved in trust services work, I spoke with a trust expert within the denomination regarding that transaction, and he thought it was a serious problem. A conference official standing nearby commented that a ministry doing that could lose their tax exempt status.
I also spoke with one of the attorneys that represented the government in 3ABN's property tax case about that transaction, and he said that that certainly sounded like private inurement. He said they thought there was something wrong going on at 3ABN, but they couldn't quite nail it down.
Have no fear! I am not going to sue the IRS folks who wrote the instructions for their forms, the denomination trust expert, the conference official, or the attorney on the other side in 3ABN's property tax case. No need to, since I never said anything factually incorrect on either of those things.
I'll add this note by editing. When I said above that there was "no need to" sue, I was not suggesting that it is appropriate to "sue the IRS folks who wrote the instructions for their forms, the denomination trust expert, the conference official, or the attorney on the other side in 3ABN's property tax case." I was merely responding to the thought that I should go after those who allegedly led me astray on financial issues, and was referring to the fact that those I referred to above never led me astray.
-
That reminds me of the very warm and friendly reception I received at the Franklin County courthouse when I was doing research there. No matter what office I was in, whenever I mentioned that I was researching transactions involving 3ABN I was met with a raised eyebrow or a knowing smile or a desk where I could work! One employee in the assessor's office even told me about how Danny Shelton had tried to take advantage of her dad in a real estate deal, obviously unaware of what the man's daughter did for a living!! She and everyone else I dealt with there were very aware of 3ABN and very eager to help me.
I also spoke with one of the attorneys that represented the government in 3ABN's property tax case about that transaction, and he said that that certainly sounded like private inurement. He said they thought there was something wrong going on at 3ABN, but they couldn't quite nail it down.
-
The other day I ran across the following statement written by Gregory elsewhere on 10/24/08 regarding the motion for dismissal:
It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit. That attempt failed. Therefore 3-ABN is moving ahead with a motion to dismiss which Gailon and/or Bob are likely to oppose.
Back on August 14, 2008, Gregory forwarded me an email from some anonymous person who was apparently trying to broker a deal. Yet here is one thing the unknown person said:
I was contacted by someone last night (not anyone in the leadership or employ of 3abn and not a conference official) who is personally involved with the saga and would be in a position to “hear” things. ...
Please keep in mind as you ponder this, I can provide no verification that what my contact told me is accurate or truthful. My contact did not ask me to contact you or even suggest that I do anything. ... It could be an elaborate set-up to check on the flow of information or simply the wishful thinking of someone desperately tired of this saga.
Now does this sound like 3ABN working behind the scenes to get us to dismiss the suit they filed?
Another tidbit:
If it were somehow possible to do so, would you be content with having this law suit disappear without resolution? Would you be willing to close down all discussion of the alleged issues, turn off the web sites and have it all go away?
Now Gregory had told me before sending this that this would be a proposal that would allow the suit to end without anyone winning. Yet since the suit was filed to shut us up, if we agreed to shut up, how would that mean that no one would win? That makes no sense.
-
Long ago a conference official recommended that I contact an elder in his conference who had training with Peace Makers, a non-Adventist ministry. So I did. The program and approach they offer sounded great.
An Adventist ministry of that sort is run by Charlie Brown, his real name. I had a long chat with him as well.
These ministries emphasize settling differences upon biblical principles rather than using lawsuits, courts, and worldly lawyers. The elder told me that one thing they try to do is persuade the individuals to admit where they were wrong, which is what 1 Jn. 1:9 is all about.
The times that Simpson and I have talked about settling, I've emphasized the absolute necessity that it be based on biblical principles. I've even talked to him about 1 Jn. 1:9, and how that's required before any of us can get into heaven. At one point he said that these kinds of things are out of his realm.
So you want to know another reason why Danny Shelton and 3ABN moved the court to dismiss the lawsuit? Because they are in apostasy. They refused to settle the matter based on biblical principles. They consciously chose to reject the very biblical principles they claim to be preaching to the world. What rank hypocrisy.
And to think that Danny Lee Shelton (aka "Moses" aka "John the Baptist") and 3ABN hired worldly lawyers like Simpson (who know how to lie but think that settling on biblical principles is too foreign an idea) to harass and persecute people who think that covering up child molestation allegations and taking donor funds is wrong!
-
Bob said:
Now does this sound like 3ABN working behind the scenes to get us to dismiss the suit they filed?
* * *
Now Gregory had told me before sending this that this would be a proposal that would allow the suit to end without anyone winning. Yet since the suit was filed to shut us up, if we agreed to shut up, how would that mean that no one would win? That makes no sense.
Bob, of course 3-ABN would not be working behind the scenes to get you to dismiss the lawsuit that 3-ABN had filed. That would be nonsense. There was a time when 3-ABN was woking behind the scenes to see if an agreement would be reached with you by which they would dismiss their lawsuit. Part of my involvement with one of these attempt was by telephone with you. In that conversation you clearly understood that the issue was that of an agreement with you for the terms by which they would dismiss their lawsuit. You not only understood that but you responded with comments as to what it would take for you to agree to such. As I consider that conversation to be private, I do not intend to comment further on this issue. You can say whatever you want about that conversation.
No, Bob, even if you "shut up," there would be no winners, in my estimation. You do not have to agree with me. But I see the issue much more complex than that. There has been much more involved, in my thinking than simply shutting you up. But, you can hold whatever opinion that you chose to hold. I will not attempt to chage your mind.
-
Let me be very clear, Bob. As far as I know, Ronie Shelton never had any contact with me at any time. If he did it must have been under circumstances where I did not know it was him.
Further, no one associated with either Danney or 3-ABN ever contacted me and warned me that I might become a defendent in a lawsuit.
I have publicly stated that I was once contacted by an attoney who represented Danny. That was long before a lawsuit was ever in disucssion. That attorney did not threaten me in any way, shape, form or manner. I have publicly stated the content of that conversation.
Yes, there were several people whom I did not believe were acting on behalf of either Danny or 3-ABN who did warn me that I might become the subject of a lawsuit. I believe that both you and Gailon warned me. Perhaps I am wrong and I am not 100 per-cent ceertain. In any case, I did not associate either you or Gailon as being the "henchmen" of Danny/3-ABN, or of acting on their behalf. Please correct me if you were doing so.
As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation: A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law. For that you should seek the advice of a competent attorney. I am not such. I do not intend to fill the role of teaching you law.
As to your comments about you taking a shower and attempting to charge for it: My first comment came directly from a document filed with the court that bore your signature. My second came from a doucment filed with the court that bore the signature of an attormen for 3-ABN. At the time I made that comment both docuemnts were available to the public. I stand by what I said.
Following that I asked a question in regard to whether or not you might file a statment with the court that you would not have taken a shower if you had not been involved in litigation. It was a question. I know nothing as to how often you shower, or if you do. My comment was tongue in cheek. I did not imply that you do not clean your body in an approprite time and manner. I do not think that anyone would ever draw any conclusions from my question that you do not clean your body in a timely manner.
Bob, I do not owe you an apology.
-
Bob, of course 3-ABN would not be working behind the scenes to get you to dismiss the lawsuit that 3-ABN had filed. That would be nonsense.
Thank you for responding, Gregory.
I am glad we agree on this point. So then I misunderstood you when you wrote, "It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit."
There was a time when 3-ABN was woking behind the scenes to see if an agreement would be reached with you by which they would dismiss their lawsuit. Part of my involvement with one of these attempt was by telephone with you.
Is that the same time you sent the proposal that said, "Please keep in mind as you ponder this, I can provide no verification that what my contact told me is accurate or truthful. My contact did not ask me to contact you or even suggest that I do anything. ... It could be an elaborate set-up to check on the flow of information or simply the wishful thinking of someone desperately tired of this saga"?
Or are you referring to another time?
-
As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation: A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law. For that you should seek the advice of a competent attorney. I am not such. I do not intend to fill the role of teaching you law.
Would you please knock it off with such condescending, offensive comments.
As to your comments about you taking a shower and attempting to charge for it: My first comment came directly from a document filed with the court that bore your signature. My second came from a doucment filed with the court that bore the signature of an attormen for 3-ABN. At the time I made that comment both docuemnts were available to the public. I stand by what I said.
Following that I asked a question in regard to whether or not you might file a statment with the court that you would not have taken a shower if you had not been involved in litigation. It was a question. I know nothing as to how often you shower, or if you do. My comment was tongue in cheek. I did not imply that you do not clean your body in an approprite time and manner. I do not think that anyone would ever draw any conclusions from my question that you do not clean your body in a timely manner.
Bob, I do not owe you an apology.
Mat. 5:23 suggests otherwise.
Your comment provided an opportunity to ridicule. That was wrong.
And what does Simpson's ignoring of the payment for the MidCountry Bank records and concentrating on a $6 shower really mean? That somehow truckers across this country who buy showers at truck stops rather than paying for rooms at motels are somehow on a lower level than lawyers who bill at $300 an hour.
-
Let me be very clear, Bob. As far as I know, Ronie Shelton never had any contact with me at any time. If he did it must have been under circumstances where I did not know it was him.
Further, no one associated with either Danney or 3-ABN ever contacted me and warned me that I might become a defendent in a lawsuit.
I have publicly stated that I was once contacted by an attoney who represented Danny. That was long before a lawsuit was ever in disucssion. That attorney did not threaten me in any way, shape, form or manner. I have publicly stated the content of that conversation.
So if you were on their hit list, Gregory, why didn't you get sued?
-
Bob, of course 3-ABN would not be working behind the scenes to get you to dismiss the lawsuit that 3-ABN had filed. That would be nonsense.
Thank you for responding, Gregory.
I am glad we agree on this point. So then I misunderstood you when you wrote, "It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit."
To be crystal clear in what I was saying, I apologize for misunderstanding your statement.
-
As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation: A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law.
You wrote:
In an interesting development in this case, Bob Pickle has filed a motion in Federal Court in which he requests that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton compensate people for dropping the lawsuit against he and Gailon Joy.
Where did I ever request 3ABN and Danny Shelton to compensate people for dropping the lawsuit? And what statutes or cases ever put it that way?
-
Bob said:
And what does Simpson's ignoring of the payment for the MidCountry Bank records and concentrating on a $6 shower really mean? That somehow truckers across this country who buy showers at truck stops rather than paying for rooms at motels are somehow on a lower level than lawyers who bill at $300 an hour.
Bob, of course not. As a matter of fact, truckers are able to deduct the cost of a $6.00 shower, so are $300 per hour attornies, and so could you have done so if you had done it right. The ridicule came from the 3-ABN attorney not me. The redicule came because you submitted a document to the court that did not claim expenses, in part (I do not say in the whole.) in the correct manner that would have been acceptable to the court.
NOTE: I am NOT making any statement in regard to the issue as to whether or not statute and case law allowed you to collect compensation. I do not know whether or not you are allowed any compensation. I do not claim to know such.
Because you did not claim expenses in the correct manner, the 3-ABN attorney was able to have some fun with you. You set yourself up for his doing so. If you had claimed that expense correctly, he could have challenged your clailm, but he would have been unable to have made fun of your claim.
My comment that I am not here to teach you law is a statement to fact. There are laws that prohibit me, as one who is not a licensed attorney from doing anything that might be considered the practice of law. If I were to tell you exactly how you should have claimed the expense of a shower someone might accuse me of practicing law. So, I did not do so.
But, it does not constitute the practice of law for me to tell you that truckers are able to decuct and/or claim as an expense the money that they paid for taking a shower. I can tell you as I did, that you should have done it in the same manner. But, I refrained from the practice of law by not commenting on the underlying issue as to whether or not you are entitled to compensation in any manner. I am not competent to make such statements. So, I did not. If you are entitled to compensation then there is a manner to claim your shower. If you are not entitled to compensation no manner of claiming that expense will get you paid. The underlying issue governs, not the manner in which you claimed it.
So, for that reason, I say again get your questions answered from someone competent to answer them and that person is not me. I do not practic law.
-
If what you say is true, then it shows how low Simpson and Shelton have stooped. Just because I didn't do or word something exactly right, they stoop so low as to quibble over a $6 shower? After wasting my time the last year and a half with their frivolous, unconstitutional, anti-Adventist lawsuit?
-
Gregory,
You mentioned "compensation" again. Have you seen any statutes or cases that use that term for this kind of situation? Typically, that term in everyday English suggests a paycheck received for employment.
Also, you indicated familiarity with case law and statutes dealing with this general topic. Did you get any assistance in that from anyone who is not a licensed attorney?
-
As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation: A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law. For that you should seek the advice of a competent attorney. I am not such. I do not intend to fill the role of teaching you law.
Would you please knock it off with such condescending, offensive comments.
I also find that comment extremely offensive! Greg, tell us where you have had to defend yourself because you had no insurance or could not afford an attorney? Where did you get all your legal experience? Since when did you feel you would be qualified to give anyone legal advice? Of course, those of us who have read your posts know you have legal insurance and would never have to defend yourself! I guess you would have funds to buy legal services if needed? How would you do against the legal force that is against Bob and Gailon? I find your comments very offensive!
I believe Bob has made himself very clear! Yes, I understood the expense about that shower when I read it. It takes a very small person to ridicule someone else in such a manner!
You said you were saying what was said in documents in public domain. Yet, did you use quote marks? Did you cite the documents? Did you say who you were quoting? No you did not. Thus, what you wrote would be taken as your comments! Get real.
As to your comments about you taking a shower and attempting to charge for it: My first comment came directly from a document filed with the court that bore your signature. My second came from a document filed with the court that bore the signature of an attorney for 3-ABN. At the time I made that comment both documents were available to the public. I stand by what I said.
Following that I asked a question in regard to whether or not you might file a statement with the court that you would not have taken a shower if you had not been involved in litigation. It was a question. I know nothing as to how often you shower, or if you do. My comment was tongue in cheek. I did not imply that you do not clean your body in an appropriate time and manner. I do not think that anyone would ever draw any conclusions from my question that you do not clean your body in a timely manner.
Bob, I do not owe you an apology.
Greg, Next time maybe you should cite thee documents from which you are quoting? When reading your comment, I had read the documents, but since you did not quote them, I took it to mean you agreed with the comments you stated. And now, I am sure they are your opinion also since you stand behind them!
Mat. 5:23 suggests otherwise.
Your comment provided an opportunity to ridicule. That was wrong.
And what does Simpson's ignoring of the payment for the MidCountry Bank records and concentrating on a $6 shower really mean? That somehow truckers across this country who buy showers at truck stops rather than paying for rooms at motels are somehow on a lower level than lawyers who bill at $300 an hour.
Good question, Bob.
-
Fran and Bob:
I am looking for the post that I made but I have not found it. So, I will go to the post from Bob and here is what he said:
On Nov. 29, 2008, Gregory also wrote:
Quote
As a point of interest, at one point they say: "In the annals of jurisprudence, it is doubtful that anybody ever sought reimbursement for a shower as a litigation cost. . . .Presumably he [Bob Pickle] would have showered anyway." Perhaps Bob will file a rebuttal which states that he would not have showered if he had not been involved in litigation?
We filed our response I believe on Dec. 8. It is now Dec. 21. How come Gregory has not yet corrected the obvious error in the above statement?
PLease note th following from Bob's post:
1) I said, "they say." That surely indicates that I am quoting from someone else.
2) Bob placed part of my post in quotation marks. Note the quotation mark as follows: "In the annals. . . [and] . . . showered anyway." I believe that I was quite clear to anyone who would have read my post with any kind of carafullness. I was quoting from another document.
-
The issue I had was not whether you were quoting Simpson. The issue was that your comment after your quotation left the impression that you were joining Simpson in his ridicule of those who may try to economize more than an attorney does who bills at $300 an hour.
-
Exactly!
-
Fran:
You said:
You said you were saying what was said in documents in public domain. Yet, did you use quote marks? Did you cite the documents? Did you say who you were quoting? No you did not. Thus, what you wrote would be taken as your comments! Get real.
That was my point and the focus of my response. Do you remember writing the above? Sorry. I think it is you who needs ot get real.
-
Fran:
You said:
You said you were saying what was said in documents in public domain. Yet, did you use quote marks? Did you cite the documents? Did you say who you were quoting? No you did not. Thus, what you wrote would be taken as your comments! Get real.
That was my point and the focus of my response. Do you remember writing the above? Sorry. I think it is you who needs to get real.
I got your point about me missing the quotation marks. I asked the question if they were there. I did not say they were not there. My error for asking questions; I am sorry for that. However, you should have stated who said it. For all we know it could have been the Memorial Foundation! Just because something is in public domain does not mean the everyone has read it. I had read it and knew where it came from. It was your sentence after the quotes that upset me! I believe that Danny and 3ABN should be thanking Bob for being so frugal! Your comment after the quote was condescending. Then you said you stand behind it.
I am real. What you see is what you get. I am a nobody! I have zero credibility! I claim no special knowledge of the law, even though I have had several semesters in law. I do case studies, but I would never presume to tell anyone striving to save their family, home, business how they should be handling things. Then you commented that you did not intend to teach Bob Law! Did he ever ask you to do so publicly? If so, I missed that. Sorry if I am wrong!
That was not only rude, but blasted crude. It was an open insult. How ever, that is how you work. You slithered into things that were entirely none of your business! Leave Bob alone in all things. He has better things to do than run around correcting your comments.
You can pick on me! Call me names and tell how stupid I am. I will agree with you. I won't fight anyone! Besides, I have too many "voices in my head". Do the math on that! I am not Bob and Gallon's counselor! They have a very qualified CPA that deals with forensic crimes! Nobody needs me! Snoopy has credential that will leave everyone no doubts about the facts!
However, I will guarantee you that when all is said and done, I will see that I helped the IRS find some off shore accounts, all from eBay sales. They destroyed all those documents. Can't find any at 3ABN. However, eBay keeps great records.
Above all, God doesn't need a word I have ever said to take care of the problems with Danny and the 3ABN board. However, I may again tell what I know whether you and your friends believe it or not!
God dumped this in my lap. I am not, nor have I ever been a power seeker as you are Gregory. I have held powerful positions, but they came to me. I did not sneak around bad mouthing others to get it. I shun power. Being a person of influence is much more powerful than a position of power! Haven't you even noticed? I told the Lord I would scream until His chosen came to take over. I learned early that you were not the one. When Gailon and Bob came along I starting being quiet until those at 3ABNTalk attacked my data as they are doing now.
They did not post the post about the Trust Funds problems in Washington. They only posted my comment about that posted fact. There are those that continue to believe there was no problem with Trust Funds. The 990s clearly say where the problems were. Hello! They keep posting there are no documents and no facts! That is OK with me.
I am a stupid Adventist, but I sincerely believe you intentionally belittled Bob. However, you actually belittled yourself by doing so. Are you jealous that God chose them instead of you? You are so much more educated and have had classes in ethics and law. My you could have cleaned the slate and made it all go away with nothing solved. I would guess that God needed folks that would have faith and be led by God. Yeah, your true character is shining through. I struggled several years with the strong desire to call Linda and tell her of my experience with you so she would be very careful. However, I didn't. She figured it out all by herself.
My point is that you were rude, and that you stand behind that fact! You could have gone all day long being kind, but you choose to be rude. If you think I am being rude, you are right. I cut to the chase to not deal with all the "I am holier than thou!" attitude. I concede you are holier than me. You have no argument from me. I am sorry I am being so ugly, but it seems I have learned through experience it is the only type of language you understand, right.
-
I got your point about me missing the quotation marks. I asked the question if they were there. I did not say they were not there. My error for asking questions; I am sorry for that. However, you should have stated who said it.
Fran, in defense of Gregory, the context of the original quote makes clear who he was quoting from.
-
Now, not in defense of Gregory: Gregory, I notice that you may have left the following questions unanswered:
There was a time when 3-ABN was woking behind the scenes to see if an agreement would be reached with you by which they would dismiss their lawsuit. Part of my involvement with one of these attempt was by telephone with you.
Is that the same time you sent the proposal that said, "Please keep in mind as you ponder this, I can provide no verification that what my contact told me is accurate or truthful. My contact did not ask me to contact you or even suggest that I do anything. ... It could be an elaborate set-up to check on the flow of information or simply the wishful thinking of someone desperately tired of this saga"?
Or are you referring to another time?
As to my comment in regard to your seeking compensation: A full response to that, to include why I thought the way I thought, would involve both statute and case law.
You wrote:
In an interesting development in this case, Bob Pickle has filed a motion in Federal Court in which he requests that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton compensate people for dropping the lawsuit against he and Gailon Joy.
Where did I ever request 3ABN and Danny Shelton to compensate people for dropping the lawsuit? And what statutes or cases ever put it that way?
Gregory,
You mentioned "compensation" again. Have you seen any statutes or cases that use that term for this kind of situation? Typically, that term in everyday English suggests a paycheck received for employment.
Also, you indicated familiarity with case law and statutes dealing with this general topic. Did you get any assistance in that from anyone who is not a licensed attorney?
To these questions I add another. You wrote:
I am looking for the post that I made but I have not found it.
Since you cannot find it, I assume you must have posted similar announcements in multiple places. Otherwise, I would think you would know exactly where you posted it if you posted but one announcement.
Roughly how many places did you post announcements about the motion for dismissal? Who or what was the first to tell you either that it was going to be filed or that it was filed? And exactly when did that occur?
-
Bob and Gregory;
The statement below is the statement I read. He says "they". That did not identify where it came from! It is the last unquoted sentence that got my attention. I have not read Gregory's whole post and I do not intend to go read it where ever it is!
Then Greg, you had the gall to imply you are smarter than Bob and you know more than him, but you know and aren't going to help, tell, teach him law. Instead you chose to be un-Christ like and be insensitive to others needs. Your comment is very offensive! I am not laughing.
The comment also shows the legal team of Danny and 3ABN are Sukey too. However, I do not think their comment angered me, I think that comment from them is typical from an non-Adventist lawyer! I thought it was insensitive, but accepted it from whence it came. However, other people expect more from you Gregory! OTH, maybe I should say, I expect far more from you, an Adventist Chaplain and all, but have been disappointed ever so many times! You have in the past cited many of the things you are supposed to excel in! IMO, what you are missing is experience and common sense!
As a point of interest, at one point they say: "In the annals of jurisprudence, it is doubtful that anybody ever sought reimbursement for a shower as a litigation cost. . . .Presumably he [Bob Pickle] would have showered anyway." Perhaps Bob will file a rebuttal which states that he would not have showered if he had not been involved in litigation?
-
My apologies, Fran, for not quoting more of it, and thereby preventing some confusion.
Thank you for your support. :)