Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Docket entry # 92, pp. 17-29 list what Magistrate Judge Hillman said they should have given us with the documents they produced. Those pages identify what they gave us and which request they claim those documents were responsive to. Of course, they are possibly or probably wrong in their claims.

My original requests to produce consisted of 36 requests to 3ABN, and the same requests to Danny (to be answered to the extent that 3ABN didn't or couldn't produce the requested documents) plus #'s 37-44.

The highest number I see that the attorneys claim that the produced documents are responsive to is #34. Thus, Danny never produced documents responsive to #'s 37-44, documents first requested by me in this lawsuit in 2007.

Danny is one shady dude, don't you think? Claimed he had the goods on Linda and would bring it out in court, and then refused to do what he said he would do.

[Bob Pickle]

Here's what Ronnie Shelton wrote to Gailon on February 5, 2007, under the pen name Joe Smith.

The red is Ronnie and the black is Gailon's message that Ronnie is replying to.

Unlike an ASI tribunal, Federal Courts could care less about ones reputation,
or what they think, but rather just what did you personally observe. Since their
observations are clearly limited, I am not sure they have a lot to contribute. You,
on the other hand, apparently have seen quite a bit and I trust are honest, although
clearly prejudiced. You really need to stop the name calling if you want people to communicate with you. That may be some of the problems that you are having communicating with 3ABN.. this is my opinion.. I have to assume you know much of the real story. I also
assume you have a familial interest in seeing some conclusion to this mess before
the distraction from ministry becomes a futile clash that may ultimately prove
nothing for years and have us all on the sidelines as others are preparing for
the final conflict. I am thinking very much along those lines, but how to get there is another matter. You mentioned trust and honesty. There would have to be a trust in what I am telling you, and I would have to trust you. I know you have the reputation for posting private email. If I see this on the internet, it will be all over. I'll step right out of the role of mediator! If this happens... there is no need to go further. You may have trouble believing what I am going to tell you, but here it is anyway. I  do have close information about some things. I think, rather I know, that you have been deceived by Linda. She did have an inappropriate relationship with the doctor. I know for sure, I know the evidence. Any court would have no trouble finding Linda quilty. This is certain... you were given bad information. What you are quilty of most of all is receiving bad information, and publishing it.   It seems an appropriate time for a comprehensive resolution
of all the issues. .
 
Since you have pastoral license and are a potential party ot witness, can you tell
me from your observation what it would take to bring some sanity to this process
and lead to a clear path of reconciliation of all the parties. I can tell you what I think may help. The posting of propaganda by you and Bob P. and G Matthews... against Danny and the 3ABN staff and board would have to stop, dead in its tracks. It may be that that already is too much for you, I don't know. I don't believe negotiations can start any other way. A quick, very quick response from you has to be made if you want to halt the process against you that has already started.. I need to know within 24 hours.

[Bob Pickle]

Kind of sick, isn't it, to see someone who claims to be a Seventh-day Adventist pastor threatening someone else with a lawsuit if they don't shut up about their very real and legitimate concerns?

But note what Ronnie says: "I think, rather I know, that you have been deceived by Linda. She did have an inappropriate relationship with the doctor. I know for sure, I know the evidence. Any court would have no trouble finding Linda quilty. This is certain..."

So Ronnie made it clear that the evidence against Linda would be brought out in court, and then Danny stubbornly and persistently refused to do that. So was Ronnie bluffing or lying, or was he merely duped by Danny into believing a lie?

[Bob Pickle]

Here's more of that Feb. 5, 2007, email by Ronnie Shelton:

I, for one, am very disturbed by the level of growing bitterness exhibited in the
process, particularly on the forums. It was never the intent to foster such a
bitter contention and there simply must be a way to cool this process down!!! There is... you must be willing to make a statement, something to the effect of, you thought you were doing the right thing however your conclusions were wrong. They were based on bad information.
 
I would like to see a process that would bring all the parties to a reasonable
discussion that would lead to some reconciliation and healing for all sides.
There simply must be a way to turn this entire process into a positive recocil-
iation and work to the benefit of the work of Gospel mission.  .Danny and 3ABN are ready for court. They are not worried about the spreading of the facts. All their ducks are in a row. Linda's testimony will be shown to be false and you and Bob P and Mathews will be shown to have been mislead... and maybe much more liability than you want.
 
I await your input and assume you would prefer to serve the role of mediator
and conciliation author rather than keep up the bitter debate. If not, I understand
as ASI found it an untenable position for whatever reason. I await your response.

[Bob Pickle]

The audacity of Ronnie Shelton, Danny's henchman on that occasion! "Admit you were wrong without seeing one shred of the evidence we say we have, or else we'll sue you." What justice is there in that?

[Bob Pickle]

But notice that in talking about us being sued, Ronnie Shelton twice refers to Gailon, myself, and Gregory Matthews. How come Gregory didn't get sued too?

[Bob Pickle]

From mid to late February 2007, Ronnie Shelton was in contact with me, first through a mutual friend. During that time period I called my friend, and at that very moment Danny Shelton was talking to him trying to get me to back down or else I was going to be sued.

So both Ronnie and Danny were ganging up on me at the same time, trying to convince me to shut up, even though Danny was making no effort to make any wrongs right. When Danny threatened Nick Miller to back down, Nick said he didn't because he's not that kind of lawyer. And I'm not that kind of preacher.

It was wrong for Danny to cover up the child molestation allegations against Tommy. It was wrong for Danny to threaten Glenn Dryden and the Dunn Loring church with a lawsuit over that. And I'm not about to back down and say there was nothing wrong with that simply because some little bully tells me he's going to sue me.

[Bob Pickle]

Okay, now from the above posts you can see that Danny's henchman, Ronnie Shelton, was involved in trying to get Gailon and I to back down lest we be sued. You can also see that Gregory Matthews was on their hit list at the time, and yet he wasn't sued.

Perhaps Gregory could enlighten us here as to what sort of contact Ronnie or any of Danny's other henchmen or cronies had with him around about that time period, and what his response was at that time.

[Bob Pickle]

The other day I ran across the following statement written by Gregory elsewhere on 10/24/08 regarding the motion for dismissal:

It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit. That attempt failed. Therefore 3-ABN is moving ahead with a motion to dismiss which Gailon and/or Bob are likely to oppose.

In what way has 3ABN worked behind the scenes to get us to dismiss the lawsuit? Could Gregory please elaborate? Or would that put him in danger of being sued?

Garwin did make contact with me through a mutual friend early this year. What he wanted me to do was agree to release them of all claims in writing, without any negotiating whatsoever, without them agreeing to anything in writing. Now is that fair? Is that just? Is that right?

I told the mutual friend that we wanted to be able to sit down with the board and share our concerns. I was told that Garwin wasn't going to waste their time with that. I responded something to the effect that they've been willing to waste my time with this lawsuit. What's wrong with sitting down and sharing concerns? Mark Finley had advocated that idea.

I know of nothing else that could be construed into being a behind the scenes effort by 3ABN. But even the above could have been merely Garwin acting on his own. There was nothing in the conversations that indicated that Garwin was authorized by 3ABN to do any of this.

By the way, Danny is a party to the case too. Did Danny ever engage in any such behind the scenes efforts?

[Bob Pickle]

On Nov. 29, 2008, Gregory wrote elsewhere:

In an interesting development in this case, Bob Pickle has filed a motion in Federal Court in which he requests that 3-ABN and Danny Shelton compensate people for dropping the lawsuit against he and Gailon Joy.

Could Gregory please explain this statement? Dismissals under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) are often conditioned upon payment of costs to the defendants. But it appears that Danny is so stingy that he doesn't want to spare any of the who knows how much of 3ABN's donor funds he has taken over the years to pay our costs.

Edited after looking up "bilk" in the dictionary. Since evidence indicates that Walt Thompson approved of at least some of the transfers of 3ABN's assets or revenue to Danny, the word "taken" seems more accurate than "bilked."

[Bob Pickle]

On Nov. 29, 2008, Gregory also wrote:

As a point of interest, at one point they say: "In the annals of jurisprudence, it is doubtful that anybody ever sought reimbursement for a shower as a litigation cost. . . .Presumably he [Bob Pickle] would have showered anyway." Perhaps Bob will file a rebuttal which states that he would not have showered if he had not been involved in litigation?

We filed our response I believe on Dec. 8. It is now Dec. 21. How come Gregory has not yet corrected the obvious error in the above statement?

[Bob Pickle]

So how much of donor funds did Danny take over the years from 3ABN? Since 3ABN refused to allow us access to their records, we can't say.

But the 1998 house deal netted Danny almost $129,000 in one week, and the Remnant deals gave Danny somewhere between $749,000 and $808,000 from 2005 through 2007. Add those amounts together, and you've got nearly $1 million, just from that.

That wouldn't include all the money he got from 3ABN's purchases from D & L Publishing and DLS Publishing.

So certainly Danny can afford to reimburse me for a $6 shower taken while traveling because of the stupid, frivolous, unconstitutional, and anti-Seventh-day Adventist lawsuit Danny filed against us. Unless, of course, Danny is a scrooge.

Imagine, running a ministry and raking in millions in donations from unsuspecting widows and others, lining your pockets in the process, and then being such a tightwad that you hire an attorney at $300 an hour to object to reimbursing one of your poor victims for a legitimate, $6 shower travel expense!

[Bob Pickle]

Here's another correction that can be made. Stan wrote:

I had stated earlier that Bob should go after the person who made statements that sounded like a well qualified interpreter of financial statements, when in reality there seemed to be a significant overstatement of skills. The person sounded knowledgeable and skilled, and, in my opinion he took the analysed as it sounded confident. It clearly was not.

His is mistaken in this regard. I did not base my opinions on Fran's statements or analysis, though I certainly valued whatever she or anyone else had to say.

My opinions about the horse deals was based on what Danny himself said, what Danny himself put down on his 2001 through 2003 tax returns, and what the IRS instructions plainly state regarding IRS Form 8283. Facts are facts. Danny tried to evade following the instructions by wrongfully and knowingly reporting donations of property as cash. And the figures he wanted to report for 2004 were bloated by 4 to 40 times according to his own statements.

My opinions regarding the 1998 house deal are based on courthouse records signed by Danny and Walt, and by IRS instructions regarding section 4958 excess benefit transactions. Additionally, and Stan should be able to appreciate this since he is involved in trust services work, I spoke with a trust expert within the denomination regarding that transaction, and he thought it was a serious problem. A conference official standing nearby commented that a ministry doing that could lose their tax exempt status.

I also spoke with one of the attorneys that represented the government in 3ABN's property tax case about that transaction, and he said that that certainly sounded like private inurement. He said they thought there was something wrong going on at 3ABN, but they couldn't quite nail it down.

Have no fear! I am not going to sue the IRS folks who wrote the instructions for their forms, the denomination trust expert, the conference official, or the attorney on the other side in 3ABN's property tax case. No need to, since I never said anything factually incorrect on either of those things.

I'll add this note by editing. When I said above that there was "no need to" sue, I was not suggesting that it is appropriate to "sue the IRS folks who wrote the instructions for their forms, the denomination trust expert, the conference official, or the attorney on the other side in 3ABN's property tax case." I was merely responding to the thought that I should go after those who allegedly led me astray on financial issues, and was referring to the fact that those I referred to above never led me astray.

[Snoopy]

That reminds me of the very warm and friendly reception I received at the Franklin County courthouse when I was doing research there.  No matter what office I was in, whenever I mentioned that I was researching transactions involving 3ABN I was met with a raised eyebrow or a knowing smile or a desk where I could work!  One employee in the assessor's office even told me about how Danny Shelton had tried to take advantage of her dad in a real estate deal, obviously unaware of what the man's daughter did for a living!!  She and everyone else I dealt with there were very aware of 3ABN and very eager to help me.

I also spoke with one of the attorneys that represented the government in 3ABN's property tax case about that transaction, and he said that that certainly sounded like private inurement. He said they thought there was something wrong going on at 3ABN, but they couldn't quite nail it down.

[Bob Pickle]

The other day I ran across the following statement written by Gregory elsewhere on 10/24/08 regarding the motion for dismissal:

It is clear to me that 3-ABN has worked behind the scenes for some time to obtain an agreement from Bob and Gailon to dismiss the lawsuit. That attempt failed. Therefore 3-ABN is moving ahead with a motion to dismiss which Gailon and/or Bob are likely to oppose.

Back on August 14, 2008, Gregory forwarded me an email from some anonymous person who was apparently trying to broker a deal. Yet here is one thing the unknown person said:

I was contacted by someone last night (not anyone in the leadership or employ of 3abn and not a conference official) who is personally involved with the saga and would be in a position to “hear” things. ...

Please keep in mind as you ponder this, I can provide no verification that what my contact told me is accurate or truthful. My contact did not ask me to contact you or even suggest that I do anything. ... It could be an elaborate set-up to check on the flow of information or simply the wishful thinking of someone desperately tired of this saga.

Now does this sound like 3ABN working behind the scenes to get us to dismiss the suit they filed?

Another tidbit:

If it were somehow possible to do so, would you be content with having this law suit disappear without resolution? Would you be willing to close down all discussion of the alleged issues, turn off the web sites and have it all go away?

Now Gregory had told me before sending this that this would be a proposal that would allow the suit to end without anyone winning. Yet since the suit was filed to shut us up, if we agreed to shut up, how would that mean that no one would win? That makes no sense.