3abn Produce The Evidence Options

[calvin]

Below are just a few places In Dr Thompson’s letter where “evidence” is noted that 3ABN has that confirms the relationship with Dr. A in Norway was less than professional. So what is the evidence? I have heard it is taped conversations. Why not end this craziness that has been going on for two years? Produce the evidence that you are so reluctant to expose. You have given the evidence to a select few but still questions and rumors abound.

Send the evidence to me at: calvin@blacksda.com I will post it here. I will keep your identity anonymous.

The relationship Linda had with the Norwegian Dr. was not a
normal doctor-patient relationship as she claims. It is true.
Linda was very concerned about her son Nathan. He was the
vehicle through which the Dr. reached Linda. Our evidence
leaves no question that this became much more than a
doctor-patient relationship. We know that the long hours on
the phone together were not about Nathan and have hard
evidence to support this knowledge - nor were times spent
together on both sides of the Atlantic. Furthermore, she
refused to break it off, even after weeks of pleading with her
to do so. We, the board believe the evidence we have clearly
justifies the divorce and gives Danny the moral and legal
right to remarry. Those in church leadership with whom we have
shared some of this evidence agree with us. Out of concern for
Linda we have been reluctant to make details public.

[Rand856]

Calvin, Good Post......but don't hold your breath. 3ABN can't produce something that don't exist.

[calvin]

Well, somebody has seen something that is convincing enough for the 3ABN BOD and church leaders to continue to support 3ABN. So what is it?

[Observer]

Calvin, Good Post......but don't hold your breath. 3ABN can't produce something that don't exist.

A major piece of evidence, I believe, is supposed to be a taped telephone conversation in which only one participant in the conversation was taped.

One side is supposed to be evidence? Astounding!

[lurker]

Someone said and I believe it was Johann who said it - that emails were sent claiming to be from Linda but they didn't fool her friends. Why were they sent when it would be so obvious to her friends that they were faked and not from Linda? Don't you think they were to leave "evidence". Who else had access to Linda's computer, especially during the time she was kept from visiting 3ABN. Now they have the hard drive etc.

This post has been edited by lurker: Aug 4 2006, 12:00 PM

[watchbird]

Well, somebody has seen something that is convincing enough for the 3ABN BOD and church leaders to continue to support 3ABN. So what is it?

Oh that's an easy one..... "Danny says........Danny wants........."
What is more convincing that hearing the voice of "God"?

Strike up the band ............... ..............

"Dan said it, I believe it, and that good enough for me."

[Panama_Pete]

Well, somebody has seen something that is convincing enough for the 3ABN BOD and church leaders to continue to support 3ABN. So what is it?

It was apparently the Illinois Conference President who moved the 3ABN pastor to Springfield to subjugate Linda Shelton and bring her to heel as the wicked adulterer in the minds of the other Springfield church members.

And the Illinois Conference President sits on the 3ABN Board.

The biggest problem is the one Watchbird mentioned. 3ABN has the Adventist Church's Seal of Approval.

Metaphorically speaking, because the Adventist Church is involved, I think the fast-moving iceberg will be found to have deliberately struck the SS Vasectomy . In other words, the captain of the SS Vasectomy -- with the seal of approval -- can do no wrong.

They're already planning 3ABN satellite seminars in September featuring Dwight Nelson and Doug Batchelor. 3ABN is mentioned as a partner. The spots are running on 3ABN. I think this photo represents the official Adventist Church's "ONE WAY" position:



I think the verdict is already in, it's just that the trial hasn't happened.

[sonshineonme]

Well, somebody has seen something that is convincing enough for the 3ABN BOD and church leaders to continue to support 3ABN. So what is it?

Well Calvin, you're forgetting the real problem. NO ONE saw ANYTHING. THEY only HEARD Danny. They HEARD what John and others were to SAY to them - all of it 2nd hand, and NO ONE WAS WILLING to HEAR LINDA or anyone else BEFORE they made their judgement. And if you keep in mind, the board there at 3abn is not like a "normal" board. They are for appearances only. They play a literal roll, a figurement. They are not like the board in your church, or other independant ministries such as Amazing facts. They are structured for a total different purpose. If you only visited your mother once or twice a year, and she talked to you for 1 hour, had you sign papers you had to sign, and you left, really how much would you know after that about what was going on in her neighborhood? Nothing. You would only be interested in what she had to say and what she needed you to sign, and you are on your way, you did your good deed as a figurehead. That was your only task. Nothing more. You are only a necessary party for "legal" reasons where your face and sig are needed. And besides, he's God's chosen, who are we to question??? Good'ole SDA thinking???

It was VERY clear to MANY that the only reason it was happening the way it was with Linda and Danny, was because "the president doesn't want his vice-president any more, period". I am quoting. Church leaders didn't want to get involved - their tendency is not to till they HAVE to. Well, they are having to now, like it or not, and now we shall see just how they hold their responsiblity to the rest of the church. Keep your eyes open...it's happening.

[Freedom]

Isn't it ILLEGAL to tape a phone conversation without the consent of both parties?
My understanding is that it is illegal.

Freedom

A major piece of evidence, I believe, is supposed to be a taped telephone conversation in which only one participant in the conversation was taped.

One side is supposed to be evidence? Astounding!

[Panama_Pete]

Isn't it ILLEGAL to tape a phone conversation without the consent of both parties?
My understanding is that it is illegal.

Freedom

You could tape my phone calls until the cows come home and never hear anything of interest. However, you could make a transcript and include explanations of every comment that sound very damning.

Pete: "Hey Fred, I'm leaving for Wal-Mart now."

(That late-nite trip to Wal-Mart, that's where Pete meets the drug dealer, everybody.)

Pete: I've got to pick up some Claritin-D.

(This is an important ingredient for people with meth labs.)

Pete: I'm feeling a little under the weather, Fred.

(Fred is one of the other dealers downline.)

Pete: I've got a big day tomorrow and I need some sleep.


(A "big day" is code for when drugs are being smuggled into the country.)

This is sort of what I understand happened to Linda. "Explanatory comments" were apparently added to her phone call, prepared as a transcript, and then sent out.






This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Aug 4 2006, 06:50 PM

[watchbird]

Isn't it ILLEGAL to tape a phone conversation without the consent of both parties?
My understanding is that it is illegal.

Freedom

Don't really understand the applications of your question. I mean .... look at it this way .... why would someone who itotally focused on finding something that will give him the "legal right" to marry his sweet little cutie pie, care about whether taping a phone conversation is "illegal" or not? Pu-lease! Don't confuse us with such "legal" technicalities.

[sonshineonme]

You could tape my phone calls until the cows come home and never hear anything of interest. However, you could make a transcript and include explanations of every comment that sound very damning.

Pete: "Hey Fred, I'm leaving for Wal-Mart now."

(That late-nite trip to Wal-Mart, that's where Pete meets the drug dealer, everybody.)

Pete: I've got to pick up some Claritin-D.

(This is an important ingredient for people with meth labs.)

Pete: I'm feeling a little under the weather, Fred.

(Fred is one of the other dealers downline.)

Pete: I've got a big day tomorrow and I need some sleep.


(A "big day" is code for when drugs are being smuggled into the country.)

This is sort of what I understand happened to Linda. "Explanatory comments" were apparently added to her phone call, prepared as a transcript, and then sent out.

PEERRRRRFECT analogy. I love analogies...they just seem to cut to the chase, don't they?

[LadyTenor]

Isn't it ILLEGAL to tape a phone conversation without the consent of both parties?
My understanding is that it is illegal.

Freedom

Only in certain states is that illegal...and it is ALWAYS illegal if the gov't is doing it ABSENT A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT WARRANT...

[watchbird]

Only in certain states is that illegal...and it is ALWAYS illegal if the gov't is doing it ABSENT A LEGALLY SUFFICIENT WARRANT...

An interesting comment, LadyT. Maybe you could push this a little further so as to answer a nagging little question that's been sitting on a stool in the corner of my mind for a long long time .......

OK ... you have made a distinction between legal and illegal in two different ways..... what state one is in, and whether itis the "gov't" vs (I suppose) an ordinary citizen.

Now here's another "distinction" I'd like you to address. I had always thought that taping a phone conversation was, by definition, a recording of both sides of the conversation, that which is coming over the phone line as well as what can be heard in the room. It has also been my understanding that to place such a recording device on your own phone, was not illegal.

But if there is no recording device picking up the incoming voice, then I really don't see how it has anything to do wih legal vs illegal. It is not illegal to record what is being said in your own home, is it?

[Freedom]

But after Linda moved and was in her OWN trailer, didn't Danny planted listening devices and still record phone conversations?

The trailer wasn't his so......


Freedom

An interesting comment, LadyT. Maybe you could push this a little further so as to answer a nagging little question that's been sitting on a stool in the corner of my mind for a long long time .......

OK ... you have made a distinction between legal and illegal in two different ways..... what state one is in, and whether itis the "gov't" vs (I suppose) an ordinary citizen.

Now here's another "distinction" I'd like you to address. I had always thought that taping a phone conversation was, by definition, a recording of both sides of the conversation, that which is coming over the phone line as well as what can be heard in the room. It has also been my understanding that to place such a recording device on your own phone, was not illegal.

But if there is no recording device picking up the incoming voice, then I really don't see how it has anything to do wih legal vs illegal. It is not illegal to record what is being said in your own home, is it?