Print

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

[Cindy]

Posted by Synthian on Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:45 pm 


From adventtalk:

You have only Dryden's claim about that. Whereas you also have the claim that

            

The allegations against Tommy were made ..years ago. They were reported to the proper authorities. No physical actions ever occured. Tommy appologized to the kids and offered recompence. The DA said there was no case. No restrictions were ever imposed. Tommy is employed by 3abn with full board approval, knowing the facts.

        The board apparently checked into and verified those facts, did you ever bother to check with the DA, to check with the authorities and even try to understand the facts from all those years ago in regards to what was reported and why no charges were ever filed?

      

Your question is irrelevant. There are many allegations of child molestation... Whether charges were filed or not is irrelevant to the question of civil liability, the question I raised in 2006, and the question I got sued for asking as 3ABN and Danny Shelton endeavored to cover up those allegations by shutting me up.

 (bold text above supplied by Bob Pickle)

Has Robert Pickle changed his story?


Published by Robert Pickle on http://www.save-3abn.com

 

  A Big Problem

    Linda Shelton has retained Laird Heal as her new attorney, and that is a big problem for 3ABN president Danny Shelton. Why? Consider what Danny wrote in October 2006:

       -------- Original Message --------
        From: Danny Shelton
        To: G. Arthur Joy
        Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 00:06:37 -0500

        You are not in the mix. Your childish name calling has not set well with a number of church leaders.You are obviously driven by pride and trying to get your 15 minutes of fame. Every email you send only makes you look more foolish for those of us who know the truth. The final vote is now in the hands of church leaders to decide. It will be fair. And notice will be given to those involved, which does not include you.

        Danny Shelton

    And in November 2006 Danny wrote:

       -------- Original Message --------
        From: Danny Shelton
        To: Bob
        Subject: RE: Clarification needed to put rumor to rest
        Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 17:26:24 -0600

        Bob,

        ...

        Gailon has access to a few people who worked there who have an ax to grind and have told him twisted stories which are lies. He's either not to bright or gullible, or is out to prove something himself. ...

        Gailon sees himself involved. He is delusional. He is not involved. ...

        God Bless!

        Danny

    ...

    Danny's dilemma now is how to keep Gailon Joy "not in the mix" and "not involved" when a circuit court of the State of Illinois has recognized an associate of Gailon's [Laird Heal] as Linda's official attorney. Will he be able to pull it off?

Laird Heal speaks:

 

  Doc 17 Case # 07-40098-FDS -- transcript
    http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/m ... doc-17.pdf

    MR. HEAL: And to introduce this case in a different light, what we have here is a plaintiff, who is going through a divorce and has a lot of money, and he wants to hide it; and he comes to this Court. As a matter of fact, he serves the complaint in my office on me that's destined for Mr. Joy, and I look and see the impoundment order, and I can't tell my client, who is Linda Shelton, in Illinois, about the case -- nobody can -- and the information that she's trying to find about her
    ex-husband's assets.You know, there is one more little roadblock in the way. They had a separation agreement in which Linda Shelton was prevented from --

    THE COURT: Let me, before I forget the thought. Have you been served with complaint, that is, have Mr. Joy and Mr.Pickle been served?

    MR. HEAL: I'm not sure if Mr. Pickle has been served, although I'm sure he would have said if he hadn't.

    THE COURT: Just so that it's clear, and perhaps I should have made it clear. It was not my intention by this preliminary order of impoundment. I signed a proposal that was presented to me. It's not intended to prevent service of the complaint or to prevent counsel from reviewing the matter with their clients. Obviously, to the extent there is any suggestion along those lines, it is hereby limited. You are free to discuss it with your client. You represent both Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy; is that right?

    MR. HEAL: I had entered an appearance to represent Mrs. Shelton; and then when it was served on me, it became logical that I represent Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle --

    THE COURT: Okay.

    MR. HEAL: -- because he wouldn't be able to come to Massachusetts.

    MR. HEAL: Now, as I said, there was a nonmutual restraining order that prevented Mrs. Shelton from disparaging her husband, but that was only nonmutual, and there was a cavalcade of, you know, accusations. They're reflected in the exhibits you have, and the exhibits I posted were just complete versions of what the other counsel had redacted, and you can have the gist of that, but Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle are essentially saying the things that Linda Shelton couldn't say.

    Mr. Pickle himself is, as he says, an apologist. He attempts to keep any matters of dispute in the church very quiet, very private, and completely out of the public eye, but he has told me that that couldn't be possible in this case.

    Now, with respect to the cases that my brother has cited, they were not in the motion, and I didn't know that that was the basis that he was complaining that things should be impounded on, but when I looked at it, it seemed that the public has, as in case after case says, a very strong interest in knowing what's going on in the courts, and you don't want to have any intimation that there's a private, you know, Court that is secret from everybody, unless there is a very good reason.

    My brother talks about evidence, and you know, if you are -- what can I say. You've got one person writing a letter and saying this is not for publication. There is a common law copyright, and, well, Mr. Joy puts that up and says, look here, there is no common law copyright. It's over and over again just a, you know, an effort to squelch one side of the story while he continues to say his own. I got information that he shared the existence of this lawsuit as early as the 6th of April with the Canadian Conference of Seventh Day Adventists, all the while trying to tell this Court that it should be kept private. I can't -- your Honor, I can't understand why the, you know, the suggestion that there should be an impound master in this case. You know, the parties are liable for scandalous pleadings, but just to copy what's published somewhere else as an exhibit is -- this is not defamation. The harm that might be caused, well, it's as I said, the harm that's going to come out in a divorce where the parties can't get along, and they start calling each other the worse person on the earth, the other party has to defend themselves.

    The personal e-mails that my brother referred to, they were gotten through, first, the, you know, Mrs. Shelton handed them to a good friend [Darrell Mundall] to go through, and he released them; and at that point she understood that, you know, she had as much of a tiger by the tail as, you know, the plaintiff here has, because by then she had not been able to work for several years. You know, she was branded an adulterous, which in Seventh Day Adventists' eyes is really a very bad thing. She was not allowed to go behind any of the pulpits. Women in the Seventh Day Adventist Church can't be ministers, but they can preach, and she was watching the remainder of her savings as she was going through the divorce dwindling to nothing, and at that point she decided that, yes, it had to be done.

    I want to note, too, that in the complaint, there are a couple of little liturgical kind of gaffs, and by, you know, having this material impounded, you know, yes, you're preventing the defendant from using the plaintiff's words against him. They say that Three ABN is a nondenominational institute, and they say it's ecumenical. And when the Seventh Day Adventists read that, they would howl. It's absolute sacrilege to them; and, you know, it's the kind of thing which looks innocent, but when it's read by somebody, who is schooled in the bible and who's determined that they're the only church that is schooled in the bible, will cause a firestorm. My brother has said that their defamatory comments that are hurting the plaintiffs, they've really hurt themselves; and you know, to have this matter impounded, well, I would say the public's interests, as I mentioned in my opposition, is really paramount. There is nothing that they brought up that hasn't -- it's been documented.

    Mr. Joy has for the past 20 years run a newspaper in which he talks exclusively about Seventh Day -- excuse me -- exclusively about Seventh Day Adventists' affairs; and when he does that, he checks his sources, and he states his opinion based on those sources. There is nothing in the exhibits before you, especially as supplemented, that will suggest otherwise. There really is a much stronger interest in preserving the freedom of speech than in impounding materials, and I can't see the benefit of having essentially an impoundment master to say whether any given items should be in the public eye.

    Three ABN and Danny Shelton are public figures. They present a picture of themselves to the world, and there is no reason, if they don't live up to that picture, that it couldn't be the only picture shown that if they don't live up to that picture. The exhibits speak for themselves that, you know, can't -- that should be shown to them. That is what the public needs.

    Thank you, your Honor.

   "Indeed, the case was brought for the harassment of the allies of Plaintiff Shelton's ex-wife just as her divorce case is going to demand as much preparation as possible"

   --Source "Supplemental memorandum of Robert Pickle...". Filed: June 11, 2007 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Three angels broadcasting Network, an Illinois non-profit organization and Danny Shelton individually, plaintiffs vs. Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle, Defendants, Case # 07-40098-FDS



To add to the picture here is the following memorandum filed by Danny Shelton's attorney with an affidavit from Gregory Simpson attached at the bottom which was filed in Danny and Linda's property case. That case is under seal, but Linda Shelton gave this and other documents to others such as Dr Loraine Day who published them on her website. Here is the link to the document on her website.
http://goodnewsaboutgod.com/pdfs/porder.pdf
Note particularly item # 3.


If it is removed, you may access and view the copy I saved (along with the other documents, and the Google search results which revealed them) and uploaded to the forum here:

[Bob Pickle]

Has Robert Pickle changed his story?

As is often the case, you have posted a lot of stuff without being clear as to what your point is. And so it is difficult to know how to respond.

What exactly are you trying to ask, in as few words as possible?

[Johann]

Has Robert Pickle changed his story?

As is often the case, you have posted a lot of stuff without being clear as to what your point is. And so it is difficult to know how to respond.

What exactly are you trying to ask, in as few words as possible?

You are asking a very pertinent question, Bob.

[Snoopy]

As requested Ian, please state the point of your OP or this thread will be closed.

[anyman]

It's crystal clear . . . read item three for starters. Ian owes no more explanation than has been provided. RJP owes an explanation.


ADMIN HAT ON

Ian was asked by a member of the AdventTalk moderating team to clarify her original post in an AdventTalk subforum.  Thus, she DOES need to clarify her point if she wants other posters to be able to respond intelligently to what her point IS.   Capiche??

ADMIN HAT OFF

[Cindy]

As requested Ian, please state the point of your OP or this thread will be closed.

 

Since you require it, Snoopy.

The point of my thread, was clearly stated in my title:
    

The LS connection? - or - Has Robert Pickle changed his story?

, and that question was repeated within my post. (along with the relevant quotes)

Has Robert Pickle changed his story??

Decide for yourselves, Folks...

Robert Pickle on June 11, 2007 filed in the lawsuit:

  "Indeed, the case was brought for the harassment of the allies of Plaintiff Shelton's ex-wife just as her divorce case is going to demand as much preparation as possible"

Robert Pickle on March 22, 2010 on his website and this forum:

"In the Three Angels v. Joy case, filed in retaliation for Joy and Pickle's blowing the whistle on Danny Shelton's cover up of the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton"

[Bob Pickle]

That is helpful.

First of all, I did not file that document in June 2007. That was Laird Heal.

Second, it is probable that Danny Shelton sued us for multiple reasons. Whenever he gets deposed, maybe we'll know more.

Third, we did not have documents from Dunn Loring in June 2007, which reveal that Danny was threatening to sue them over the Tommy issues.

Fourth, I seem to recall that Laird thought it was all about the divorce.

Fifth, at this point in time, I can't imagine myself using the word "allies" to refer to myself. Recall how I point blank told Harold Lance that I didn't consider myself to be part of "Linda's side." Where she was wronged, it ought to be made right, and I'm all for that. But I'm not some blind loyalist who is out to vindicate her no matter what.

It just so happens that she has been vindicated in the process, since Danny could not come up with one shred of evidence against her. Not one. And his childhood friend, Brenda Walsh, turned out to be lying about the tickets to Florida, which raises questions about all the other stuff she said.

So from a Christian standpoint, I think 3ABN owes Linda an official apology. And while they're at it, Danny ought to give her one too.

[Pat Williams]

First of all, I did not file that document in June 2007. That was Laird Heal.

Bob Pickle's 3ABN v Joy site says:

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Worcester)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07-cv-40098-FDS

06/11/2007   15 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for permanent impoundment re 2  MOTION to Seal Document filed by Robert Pickle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jones, Sherry) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

[Snoopy]

When a motion is filed with the court, is it generally attributed to the attorney who filed it or by the name of the party on behalf of whom it is filed?

First of all, I did not file that document in June 2007. That was Laird Heal.

Bob Pickle's 3ABN v Joy site says:

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Worcester)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07-cv-40098-FDS

06/11/2007   15 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for permanent impoundment re 2  MOTION to Seal Document filed by Robert Pickle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jones, Sherry) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

[ex3abnemployee]

When a motion is filed with the court, is it generally attributed to the attorney who filed it or by the name of the party on behalf of whom it is filed?

First of all, I did not file that document in June 2007. That was Laird Heal.

Bob Pickle's 3ABN v Joy site says:

United States District Court
District of Massachusetts (Worcester)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07-cv-40098-FDS

06/11/2007   15 SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM in Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for permanent impoundment re 2  MOTION to Seal Document filed by Robert Pickle. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Jones, Sherry) (Entered: 06/12/2007)

Desperation, Snoopy. Desperation. They know the end is near.

[Bob Pickle]

I cannot locate where I was given a chance to review that particular paragraph before Laird filed it.

And Snoopy is right. I was not allowed to file anything myself until I went pro se. When I needed to ask in hearing if I could go move my car, Hillman almost didn't let me ask since I was represented by counsel at the time. But my lawyer couldn't ask for me since he and I were 1700 or so miles apart.