Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on January 15, 2010, 11:59:14 AM
-
Last Sunday I got an email from Greg Simpson in which he demanded that I retract a certain statement or else he would sue me here in Minnesota for defamation. I didn't respond in the way he demanded.
I've been sitting here wondering this week if he was going to follow through and actually do it.
Thus far no complaint has been served on me. But it does illustrate yet again for Cindy Conard why there is still a need for a legal defense fund. The war ain't over yet.
-
Did he really say that?
-
Last Sunday I got an email from Greg Simpson in which he demanded that I retract a certain statement or else he would sue me here in Minnesota for defamation. I didn't respond in the way he demanded.
I've been sitting here wondering this week if he was going to follow through and actually do it.
Thus far no complaint has been served on me. But it does illustrate yet again for Cindy Conard why there is still a need for a legal defense fund. The war ain't over yet.
Well, so far I don't think you have been bowing to their demands to retract things, so why start now?
-
Well, what does he believe you said, and did you say it? If you did, do you have enough money to pay him to stick by your statement or do you need to retract it?
-
For sure the war isn't over yet.
-
Wow!!!!
You even have an attorney threatening to sue you now!!!!
-
Simpson's threat of January 10, 2010, included the following:
I will not respond to any efforts by you to communicate with me unless you first issue the retraction.
But on December 30, 2009, Simpson wrote the following:
From this point forward, any communication or questions that you wish to direct to 3ABN and Danny Shelton, or any of their attorneys, should be directed to me and only me. I will be the only person who communicates with you on behalf of the Plaintiffs/Appellees.
But on July 17, 2009, Simpson wrote the following:
Please stop contacting me unless court rules require it. We have no other reason to communicate.
Court rules don't require me to write to any specific attorney, as far as I know.
But on July 9, 2008, and July 8, 2009, Simpson wrote the following:
In the future, unless specifically directed otherwise, please direct all communications with my firm to my attention.
All correspondence and communications regarding this matter should be directed primarily to me, because I remain the lead attorney in the case, despite having moved to a different law firm.
It's kind of confusing. Do I write to him or not?
If he tells me up front he isn't going to reply, then why write him at all instead of the other attorneys? If I write him and he replies, why should I worry about his threat? If he isn't going to refuse to reply as he promised, then he may not sue me as promised either.
Perhaps he's stressed. I would be too if I could be liable for abuse of process and malicious prosecution, and if a denial of a motion for sanctions against me was under appeal.
-
Ok, so Bob you worked his very last nerve, said something he apparently did not like, and he told you to stop contacting him.....he can do that. The conditons changed when you said whatever it is you siad, or he perceived you said. There fore, while he had previously said for you to contact him, he is now resending that statement. If you are trying to say he is being consistent, he is not. The $64 million question is still...............
........Well, what does he believe you said, and did you say it? If you did, do you have enough money to pay him to stick by your statement or do you need to retract it?
-
But Di, if I can no longer contact him, does that mean that he's no longer Danny and 3ABN's attorney?
That's what was kind of weird about his first request along those lines, on July 17, 2009, long before I did or did not say what he said I said. If I'm not to contact him unless court rules require it, which court rules hardly ever require when there are multiple attorneys in a case, unless you're going after that attorney in particular, then how can he be really representing Danny and 3ABN?
As to your excellent questions about what he thinks I said, and whether I said it or not, and why I refuse to respond in the way he demanded, I would rather address that after he files suit, or perhaps maybe I'll address that after awhile if he fails to file suit. Why give away my defense?
But I do stand by what I said, and refuse to retract it, because I believe it to be the truth.
-
No, it just means he doesn't want to talk to you, and/or he feels you know longer have a valid reason to contact him. I believe he would have said if he was no longer representing Danny/3ABN. That is not weird. They are steadily letting you know that you have no valid legal issues by ruling against you time after time. If that is what the judges are saying, then it is logical that the lawyer would no longer entertain your communications.........simple. Especially, since in normal situations the lawyers would have had little or no further communications after the suit was dropped.
-
Princess Di, I wonder if you have actually read all the communications regarding the actions of the lawyer after the suit was dropped.
-
No complaint served on me yet. I just checked online, and couldn't find anything filed yet. Sunday will make three weeks since Simpson's threat.
Perhaps he changed his mind. Perhaps he's been busy. Perhaps he chickened out. Perhaps he realized how stupid a move that would be.
Who knows? Haven't heard from him since.
-
Certainly attorney Simpson would not like statements that were defaming to him left out in the online public eye.
-
No complaint served on me yet. I just checked online, and couldn't find anything filed yet. Sunday will make three weeks since Simpson's threat.
Perhaps he changed his mind. Perhaps he's been busy. Perhaps he chickened out. Perhaps he realized how stupid a move that would be.
Who knows? Haven't heard from him since.
*Perhaps* he has no wish to talk to you and has nothing to say to you at the moment, and has other things more important to do?
*Perhaps* he has noticed you are all hot air and bravado but are yourself too chicken to repeat your defamatory statement because you realize how stupid a move that would be?
Who knows? But your motion to hold your appeal in abeyance has not been granted or denied yet, so *perhaps* if you concentrate on more pressing and important matters yourself, such as your appeal brief, you will hear from him again when 3abn and DS' brief is filed in response to yours :)
-
Princess Di, I wonder if you have actually read all the communications regarding the actions of the lawyer after the suit was dropped.
Answering for myself, I have read everything available and have no idea what exactly it is that you are finding fault with in the Lawyers actions, Artiste? Care to enlighten the readers and myself ? - quote the attorneys, and explain how they are wrong, and don't just regurgitate what Pickle sez they said and did please
Your posts and actions hereon this forum cause me to wonder if you, yourself, have read all and actually weighed and considered all in context, and from a legal, ethical and moral standpoint?
So, while we are asking questions here let's not wear blinders and be biased but let us look at both sides here and question all, ok?
1.Have you read all of the actions and claims of the defendants after the suite was dropped, Artiste? and have you read the rebuttals and answers to that and looked at both sides and weighed it all impartially and without bias as the courts have to do? [bold text and caps and italics etc, all used for emphasis only, while speaking/writing with a calm inside voice :) ]
--- Have you noticed that their faultfinding and heresay accusations which started out against Danny Shelton and Walt Thompson, and Kay Kuzma, and any who were friends to Linda and in her confidence at 3abn, have grown over time? They have grown to include:
The entire 3abn board, all of those employed by 3abn, all of Danny's iimmediate relatives, and even family members of other 3abn employess, the Pastor of the Thompsonville Church, the entire Thompsonville church board, all of the members of the Thompsonville SDA church, all of the ministries who work with and appear on 3abn, all of the conference officials who have stood by 3abn, ASI, 3abn's outside auditors, publishing companies, every poster who has ever tried to question and get the other side and all of the facts, from those above, and in conclusion had to disagree with Pickle and Joy and your little group as a result of that, and then? Well according to Pickle even the IRS destroyed evidence as ordered by 3abn... and NOW?? - the huge conspiracy according to them also includes all of the Attorneys representing 3abn, and even the court clerks and Judges in the case.
Can you understand that this is altogether too incredible for rational people to accept? All of the above in collusion with, or controlled by Danny Shelton to get rid of Linda Shelton, and to cover up his sins and crimes? All devoid of a conscience and hating Linda that much and all condoning and defending financial and business improprieties and covering up both civil and moral crimes? All of those people putting their own security at risk to do so? None concerned about their own jobs, standing, futures or salvation, and lacking a conscience? All of them?
NOT. Their claims are altogether too incredible for rational people to accept. Which raises the question here of why you accept it all, and defend it and uphold such? I don't have a clue how you can continue defending and upholding and even bowing to to and serving Pickle's warped needs and distorted claims here, and actually to all appearances acting as a shill for him, for you seem to be an educated, intelligent woman.---
So back to my above question. "Have you read all of the actions and claims of the defendants after the suite was dropped?"
.Have you read all of the actions and claims of the defendants after the suite was dropped, Artiste? and have you read the rebuttals and answers to that also and looked at both sides and weighed it all impartially and without bias as the courts have to do?
Have you read motion after motion which Pickle and Joy have filed since then with all of these accusations and bile and faultfinding incorporated within them, and argued as reasons for their various motions and for their biased point of view? Continually repeated even after the suite was dropped? Did you happen to notice one of those was a motions for sanctions against Attorney Simpson? Did you happen to notice their latest Motions asking for the midcounty records to be returned, and to be forwarded to the Appeal court incorporated their unsupported accusations against 3abn, their attorneys, the Judge and even the clerks, accusations which they are making on this forum also?
And more importantly have you read and do you comprehend the court's rulings and judgment on all of their motions?
In every single ruling, none of their futile arguments or unproven accusations were found to have any merit, or relevance in the courts.
Pickle and Joy have in fact lost in every argument they have made in the MA district court since October 2008.
Every single motion they have filed since they filed their opposition to 3abns motion for a voluntary dismissal has been "DENIED".
Every single request for reconsideration or an amended judgment based on their arguments and misinterpretations and misunderstandings and point of view had no weight, had no legal bearing, or had no relevance with the court and have also been "DENIED".
And--
As of yesterday, their last 2 motions, referred to the Magistrate Judge, were also "DENIED"
Rats are the first to desert a sinking ship, but even the Captain and crew know when it is time to give it up.
I wish you would all wake up and realize that you are not really standing on solid ground as you suppose. The shaky ground you all started out on has given way more and more as time has passed and events have unfolded, and the facts have come to light. You are all drowning here!
-
I appreciate the more intelligent response today versus a few days ago on another thread, Ian.
Perhaps Bob can address some of your concerns.
-
I appreciate the more intelligent response today versus a few days ago on another thread, Ian.
Perhaps Bob can address some of your concerns.
Thank you, but that is not necessary. I am very familiar with Bob's claims and views. I was talking to you, and asking for your independent thoughts and reasoning here.
But perhaps, another time...
-
Good news! The last few days Simpson has written me several times, even though I did not make the retraction he requested, though he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue.
Simpson's threat of January 10, 2010, included the following:
I will not respond to any efforts by you to communicate with me unless you first issue the retraction.
Guess he's changed his mind.
He wanted me to retract where I said on AdventTalk that he was a child molester. But I couldn't retract that since I never said it. And I don't know of anyone else here who has said such a thing.
So he was going to sue me here in Minnesota for defamation, for calling him a child molester, and then I was going to file a motion for summary judgment since I said no such thing.
-
Good work, Bob!
-
And I was so looking forward to that lawsuit. I would have expected to become a party defendant and get yet another
opportunity to spar with our old mentor!!!! But, then who knows, he has a few months yet!!!
May I express my supreme disappointment and my sympathies are with you, Bob!!!
Waiting impatiently!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Good work, Bob!
What work was good?? What did he do that you are applauding here?
In addition, what are you even going on, have you even seen Bob quote Simpson, or quote what Simpson took exception to, or quote any of their discussions he is talking about, or seen any kind of evidence in regards to this topic? If so, what? If not, why are you giving Bob kudos?
And NO, in reference to an earlier post of yours here (# 16) I am not interested in Bob's answer here. You posted "Good work, Bob!" here, so I am asking YOU to explain that...
-
Good news! The last few days Simpson has written me several times, even though I did not make the retraction he requested, though he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue.
Simpson's threat of January 10, 2010, included the following:
I will not respond to any efforts by you to communicate with me unless you first issue the retraction.
Guess he's changed his mind.
He wanted me to retract where I said on AdventTalk that he was a child molester. But I couldn't retract that since I never said it. And I don't know of anyone else here who has said such a thing.
So he was going to sue me here in Minnesota for defamation, for calling him a child molester, and then I was going to file a motion for summary judgment since I said no such thing.
Where is the email where he said what you claim, Bob? Where is the quote referencing what it was he actually asked you to retract? That would have been required in court, and it really is required here.
I have read enough here on this forum to know you have claimed he is the equivalent of a child molester.Iow, you have claimed he has protected a sexual abuser of children, and that he has covered up allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have even read more than several posts where you are questioning his salvation, and essentially say he is damned. (It really makes me feel sick.) Will you now claim you have done and said none of these things?
And You SAY "he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue."?
What issue, Bob, and for what? If you won't say and can't support what you are saying, what possible ethical and moral reason could you have to accuse him or even bring up and claim you are being threatened?
-
I have read enough here on this forum to know you have claimed he is the equivalent of a child molester iow, you have claimed he has protected a sexual abuser of children, and that he has covered up allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have even read more than several posts where you are questioning his salvation. (It really makes me feel sick.) Will you now claim you have done and said none of these things?
Where did I ever say that Simpson was the equivalent of a child molester?
Simpson has definitely tried to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, and that is an horrendously despicable thing for any lawyer to do while representing a supporting ministry of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.
As far as questioning his salvation goes, I am not omniscient. I have no idea who will repent and who will not. But I reject the heresies that someone doesn't have to repent of known sin in order to be saved, that one can be saved in sin, that breaking any of the 10 Commandments is not sin, that lying is not a sin, and that Rev. 21 and 22 are wrong when they say that all liars will be outside the New Jerusalem in the lake of fire.
It is easy for any liar is this whole scandal to be saved: All they need to do is repent and confess their sin, and Jesus' blood covers it. But according to the Word of God, repentance and confession are an absolute requirement.
And if anyone doesn't like that, they can take it up with the Judge who made the rules.
-
I have read enough here on this forum to know you have claimed he is the equivalent of a child molester iow, you have claimed he has protected a sexual abuser of children, and that he has covered up allegations of sexual molestation of children. I have even read more than several posts where you are questioning his salvation. (It really makes me feel sick.) Will you now claim you have done and said none of these things?
Where did I ever say that Simpson was the equivalent of a child molester?
I never claimed you said those words and you are intelligent enough to understand that especially as I explained what I meant "iow" in the balance of the sentence. See bold text above. And no, you aren't omniscient and don't know who will repent or who will not, but you certainly have no problem assuming guilt, and jumping up on the judgment seat of Christ and pronouncing who needs to repent and why as if you are.
But, I really feel you ought to respect me and others enough to answer the ontopic questions asked of you before you start asking your own questions.
In case you didn't see them, here are all 5 again.
Where is the email where he said what you claim, Bob? Where is the quote referencing what it was he actually asked you to retract? That would have been required in court, and it really is required here.
...
And You SAY "he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue."?
What issue, Bob, and for what? If you won't say and can't support what you are saying, what possible ethical and moral reason could you have to accuse him or even bring up and claim you are being threatened?
-
Where is the email where he said what you claim, Bob? Where is the quote referencing what it was he actually asked you to retract? That would have been required in court, and it really is required here.
The email is on my computer, and the quote is in that email.
There is no rule here requiring me to post his email by a certain date.
And You SAY "he did threaten to seek sanctions against me over a very different issue."?
What issue, Bob, and for what? If you won't say and can't support what you are saying, what possible ethical and moral reason could you have to accuse him or even bring up and claim you are being threatened?
The ethical and moral reason to say that Simpson threatened me is that it is true that he once again threatened me, and there is nothing barring me from stating the truth.
He threatened to seek sanctions if I filed a motion to file under seal, which I did over a week ago, and thus far he hasn't sought sanctions. When I asked him what his legal basis would be for seeking sanctions, he didn't state any.
We seem to have a track record here: He threatens and doesn't follow through. He said he would sue me and hasn't. He said he wouldn't communicate with me again unless I retract, and has communicated with me anyway. He told us he would seek a motion compelling us to consent to the return of the MidCountry records and never did. He told the judge in our Sept. 11, 2008, status conference that he was going to seek sanctions but never did. But in that last instance, we made it pretty clear to him that we had the goods on him on that one. We have regretted more than once that we didn't pursue sanctions over his shenanigans back then.
It is incredible how many times we've been threatened. When Jerrie Hayes sent us the non-confidential Rule 26(a)(1) materials, and we found in them Attorney James Greupner's confidential financial info, and we told Jerrie Hayes that we had found that, she threatened us, even though it was her fault, not ours, and we were kind enough to tell her what we had found.
-
Bob, I love threats, particularly from members of the bar...did you know that can be a violation of the DR's?
We have no alternative but to be prepared for this "defamation" case at any moment as no member of the
bar would ever make an idol threat. To do this would create a basis for a claim against the counsel.
As to Ian's fascination, may I suggest you continue your pattern of going directly to the source and get a
copy from your "insiders". Otherwise, you may wait like the rest of us for that inevitable service of complaint
and it will then become public record for al to see.
I also love the public record...it allows people to weigh the evidence for themselves and come to the conclusion
that best suites them...just like IAN.
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter