Advent Talk

Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Gregory on June 01, 2009, 04:13:53 AM

Title: Brandy
Post by: Gregory on June 01, 2009, 04:13:53 AM
For probably close to five (5) years I have been following the developing saga of the issues associated with 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. 

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

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

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

It is those same moral and ethical issues that now compel me to take a public stand in support of the woman whom Danny married--Brandy Shelton.  She should not be the focus of attacks.  She had nothing to do with any of the issues associated with 3-ABN.   If people want to focus on 3-ABN and its management, fine.  Do so.  Let the chips, so to speak fall where they may.  If you want to litigate, do so.  Some issues can only be decided by the civil courts and should be so decided.  Public opinion and the Church cannot resolve many of the issues that have been raised. A focus on Brandy will do nothing to resolve such issues.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gregory on June 01, 2009, 05:49:20 AM
Please note a typo that occured early this AM:

My reference to Ralph Thompson (who is a real person whom I know) was to the 3-ABN Chair and is named Walter Thompson.

Sorry.

Gregory Matthews
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 01, 2009, 07:37:00 AM
She had nothing to do with any of the issues associated with 3-ABN.

I think that statement is going too far. We do have someone who claims to have been terminated after expressing concern to Danny that he should stay away from Brandy regarding OS. We also have Danny sounding like he had a girlfriend named Brandy in early 2005, but denying such in late 2005, and then marrying her several months later.

And then there are the lawsuit's claims itself. The lawsuit raises questions about what board members thought about Danny's relationship with Brandy. Nick Miller said that in early 2005 he became concerned about certain issues, including personal issues about Danny. Then Nick got jettisoned from the board about the time Linda and Danny exchanged emails over Danny selling out the ministry for sex, specifically OS, allegations Danny never denied.

And then there is the issue in the lawsuit about 3ABN money getting funneled to Brandy through a third-party non-profit, something Nick told me about, along with the idea that Danny tried to transfer property to Brandy before they got married.

So Brandy does have a lot to do with the issues associated with 3ABN, even if she wasn't with Danny when they bought the corvette while 3ABN was suffering financially, and even if she isn't helping Danny spend the money he has siphoned away from 3ABN in various ways. And even if she had not been chasing Danny for 17 years prior to their marriage, or been chasing Danny at any time prior to June 25, 2004.

It simply is impossible to keep Brandy away from the issues, especially given the issues Danny chose to litigate over.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on June 01, 2009, 07:43:11 AM

Brandy was part of the fiasco that forced a young child to HIDE UNDER A BLANKET FOR CLOSE TO AN HOUR IN THE BACK OF A TRUCK.  Good grief.  She most certainly IS part of the saga now, by virtue of her very own choices.

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 01, 2009, 07:44:57 AM
In those early days  people told me that they were praying to God that 3-ABN and/or Danny Shelton would file a lawsuit that would ultimately result in discovery that would vindicate truth, righteousness and reveal the sinners  for what they were.

I do not recall praying for any such thing.

As the litigation took place, I noted that the pro se defendants did better than many expected, to include myself.  Yet, it appeared to me that they were not likely to achieve the victory that they wanted.

Maybe "has taken place" would be the better tense, since it isn't over yet.

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

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

We also served a motion for sanctions on the other side last week.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: anyman on June 01, 2009, 08:32:36 AM
It was interesting that the First Circuit on Friday decided that oral arguments would not be allowed in our appeal, which can only be done if a 3-judge panel unanimously decides such on the basis of one of three reasons. It's in Fed.R.App.P. 34.

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

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

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

- anyman

-edited to correct content to accurately reflect the point being made.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on June 01, 2009, 08:56:34 AM
Gregory,
What part of Dr. Day's discovery page on Brandy's background not true? Seems DS ventured into sin no matter how you look at it. Repentance on her part?? How?? Seems you can steal a car these days and keep it huh!! then repent!  The Godfather theory. How can you help outsiders not look at the facts here. I've been watching this for the same amount of time before I could make conclusion of the hopping :rabbit:.  And the funds going to feed the  :horse: s.

This little tidbit will mean absolutely nothing to anyone but me. My mother passed away about 3 years ago. She was a contributer. But I knew she sacrificed much to do it. Not until I finally went through her clothes this past week with much tears at what I discovered.

You know what I found?? I found the stockings she wore all folded washed and neat with the tops looking all clean until I unfolded and saw the heels all gone and that is the way she must of wore them without me knowing. She sent money before she bought for herself.

Then I watch the posting of someone stating "It is nobodies business what he spends his personal money on. I can state one thing. A crook is a crook and a thief can be of the worse type. But this is the ultimate of using peoples sincere emotions of Love from all and especially the elderly on fixed income as a gift to God for greedy purposes.  A Corvette!  How extremely wonderful for DS. Unless true repentenance the gates are open wide. Any guess of which one to just the on lookers?? How can you present Extravaganza living expenses any different? People can spend their money any way they please for sure but not the way this so called use of SDA propaganda did! DS is at the helm and his ship is broken.

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 01, 2009, 09:17:28 AM
It was interesting that the First Circuit on Friday decided that oral arguments would not be allowed in our appeal, which can only be done if a 3-judge panel unanimously decides such on the basis of one of three reasons. It's in Fed.R.App.P. 34.

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

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

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

- anyman

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

Maybe you should go to law school, anyman. Or perhaps edit you post again to make it more accurate.

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on June 01, 2009, 09:24:16 AM
Gregory,
What part of Dr. Day's discovery page on Brandy's background not true? Seems DS ventured into sin no matter how you look at it. Repentance on her part?? How?? Seems you can steal a car these days and keep it huh!! then repent!  The Godfather theory. How can you help outsiders not look at the facts here. I've been watching this for the same amount of time before I could make conclusion of the hopping :rabbit:.  And the funds going to feed the  :horse: s.

This little tidbit will mean absolutely nothing to anyone but me. My mother passed away about 3 years ago. She was a contributer. But I knew she sacrificed much to do it. Not until I finally went through her clothes this past week with much tears at what I discovered.

You know what I found?? I found the stockings she wore all folded washed and neat with the tops looking all clean until I unfolded and saw the heels all gone and that is the way she must of wore them without me knowing. She sent money before she bought for herself.

Then I watch the posting of someone stating "It is nobodies business what he spends his personal money on. I can state one thing. A crook is a crook and a thief can be of the worse type. But this is the ultimate of using peoples sincere emotions of Love from all and especially the elderly on fixed income as a gift to God for greedy purposes.  A Corvette!  How extremely wonderful for DS. Unless true repentenance the gates are open wide. Any guess of which one to just the on lookers?? How can you present Extravaganza living expenses any different? People can spend their money any way they please for sure but not the way this so called use of SDA propaganda did! DS is at the helm and his ship is broken.




tinka, I feel your pain through your post, and you brought a tear.  Your mama was a true gift from God.

Think of the joy when she is able to meet her Creator face to face!

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on June 01, 2009, 09:26:07 AM

Maybe you should go to law school, anyman. Or perhaps edit you post again to make it more accurate.



Hey - isn't there a good law school at Pepperdine?  What a beautiful campus!
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Sam on June 01, 2009, 09:30:54 AM
She had nothing to do with any of the issues associated with 3-ABN.

I think that statement is going too far. We do have someone who claims to have been terminated after expressing concern to Danny that he should stay away from Brandy regarding OS. We also have Danny sounding like he had a girlfriend named Brandy in early 2005, but denying such in late 2005, and then marrying her several months later.

And then there are the lawsuit's claims itself. The lawsuit raises questions about what board members thought about Danny's relationship with Brandy. Nick Miller said that in early 2005 he became concerned about certain issues, including personal issues about Danny. Then Nick got jettisoned from the board about the time Linda and Danny exchanged emails over Danny selling out the ministry for sex, specifically OS, allegations Danny never denied.

And then there is the issue in the lawsuit about 3ABN money getting funneled to Brandy through a third-party non-profit, something Nick told me about, along with the idea that Danny tried to transfer property to Brandy before they got married.

So Brandy does have a lot to do with the issues associated with 3ABN, even if she wasn't with Danny when they bought the corvette while 3ABN was suffering financially, and even if she isn't helping Danny spend the money he has siphoned away from 3ABN in various ways. And even if she had not been chasing Danny for 17 years prior to their marriage, or been chasing Danny at any time prior to June 25, 2004.

It simply is impossible to keep Brandy away from the issues, especially given the issues Danny chose to litigate over.

Here we go..."someone who claimed".  Repeating rumors again Bob? Spreading gossip that is unsubstantiated. In fact I challenge you to PROVE one thing that you just stated. Prove it with something besides "someone told you" and "someone claimed".
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: GRAT on June 01, 2009, 10:11:51 AM
How about you prove without a doubt that LS committed adultery and that DS was then free to remarry.  Every time that is asked it gets really quiet.  All you have ever had was someone has seen it so believe us.  :hamster:
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 01, 2009, 11:57:53 AM
Sam seems to be grasping at straws when he/she asks me to prove that the lawsuit brings Brandy into the middle of this by referring to board concerns about Danny having an inappropriate relationship with her, and by referring to funneling money to her through another non-profit.

Sam, just read the lawsuit. It's there and has been in there for more than two years.

But if you were referring to something else, and was willing all the time to admit that I spoke the truth about that, then please in the future be more specific when you say I haven't proven something.

The issue was whether Brandy was involved or not, not whether what Nick and others said was actually correct. Someone can be involved in an investigation or litigation of the issues and end up being totally innocent.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on June 01, 2009, 03:58:13 PM
Snoopy,

Thank you, yes I cried a lot.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Fran on June 01, 2009, 05:54:43 PM
I knew that Brandy was there in July in 2004!

Yet we were told she never appeared until November 2004!  Why?  To hide the fact that Danny and she were sitting in the Subway eating dinner every day at lunch!  They think people are blind?

Now, Dr Day has opened the BIG can of worms!  She was there in 1999!  God is opening the truth wide open about Brandy and her where abouts!

Oh yes, she is involved! 

However, people make mistakes, but somewhere the lie has to stop!
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Mary Sue Smith on June 01, 2009, 06:27:24 PM
I knew that Brandy was there in July in 2004!

Yet we were told she never appeared until November 2004!  Why?  To hide the fact that Danny and she were sitting in the Subway eating dinner every day at lunch!  They think people are blind?

Now, Dr Day has opened the BIG can of worms!  She was there in 1999!  God is opening the truth wide open about Brandy and her where abouts!

Oh yes, she is involved! 

However, people make mistakes, but somewhere the lie has to stop!

Fran, I'm afraid Dr. Day has had a lapse in memory. It is true that Brandy did not show up until in November 2004. You cannot put her there any earlier no matter how much you try.  And NO, she was not in Subway with Danny eating dinner before November 2004.  Sorry. Repeating this over and over will not turn it into the truth either.

I agree, the LIES need to stop.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gregory on June 01, 2009, 06:51:42 PM
I have just discovered that the last three (3) paragraphs are missing from my post at the the beginning of this thread.  Here they are:

Quote
As a SDA minister, my pastoral heart goes out to Brandy, in the same manner that it went out to Linda Shelton.  Brandy is probably a young Christian who is early in her spiritual journey to Christ.  The attacks directed against her are likely to discourage her in her walk toward Christ and the SDA Church.  Why would she even want to continue as a SDA when the charges against her come from those who take the name of Christ and the SDA Church?

It does not matter to me whether or not the charges made against her are true. In Christ she is cleansed by the shed blood of Christ on the cross.   In Christ, her sins, whatever they may be, have been cast into the depths of the ocean and have been forgotten.  They do not need to be made public.  I see nothing Christ-like in doing so now.

I supported Linda Shelton in part because I saw her as a woman attacked by well-organized people with a story to tell about her.  I see Brandy also being attacked, as a woman, by well organized people with a story to tell.  I ask all women reading this:  How would you like to be in the place of Brandy?  How would you like such charges to be made against you from your past, regardless of whether or not they were true.  I believe that the charges against Brandy demonstrate a basic unfairness that affect all women regardless of where they are in regard to 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. Those who have an ax to grind in this matter should pursue it on the basis of Danny Shelton and/or 3-ABN and leave Brandy alone.   She is not responsible.  She should not become the issue.  I do not believe that Christ would attack Brandy in the manner that is being done.  I do not believe that those who follow Christ should go after her.
Quote


Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gregory on June 01, 2009, 06:54:42 PM
I need to be very clear so that no inappropriate speculation is made about my post:

I believe that the last three paragraphs which are missing from my post are missing due to a copy and paste error that I made.  I do NOT believe that they are missing due to any action on the part of the management of this forum.  I Believe that the error was solely mine.

Please read those three paragraphs in connection with my first post inthis thread.

Gregory Matthews
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: GRAT on June 01, 2009, 07:14:17 PM
As a woman I would not be in the place Brandy is in.  I do not know what is wrong with woman that they would get involved with married men.  If a man will dump his wife for you, a younger model, he will dump you in the same way when he is done with you.  You are not so special as you think.  I have a friend who started a relationship with a married man and 25 years later he did the same thing to her with another younger woman.  She is really having a hard time with it but what can you expect.  The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on June 01, 2009, 07:43:13 PM

I supported Linda Shelton in part because I saw her as a woman attacked by well-organized people with a story to tell about her.  I see Brandy also being attacked, as a woman, by well organized people with a story to tell.  I ask all women reading this:  How would you like to be in the place of Brandy?  How would you like such charges to be made against you from your past, regardless of whether or not they were true.  I believe that the charges against Brandy demonstrate a basic unfairness that affect all women regardless of where they are in regard to 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. Those who have an ax to grind in this matter should pursue it on the basis of Danny Shelton and/or 3-ABN and leave Brandy alone.   She is not responsible.  She should not become the issue.  I do not believe that Christ would attack Brandy in the manner that is being done.  I do not believe that those who follow Christ should go after her.



Actually, Gregory, I have been there, and entirely at the hands of some people I think you know.  And you're right - it certainly hasn't done much for my Christian experience.  But nobody ever came along worrying about how it might affect me.  Where was your pastoral rebuke when my unfortunate experience was being broadcast over the internet at the hands of your friends Mrs. Brantley and Attorney Cindi Kline Randall?  (I hope you have not entrusted them with any of YOUR personal information!!)  In my situation (which had nothing whatsoever to do with 3ABN but was jumped on by those desperate to discredit anyone who does not buy in to the 3ABN facade), I was falsely accused and the case was ultimately dismissed from the court system.  Yet several of the Danny/3ABN Defenders have me convicted of a crime.  And just for making this post, I will be accused by your buddies of "blaming my problems on everybody else" and "not taking responsibility for myself".

And all I ever did in connection with this 3ABN mess was to volunteer my time!!  Brandy MARRIED Danny Shelton!  I actually felt bad for her and the situation she has found herself in until she made that poor child hide under a blanket for an hour just to facilitate more deceit.

It is difficult to take you seriously, Pastor, when you are so selective with regard to just which women you choose to support.

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Fran on June 01, 2009, 09:06:03 PM

I knew that Brandy was there in July in 2004!

Yet we were told she never appeared until November 2004!  Why?  To hide the fact that Danny and she were sitting in the Subway eating dinner every day at lunch!  They think people are blind?

Now, Dr Day has opened the BIG can of worms!  She was there in 1999!  God is opening the truth wide open about Brandy and her where abouts!

Oh yes, she is involved! 

However, people make mistakes, but somewhere the lie has to stop!


Fran, I'm afraid Dr. Day has had a lapse in memory. It is true that Brandy did not show up until in November 2004. You cannot put her there any earlier no matter how much you try.  And NO, she was not in Subway with Danny eating dinner before November 2004.  Sorry. Repeating this over and over will not turn it into the truth either.

I agree, the LIES need to stop.

I am in total agreement.  In the future, please discover the real truth and not what you have been told.  And by the way, go here to read some truth.  Savor exhibit "P" and tell me just who has been lying!   http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-178.htm
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Mary Sue Smith on June 01, 2009, 09:12:55 PM

I supported Linda Shelton in part because I saw her as a woman attacked by well-organized people with a story to tell about her.  I see Brandy also being attacked, as a woman, by well organized people with a story to tell.  I ask all women reading this:  How would you like to be in the place of Brandy?  How would you like such charges to be made against you from your past, regardless of whether or not they were true.  I believe that the charges against Brandy demonstrate a basic unfairness that affect all women regardless of where they are in regard to 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. Those who have an ax to grind in this matter should pursue it on the basis of Danny Shelton and/or 3-ABN and leave Brandy alone.   She is not responsible.  She should not become the issue.  I do not believe that Christ would attack Brandy in the manner that is being done.  I do not believe that those who follow Christ should go after her.



Actually, Gregory, I have been there, and entirely at the hands of some people I think you know.  And you're right - it certainly hasn't done much for my Christian experience.  But nobody ever came along worrying about how it might affect me.  Where was your pastoral rebuke when my unfortunate experience was being broadcast over the internet at the hands of your friends Mrs. Brantley and Attorney Cindi Kline Randall?  (I hope you have not entrusted them with any of YOUR personal information!!)  In my situation (which had nothing whatsoever to do with 3ABN but was jumped on by those desperate to discredit anyone who does not buy in to the 3ABN facade), I was falsely accused and the case was ultimately dismissed from the court system.  Yet several of the Danny/3ABN Defenders have me convicted of a crime.  And just for making this post, I will be accused by your buddies of "blaming my problems on everybody else" and "not taking responsibility for myself".

And all I ever did in connection with this 3ABN mess was to volunteer my time!!  Brandy MARRIED Danny Shelton!  I actually felt bad for her and the situation she has found herself in until she made that poor child hide under a blanket for an hour just to facilitate more deceit.

It is difficult to take you seriously, Pastor, when you are so selective with regard to just which women you choose to support.



As far as Brandy hiding her child under a blanket. This was Brandy's child and as her mother, she was protecting her from two CAM's running willy-nilly, just as any normal mother would do who loves her little girl and wants her picture protected from the internet gossip, not desiring her picture to be put up on the internet.

So what did Dr. Day do? She immediately, within a few hours posted the child's full Passport picture and ID. Dr. Day KNEW Danny and Brandy didn't want the child's picture put up. We have proof of that fact. Danny and Brandy were trying to avoid this but Dr. Day did this out of spite because she didn't like how angry Brandy was for having to do this stupid test.

What a waste of everyone's time and money--just because no one would believe Danny. Time to figure things out folks.






Edited to remove inappropriate content.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Murcielago on June 01, 2009, 10:31:22 PM
As far as Brandy hiding her child under a blanket. This was Brandy's child and as her mother, she was protecting her from two CAM's running willy-nilly, just as any normal mother would do who loves her little girl and wants her picture protected from the internet gossip, not desiring her picture to be put up on the internet.

So what did Dr. Day do? She immediately, within a few hours posted the child's full Passport picture and ID. Dr. Day KNEW Danny and Brandy didn't want the child's picture put up. We have proof of that fact. Danny and Brandy were trying to avoid this but Dr. Day did this out of spite because she didn't like how angry Brandy was for having to do this stupid test.

What a waste of everyone's time and money--just because no one would believe Danny. Time to figure things out folks.






Edited to remove inappropriate content.

I have looked through the posted documentation for anything that would indicate Danny and Brandy tried to keep the child's name, picture and infromation off the internet. I have seen nothing. Post your sources and proof Junebug. What Dr Day did in posting those things was inexcusable. That the girl's mother did not DEMAND in the contract she signed that the child be protected is beyond inexcusable! Don't you think for one moment that you will come here with this foolishness about them trying to protect the girl from Dr Day's cameras, now. They are BOTH just as guilty as she is. They didn't protect the baby. They just let her be used as another of so many innocent little pawns that have been sacrificed in their sick game. I don't care which side you come from, using a kid to make your point takes you to the bottom of the barrel. Danny and Brandy now fall into that category and you, Junebug, know it.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on June 01, 2009, 11:01:23 PM
Well, I haven't been here in a while, and I decided to take a look.  I have a few observations.........

I really have to agree with GM in that going after Brandy will accomplish nothing.  I believe that Brandy is only guilty of bad judgment, as have been many of us have been for the [possible] love of a man.  At the very least if she wanted to be with Danny, she should have insisted on him taking care of his ragedy business first..she didn't, she compromised.  That is her bed and she will have to lie in it. Let me be clear in the fact that I do believe there is impropriety on the part of Danny and Brandy a long time before the demise of the Shelton marriage.  Sorry, I just cant' shake that gut feeling.  I COULD be wrong, though!

That being said at this point, what's done is done,and Brandy and Danny have had or will have to answer to God about that.  No one here has heaven nor hell to put them.  What would you have them do at this point? Even if Danny dumped Brandy in a very misguided attempt to rectify things, he and Linda still would be divorced....and Danny would have another unbiblical divorce for folks to chew him up aobut.  We should just probably let that go.

Snoopy, you know you are my Gurl, but you know if you have been there, the answer to feeling like that is not to make someone else feel that pain(IOW, misery love company), at least that is not the christian thing to do...Am I right?  Isn't the answer to encourage, uphold, and witness about how you made it through? 

Folks, Christian brothers and sisters...Brandy and her children should be off limits in these discussions.  That is the right thing, the christian thing to do.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on June 01, 2009, 11:51:41 PM

Snoopy, you know you are my Gurl, but you know if you have been there, the answer to feeling like that is not to make someone else feel that pain(IOW, misery love company), at least that is not the christian thing to do...Am I right?  Isn't the answer to encourage, uphold, and witness about how you made it through? 



I don't think I am "making someone else feel that pain".  I simply responded to Gregory that I think that Brandy, based on her own choices and decisions, has made herself fair game for discussion in all of this mess.

As for the "encouraging, upholding...", "christian thing to do" stuff, I really don't want to hear it.  I've had it with the two-faced, hypocrites who claim to be "mending broken people".  And then to have Pastor Gregory come spouting off here about those poor helpless women who are being attacked....  I have been attacked, only for the pure fact that I made the very unfortunate decision to volunteer at a purported Seventh-day Adventist "ministry"!!  Only to observe practices that should make any accountant shudder, and then subsequently make the very difficult decision not to keep quiet about what I saw.  I heard not a peep from Pastor Gregory with regard to concern for my spiritual well-being.  As for "how I made it through"?  It's not "through".

My good friend Artiste has also been attacked by these so called "Christians" only because she had the misfortune of being indirectly connected to 3ABN and also speaking out.  Where was the good Pastor then?  I guess one has to be "famous" in the Adventist church to obtain support for doing what they think is right, at least from Pastor Gregory.

So please pardon my bluntness when I say that I am not interested in your version of "the Christian thing to do".  If these people are representative of heaven, I'm not sure I want to be there.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Murcielago on June 01, 2009, 11:54:57 PM
Dear Princess! I must say that you are full of regal wisdom. Love ya! I agree with most of what you say. At this point I am quite angry with Brandy for giving up her daughter on the alter of sacrifice to Danny. That is beyond horrible in my view. I have said several times that if there is any evidence that I am wrong in this I will apologize for my upset. Lord help me! This just makes me mad!
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Mary Sue Smith on June 02, 2009, 08:56:48 AM





As far as Brandy hiding her child under a blanket. This was Brandy's child and as her mother, she was protecting her from two CAM's running willy-nilly, just as any normal mother would do who loves her little girl and wants her picture protected from the internet gossip, not desiring her picture to be put up on the internet.

So what did Dr. Day do? She immediately, within a few hours posted the child's full Passport picture and ID. Dr. Day KNEW Danny and Brandy didn't want the child's picture put up. We have proof of that fact. Danny and Brandy were trying to avoid this but Dr. Day did this out of spite because she didn't like how angry Brandy was for having to do this stupid test.

What a waste of everyone's time and money--just because no one would believe Danny. Time to figure things out folks.






[/quote]


And... I just received the following additional information via email.

" The item submitted as a specimen from 15735 MO can not be excluded as the mother of the item submitted as a specimen from 15735 CH"

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


 
Mother and Child DNA results


So much for Dr Day's conspiracy theories, spins, and attempts to cast doubt on the identity of the child and thus undermine her own test results....

It's over....ian
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Wendall on June 02, 2009, 11:20:23 AM
I would like to add some common sense here. Why not just have had the doctor come over to Danny's house-privacy + credibilty-take the test and have doctor leave. :scratch: Or how about a local attorney's office. BUT IN THE PUBLIC ARENA= :ROFL: :oops:I know let us intentionally complicate the process. Why the movement on location of the meeting at the last minutes=paranoid=strongly infers people who are not trustful. No I am not a psychologist.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on June 02, 2009, 11:48:39 AM
Sorry to hear this Snoopy.  I am praying for the healing of those wounds.  However, I do have to disagree that Brandy's marriage to Danny makes her fair game in all this.  Danny is the one who was married to Linda, not Brandy.  I thought this was supposed to, at this point, be about the unlawful and unchristian practices of 3ABN as a ministry and a buisness.  There is little if nothing anyone can do about the divorce of Linda and Danny. That is a done deal, unless they both change their minds, and then we gots a whole new set of issues because of his marriage to Brandy.  And to include the children in this venom is just down right cruel and shows a measure of moral and spiritual decline in those willing to sacrifice these children at the alter of "Danny is worng about everything in his life".  However, this is your(plural and general) fight, and you all will have to answer for the things you do.

You are still my Gurl, though.  We will just have to agree to disagree on this one, and not be diagreeable about it, right?   :)

I don't think I am "making someone else feel that pain".  I simply responded to Gregory that I think that Brandy, based on her own choices and decisions, has made herself fair game for discussion in all of this mess.

As for the "encouraging, upholding...", "christian thing to do" stuff, I really don't want to hear it.  I've had it with the two-faced, hypocrites who claim to be "mending broken people".  And then to have Pastor Gregory come spouting off here about those poor helpless women who are being attacked....  I have been attacked, only for the pure fact that I made the very unfortunate decision to volunteer at a purported Seventh-day Adventist "ministry"!!  Only to observe practices that should make any accountant shudder, and then subsequently make the very difficult decision not to keep quiet about what I saw.  I heard not a peep from Pastor Gregory with regard to concern for my spiritual well-being.  As for "how I made it through"?  It's not "through".

My good friend Artiste has also been attacked by these so called "Christians" only because she had the misfortune of being indirectly connected to 3ABN and also speaking out.  Where was the good Pastor then?  I guess one has to be "famous" in the Adventist church to obtain support for doing what they think is right, at least from Pastor Gregory.

So please pardon my bluntness when I say that I am not interested in your version of "the Christian thing to do".  If these people are representative of heaven, I'm not sure I want to be there.

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on June 02, 2009, 07:39:29 PM
Quote
I would like to add some common sense here. Why not just have had the doctor come over to Danny's house-privacy + credibilty-take the test and have doctor leave.  Or how about a local attorney's office. BUT IN THE PUBLIC ARENA=  :oops:I know let us intentionally complicate the process. Why the movement on location of the meeting at the last minutes=paranoid=strongly infers people who are not trustful. No I am not a psychologist.


Wendall,
I saw no commone sense in any of this either. It all should have been done proper by correct rules and court approved. Right now it is not court approved. So that makes it not total 100%. It show mother and daughter but still not excepted because of identification misdone.  Nothing seemed right about this at all. That was my first point of something wrong is how they had to meet. Then they changed it. No matter what Dr. Day says right or wrong, evidently the meeting was something not exactly right.  I still think it would have been better to offer the money to Murray and see if he was the father. I just don't understand why all this took place when there was other ways to do it.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on June 02, 2009, 09:39:38 PM
It was interesting that the First Circuit on Friday decided that oral arguments would not be allowed in our appeal, which can only be done if a 3-judge panel unanimously decides such on the basis of one of three reasons. It's in Fed.R.App.P. 34.

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

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

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

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

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
 



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

- anyman

-edited to correct content to accurately reflect the point being made.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on June 02, 2009, 10:03:10 PM
For probably close to five (5) years I have been following the developing saga of the issues associated with 3-ABN and Danny Shelton. 

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

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

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

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


Now, Mr Gregory,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter









Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 03, 2009, 01:20:17 PM
I believe that indicates that our brief and the record are clear enough that oral arguments wouldn't add a thing. Do note that we filed maybe 1500 pages, and the other side filed about 61 pages, including their table of contents.

I goofed. The above is not a fair comparison.

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

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

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

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

So we did file an awful lot of material on our own initiative, and some on their initiative, and some on the initiative of both sides. But comparing about 1500 pages to about 61 pages isn't quite accurate or fair.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 03, 2009, 01:21:31 PM
That the girl's mother did not DEMAND in the contract she signed that the child be protected is beyond inexcusable!

Based on the appeaarance of the signature, Brandy never signed it.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 03, 2009, 01:24:17 PM
The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

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

How many children has Brandy had? Can you prove your answer?
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: GrandmaNettie on June 03, 2009, 03:25:38 PM
The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

Edited to restate my final sentence.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Murcielago on June 03, 2009, 04:29:57 PM
IMO the child in question is the child who was tested. The test may have been handled poorly but its done and it says that Brandy is the mother and Danny is not the father. Question resolved. As I see it, the "higher road" not EVER taken by DS/3ABN should be taken here. Time to say, "Sorry, I was wrong." Time to remove names, pictures, and private info of a little kid from the internet and move on. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on June 04, 2009, 12:12:37 AM
That is what I am saying George...Game over!......Please tell me there is not a video and/or pictures of this child posted here or somewhere....that is really sick and depraved beyond belief.  There is absolutely NO consideration of this child's feelings or emotional health.   It is also being sacrificed on the altar of "Everything Danny does is wrong/Let's Get Danny".  You can't get any lower than feeling that you(general) need some kind of confirmation by seeing the child's face. I'ts done, people. let it go!  Apparently whatever Danny does, and however, he does it will not please you, even if it were perfect, it would still be worng to you.  Let it go!


IMO the child in question is the child who was tested. The test may have been handled poorly but its done and it says that Brandy is the mother and Danny is not the father. Question resolved. As I see it, the "higher road" not EVER taken by DS/3ABN should be taken here. Time to say, "Sorry, I was wrong." Time to remove names, pictures, and private info of a little kid from the internet and move on. Just my opinion.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Murcielago on June 04, 2009, 12:49:52 AM
Yes, there is a picture of the child posted somewhere else. Not here. Danny has absolutely done some things that should be looked into, but nothing pertaining to an adult justifies the sacrifice of a child, ever. In any way.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 06, 2009, 08:33:19 PM
The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another possibility would be for Danny to foot the bill for Dr. Day to do a second test on a child proven to be the one that was supposed to be tested. Then if that test produced identical results, the matter would probably be forever resolved.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Pat Williams on June 06, 2009, 11:21:24 PM
The results, the highest this particular lab ever gives, are that there is a 99.999% probability that the child is Brandy's. The test results are from the same lab, the same Doctor, and from the same samples that Dr Day took and sent to them. Anyone can compare the two documents and easily see this for themselves.

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



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

Dr Day isn't a total idiot I hope.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Pat Williams on June 06, 2009, 11:36:14 PM
Another possibility would be for Danny to foot the bill for Dr. Day to do a second test on a child proven to be the one that was supposed to be tested. Then if that test produced identical results, the matter would probably be forever resolved.

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

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

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

It's all done and over with Mr Pickle.

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Fran on June 07, 2009, 01:58:51 AM
Dr Day did not see original documents or passports.

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

Because Danny failed to fill the requirements of the agreement, I have my doubts that the child is truly Trinity.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on June 07, 2009, 05:24:30 AM
Danny_Defender is purposefully not getting it.

Danny_Defender, didn't Dr. Day say that she was only allowed to see the child's face for 30 seconds? And hasn't she made it clear that she doesn't think the tested child was the age of the one in question? And wouldn't it make sense that she was merely told without proof how many children Brandy has had?
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on June 07, 2009, 07:06:05 AM
Dr Day did not see original documents or passports.

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

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


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

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

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: dburt on June 13, 2009, 06:29:03 PM
Please read the post of today, 6-13-09 under "Open letter to Dr Thompson". In the interest of brevity, I will not repeat it here.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Johann on January 22, 2011, 08:46:13 PM
Someone suggested that many of the viewers of 3ABN do not know that Brandy is no longer married to Danny Shelton.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on January 22, 2011, 09:19:58 PM
Someone suggested that many of the viewers of 3ABN do not know that Brandy is no longer married to Danny Shelton.

And would the few viewers left even care if they did know??? Would they care that he is even now working on yet a fourth wife? Would they really care or believe that Danny Lee Shelton is a philandering womanizer, a co-founder who had his hands in the till, subborns perjury with impunity, prevents the prosecution of pedophiles, lies under oath and continues to use 3ABN assets to his own personal purposes?

Nay, never...he is the annointed one and hypocracy is alive and well in all circles. After all, 3ABN is the Lord's work, right???

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on January 23, 2011, 07:01:10 AM
Would the fourth possibly be a long haired brunette that has sung on 3abn??? Just wondering cause I really liked her voice but lost rememberance of her name. She stood beside DS on a 2009 camp meeting rerun last nite. Yikes I hope this question is ok?
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on January 23, 2011, 01:00:02 PM
It has been reported that Danny's new girlfriend is Yvonne Lewis.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on January 23, 2011, 02:45:48 PM
Guess I got the wrong girl. Thanks
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Johann on January 23, 2011, 02:56:45 PM
Someone wondered if it would be a solution that Danny and Linda married again.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on January 23, 2011, 03:24:06 PM
Oh my Johann, never thought of that one.  :ROFL:  DS may have to take the place of the Rafferty's since it all was so public.  Well, Swigart and Bakker made a come back. All he has to do is cry and say I've sinned and Linda would have to handle all the money this time and take DS driving licence away. Don't let him have any sugar for a while until his diet is changed.   ;) since you are what you eat!! Think that might help?? But then he would have to admit the 100% dna one way or the other. You know, just so the public can know where the money is going. :ROFL:  :dunno:  He might have to do something strange since he might be penniless after the lawsuit. To tell the truth he probably should backtrack somewhere as he might have had one too many. Maybe all he has to do is call and say hey..L...this is sugar!! Guess I need to stop here. lol

Added thought
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on January 23, 2011, 04:09:09 PM
I can see the wisdom in God in the Bible forbidding divorcees from remarrying after they have already married and divorced someone else. God said that kind of thing would cause confusion, and it sure would.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on January 23, 2011, 05:44:39 PM
Oh my Johann, never thought of that one.  :ROFL: Well, Swigart and Bakker made a come back. All he has to do is cry and say I've sinned and Linda would have to handle all the money this time and take DS driving licence away. Don't let him have any sugar for a while until his diet is changed.   ;) You know, just so the public can know where the money is going. :ROFL:  :dunno:  He might have to do something strange since he might be penniless after the lawsuit. To tell the truth he probably should backtrack somewhere as he might have had one too many. Maybe all he has to do is call and say hey..L...this is sugar!! Guess I need to stop here. lol

Added thought

It will take an international banking specialist to track Danny's money. He made frequent trips to the Carribean and would suppose that would be a good start, but don't discount other off-shore locations. Unless he is an incredible spendthrift I would guess any lawsuit would likely be paid by the stock-holders in the pews and those magnanimous directors. He has rarely paid his own big budget expenses as I am told that a variety of philanthropists would always step up and agree to pay in his stead... I am told by sources that even grandchildren's tuition obligations were paid by 3ABN contributors...and we know from records at our disposal that even his hair cosmetics were dumped on Linda Sue Shelton and she was stuck with the pay-off of the credit card Danny used  to pay the clinic for the transplants in the low five figures, oh, nuts, lets just be clear that it cost close to $25k.

There is one faliacy in your scenario...Danny Lee Shelton does not have what it takes to confess, repent and seek reconciliation, least of all, publicly, an essential part of recovery from public and nororious sin...if he did he would have already done it!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

 
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: mrst53 on January 23, 2011, 06:09:51 PM
Gailon,
God can work miracles :puppykisses:
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on January 23, 2011, 08:16:48 PM

It will take an international banking specialist to track Danny's money. He made frequent trips to the Carribean and would suppose that would be a good start, but don't discount other off-shore locations. Unless he is an incredible spendthrift I would guess any lawsuit would likely be paid by the stock-holders in the pews and those magnanimous directors. He has rarely paid his own big budget expenses as I am told that a variety of philanthropists would always step up and agree to pay in his stead... I am told by sources that even grandchildren's tuition obligations were paid by 3ABN contributors...and we know from records at our disposal that even his hair cosmetics were dumped on Linda Sue Shelton and she was stuck with the pay-off of the credit card Danny used  to pay the clinic for the transplants in the low five figures, oh, nuts, lets just be clear that it cost close to $25k.  This all seems beyond redemption!   
There is one faliacy in your scenario...Danny Lee Shelton does not have what it takes to confess, repent and seek reconciliation, least of all, publicly, an essential part of recovery from public and nororious sin...if he did he would have already done it!!  No doubt about this
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter

 

As I watched the Rafferty Interview it almost seemed like they were making it appear that many have similar weaknesses  (3abn)and sort of made a common deal of it that plague most people and possibly opening the door for DS to come through too.  It was just a thought on why they would do what they did.  Sure many people (over 50%) do this but if you are true to God you just don't do it so that proves your above point of repentance. DS is self indulgent just the same as TS. Both are criminals against people using their trust.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on January 23, 2011, 08:38:56 PM
Wow!!!   LOL!!!   Stranger things have happened!


Someone wondered if it would be a solution that Danny and Linda married again.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Snoopy on January 23, 2011, 09:22:30 PM
Someone wondered if it would be a solution that Danny and Linda married again.

In my opinion, Linda is too smart to get caught up in that mess again!!

Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Johann on January 24, 2011, 02:15:15 AM
I can see the wisdom in God in the Bible forbidding divorcees from remarrying after they have already married and divorced someone else. God said that kind of thing would cause confusion, and it sure would.

Absolutely right! That old book has some solid wisdom we'd better follow!
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Chrissie on January 24, 2011, 04:50:40 AM
Someone wondered if it would be a solution that Danny and Linda married again.

In my opinion, Linda is too smart to get caught up in that mess again!!



I don't believe that she is THAT dumb!  :hot:
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Bob Pickle on January 24, 2011, 05:12:42 AM
It will take an international banking specialist to track Danny's money.

Or maybe someone reading secret banking documents leaked on WikiLeaks.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on January 24, 2011, 05:41:43 AM
Linda was blessed to be led out of the mire. She probably now feels free although it was so hard to take the wound she did.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Johann on February 04, 2011, 02:45:02 PM
Why is Danny Shelton now doing most of his preaching in Florida?
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Artiste on February 04, 2011, 03:34:41 PM
Does he have family connections there?
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: GRAT on February 04, 2011, 07:30:35 PM
Maybe he has found the fountain of youth there.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on February 05, 2011, 04:39:09 AM
Maybe he has found the fountain of youth there.

 :ROFL: Grat, you got it, either way." Either a new youth or like you say.  :ROFL:
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on February 06, 2011, 01:35:39 PM
Just as real stupid question...Isn't Fl where Brandy is supposed to be living....and not alone?  Jes' askin'     :dunno:
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Gailon Arthur Joy on February 06, 2011, 07:30:51 PM
Let me be blunt and point out there are still a lot of OLD FOOLS who still believe Danny is the "anointed one" and will turn out and support the little miscreant in the state of Florida. I know that many have "anointed
one" worship syndrome and are virtually blind to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Naturally, every exploiter will gravitate to the population that will still fork over money without question.

Why do you think that "ponzi schemes" are alive and well in Florida??? Many investment scams are born and executed in the Sunshine State.

On the other hand, If I were Gilley, I would want him as far away from Illinois as I could get him.

Did it occur to you it is a hop, skip and jump to certain Caribbean Islands that are likely repositories of "retirement funds"?

But, do not despair, process servers can reach him even on the stage of a live broadcast and boy would I love to be the one to serve the "anointed one" with this Return of Service, LIVE!!!

Whe-e-e Doggie!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on February 09, 2011, 01:45:12 PM
Who is Yvonne Lewis?  I know I am a bit tardy with that question, but as I read this statement over again, it seemed she might be familiar to some.


It has been reported that Danny's new girlfriend is Yvonne Lewis.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: childoftheking on February 09, 2011, 03:22:37 PM
She is the new general manager for 3ABN's Dare to Dream Network. There is an article with a picture of her in the January 2011 3ABN World Magazine pages 10 and 11. I believe this can be viewed online. On the other hand when I asked someone if this was the girlfriend (because I thought she fit the description) they didn't think that she was the person they had seen on tv with DS. I don't believe the person I asked claimed to have inside information.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: tinka on February 09, 2011, 06:03:25 PM
I watched it all in Florida...Surely this Dr. Y. Lewis is smarter then this. If this is so it sure gives you a blast. Her education is beyond D......... Of course she has been a singer with Roberta Flack and background for plenty of singers. Danny gave the whole roll of it.   This just keeps a goin in "Days of our Lives"  :ROFL: Don't worry just know the phrase but never watched it. and this is as bad!! :ROFL: Just maybe it isn't the truth.
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Johann on February 10, 2011, 09:40:18 AM
It has been reported that on his way into the pulpit Mr. Danny Shelton made some ugly accusations against Linda right there in Florida, referring to Brenda, then turning to the audience preaching with the same kind of vigor. It seems like a horrifying inspiration for a message to God´s people?

Quote
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Praying for you
From: bh <- - @yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, February 04, 2011 9:14 am
To: "linda@lindashelton.org" <linda@lindashelton.org>

We all have missed you Linda, Satan is working extra hard on keeping your message from being heard! I know our God will prevail and you will be heard by more people than ever before. Stay forever faithful in prayer Linda, we look forward to reading your publications.

Sent from my iPhone
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on February 10, 2011, 02:34:00 PM
Alrighty Jed...Ooops  GJ!  LOL!!!  I have been to Grand Cayman......ther is like 35 banks within two blocks or something.  LOL!!!


Let me be blunt and point out there are still a lot of OLD FOOLS who still believe Danny is the "anointed one" and will turn out and support the little miscreant in the state of Florida. I know that many have "anointed
one" worship syndrome and are virtually blind to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Naturally, every exploiter will gravitate to the population that will still fork over money without question.

Why do you think that "ponzi schemes" are alive and well in Florida??? Many investment scams are born and executed in the Sunshine State.

On the other hand, If I were Gilley, I would want him as far away from Illinois as I could get him.

Did it occur to you it is a hop, skip and jump to certain Caribbean Islands that are likely repositories of "retirement funds"?

But, do not despair, process servers can reach him even on the stage of a live broadcast and boy would I love to be the one to serve the "anointed one" with this Return of Service, LIVE!!!

Whe-e-e Doggie!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: Johann on February 13, 2011, 02:20:43 PM
Alrighty Jed...Ooops  GJ!  LOL!!!  I have been to Grand Cayman......ther is like 35 banks within two blocks or something.  LOL!!!

Must be a "rich" place?
Title: Re: Brandy
Post by: princessdi on February 13, 2011, 09:04:04 PM
No, just a haven for a lot of "off shore" banking......