The Investigator Of 3abn Options

[fallible humanbe...]

Fallible, looks like you prove your name again. I went to Yahoo and searched for the following:
Gailon A. Joy Vermont

The results: NOTHING

I tried Gailon Arthur Joy Vermont

The results: NOTHING

SO, PUT UP THE INFO, PLEASE...

Either provide the link or print the partial document and explain what questions it raised in your mind. Thank you. Otherwise we are just taking your word and accepting your authority...

"sister",

It is an easy search, I ran it five times before posting the info and every time the first result was the same.

1. Go to www.yahoo.com

2. In the search box enter, Gailon A. Joy, Vermont (type it in exactly like that)

3. Tap the enter key

4. Click on the first link (State v. Joy)

I don't need to post what you can access yourself. It wasn't hard, just needed to run through a number of search engines. I started with Google, like most, because it is the most far reaching. In this case a secondary engine revealed this link. If this proves too difficult I will provide you the text of the legal brief (yes, I purchased it) as I thought it was important to see the State Supreme Court's decision in the case. It upheld the original jury decision.

- fhb

- fhb

[fallible humanbe...]

The problem with getting both parties to agree to a truely independant investigation, much less binding arbitration, it that the party at fault will never agree to it, that is, unless the deck is somehow stacked in their favor, in which case the investigation would not be independant.

Richard

So then, if Danny refuses we can infer guilt. But, then the same would be true of Linda as well. What I hear at this point is that Linda is not comfortable with the independent review by ASI.

- fhb

[fallible humanbe...]

Fallible, looks like you prove your name again. I went to Yahoo and searched for the following:
Gailon A. Joy Vermont

The results: NOTHING

I tried Gailon Arthur Joy Vermont

The results: NOTHING

SO, PUT UP THE INFO, PLEASE...

Either provide the link or print the partial document and explain what questions it raised in your mind. Thank you. Otherwise we are just taking your word and accepting your authority...

I ran it your way. The first link is still the same each time.

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 21 2006, 10:39 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

Would ASI be considered independant? They and their members have activly supported 3abn. To tell the truth I'm not real sure where you would find a completly independant panel to look into the allegations since nearly all church members have some opinion of 3abn, Danny and Linda. Maybe the investigation would have to come from outside the church?

Richard

[fallible humanbe...]

Would ASI be considered independant? They and their members have activly supported 3abn. To tell the truth I'm not real sure where you would find a completly independant panel to look into the allegations since nearly all church members have some opinion of 3abn, Danny and Linda. Maybe the investigation would have to come from outside the church?

Richard

ASI is a rather powerful entity in-and-of itself. If you are looking for an internal investigation then this would be your best bet. If the postings here are to be believed there - is - a diversity of thought on the 3ABN issue and this very well could extend to ASI. I don't think they are beholden to to 3ABN. There may be intricate ties between members but you can't say that ASI is any more pro-Danny than it is pro-Linda.

So an impartial panel is convened and Linda/Mr. Joy present their case and Danny/the Board present theres. Is there any chance that the panels decision will be adhered to? If not then the only option seems to be a civil trial. Where Linda's claims of being unfairly treated and jilted will play out against Danny's evidence. If you are an honest individual you have to believe that what is now being presented as truth will undergo a drastic change - and that goes for Linda as much as it does Danny. Linda is not squeaky clean in all of this contrary to what has been presented. Has she been hurt? Absolutely! Has she had to deal with her share of change and upheavel? Absolutely! But, the truth is that she has some dark clouds hovering over her head as well. Does she want this information revealed - probably not. Does Danny want to have to answer his accusers, probably not. But the fact of the matter is this. If the powers on Linda's side of the equation want the demise of 3ABN then they are probably going to be disappointed. If the powers on Danny's side want this to all go away without review - they too will be disappointed.

So this all begs the question - what is accomplished by this? What will the end result be? More souls lead to the foot of the cross? I don't know - but I am skeptical.

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 22 2006, 12:01 AM

[västergötland]

Here's puting up for you. Gailon Joy vermont in Yahoo will get you this:
https://www.fastcase.com/Yahoo/Start.aspx?C...iateConst=Yahoo

or here is the text:
[ ... ]

Following a jury trial in the Washington District Court, defendant Gailon Joy was convicted of one count of embezzlement in violation of 13 V.S.A. § 2531. Defendant appeals his conviction. We affirm.
[ ... ]

Provided this is the same guy and not just someone with the same name, then this doesnt seem the kind of endorsement that would be wished for.

[Observer]

So then, if Danny refuses we can infer guilt. But, then the same would be true of Linda as well. What I hear at this point is that Linda is not comfortable with the independent review by ASI.

- fhb

No, I disagree with the above. Guilt should not be automatically attributed to any party due to that party objecting to the process. Such assumptions may clearly be invalid.

NOTE: There are actually more than two parties involved in this.

In order to obtain the agreement of both parties, the discussions between the parties must be made in private, and not a part of public discussion. As a result of this, I am not going to comment on details. But, speaking in general terms, I believe that all involved parties are likely to object to some of what is being proposed. The issue now is: Can an agreement be crafted that all involved parties will accept?

I will state a personal opinion: I believe that it is possible to craft an agreement that will be acceptable to Linda and those who support her. I believe that it is possible for such an agreement to be fair to all involved parties. I do not know if it would be acceptable to all parties. That will remain to be seen.

However, if it is impossible to craft such an agreement, due to one or more of the parties rejecting it, I do not believe that we should assume guilt on the part of that party.

Here are some of the critical issues.

NOTE: ASI is an involved party. ASI could decide not to become involved. Such should not be assumed to imply guilt by any party.

1) What is the purpose of the investigative panel?

The purpose could be to achieve a binding resolution of the issues. Or, the purpose could be to issue a statement of fact, and recommendations for action by others. There are also other purposes that could be.

2) What are the limits of the issues considered by the panel?

This mess has expanded well beyond marital issues. It has become extremely complex. The reality is that an ASI panel likely would be unable to fairly resolve some of the issues. With this in mind, is it worth the effort to convene such a panel?

I am aware of other major issues that I could list. But, I will not do so at this time.

The two issues listed above are extremely important to all parties, and to ASI. I can imagine that an examination of those two issues could result in any of the involved parties, to include ASI deciding that it was not worth the effort and expenditure of resources to convene such a panel.

[fallible humanbe...]

No, I disagree with the above. Guilt should not be automatically attributed to any party due to that party objecting to the process. Such assumptions may clearly be invalid.

In looking at my original post I realize that I punctuated incorrectly. I should have put a question mark at the end of the first sentence as I was asking if that was the insinuation. I would agree with you Greg that you can not make those kind of assumptions - which was to be my point, save the fact I wrote poorly and punctuated incorrectly.

. . . The issue now is: Can an agreement be crafted that all involved parties will accept? I will state a personal opinion: I believe that it is possible to craft an agreement that will be acceptable to Linda and those who support her. I believe that it is possible for such an agreement to be fair to all involved parties. I do not know if it would be acceptable to all parties. That will remain to be seen.

One side of the issue can not dictate terms. It will not only have to be acceptable to Linda, et. al. but to Danny, the 3ABN Board, and the interested parties on that side of the table as well - which means there could be an extended period of time as everyone "wrangles" over the particulars. I think though, that to have a truly impartial hearing that the panel doing the questioning/investigating can not be limited in the scope of evidence to be considered.

1) What is the purpose of the investigative panel?

The purpose could be to achieve a binding resolution of the issues. Or, the purpose could be to issue a statement of fact, and recommendations for action by others. There are also other purposes that could be.

2) What are the limits of the issues considered by the panel?

This mess has expanded well beyond marital issues. It has become extremely complex. The reality is that an ASI panel likely would be unable to fairly resolve some of the issues. With this in mind, is it worth the effort to convene such a panel?

I am aware of other major issues that I could list. But, I will not do so at this time.

The two issues listed above are extremely important to all parties, and to ASI. I can imagine that an examination of those two issues could result in any of the involved parties, to include ASI deciding that it was not worth the effort and expenditure of resources to convene such a panel.

I think the key issue is the agreement of all parties that the results be accepted as final. If the parties go in with the intent that a favorable decision is the only one they will abide by, then it will be an exercise in futility. If the side that recieves a less favorable outcome decides that they will then seek another avenue to achieve their goal this will drag on and continue to drag more people down. Resolution and closure is what is needed.

- fhb

[Observer]

Provided this is the same guy and not just someone with the same name, then this doesnt seem the kind of endorsement that would be wished for.

In general terms, this issue is a serious one. However, it must be studied in depth to see if in the specifics it is as serious as it looks on the surface.

I have reviewed the entire ruling of the court. I have considered other comments on this case. I have come to the conclusion that it may be less than it first appears. I suggest that it may be less because it may lack any showing of an intent to take money that was not rightfully his. In short, it appears to me to be a case in which GAJ took funds that he was owed, but, he technically violated the law in the manner in which he took those funds. Let me illustrate with a simple illustration:

Paul, a businessperson, is owed a large sum of money by 100 customers. Paul, contracts with Saul to have Saul attempt to collect those 100 debts. In that contract, Paul agrees that Saul will be paid a fee of 40% of all money that comes to Paul during the time period of Januay 1, XXXX through December 31, XXXX. Saul will be assumed to have prompted the payment of such funds whether they come directly to Saul, or are paid directly to Paul. Forty per-cent of all payments on those debts are to be paid to Saul.

The process of debt collection begins. Some people pay Saul, directly, and others pay Paul.
When payments are made to Paul, he notifies Saul so that Saul will cease attempts to collect debts that have now been paid.

Periodicly, Saul sends Paul payments for what is owed to Paul. Saul deducts 40 % for payments made directly to him, and 40 % for payments made directly to Paul.

The above, in my mind would be a technical violation of the law, unless the agreement specificly specified that Saul could deduct 40% for payments made directly to Paul. Without that section of an agreement, technically the law could require Saul not to deduct amounts due him related to payments made directly to Paul, and Saul could be required to wait until Paul then sent him Sauls required 40 per-cent.

NOTE: I am giving an illustration based upon my current understanding of the case. However, in order to simplify my pont, I do not claim that every comment above is specificly accurate to the case. If you wish to persue the facts further, please obtain the full legal documentation, and consult with appropriate legal counsel to understand the case.

[Observer]

# 1
Re: "One side of the issue can not dictate terms. It will not only have to be acceptable to Linda, et. al. but to Danny, the 3ABN Board, and the interested parties on that side of the table as well - which means there could be an extended period of time as everyone "wrangles" over the particulars. I think though, that to have a truly impartial hearing that the panel doing the questioning/investigating can not be limited in the scope of evidence to be considered.

I agree with the above. None of the parties can dictate terms. In the end the process must not only be fair, but it must have a transparent apparence of fairness. If it does not, it will fail. Gregory Matthews

#2
Re: "I think the key issue is the agreement of all parties that the results be accepted as final. If the parties go in with the intent that a favorable decision is the only one they will abide by, then it will be an exercise in futility. If the side that recieves a less favorable outcome decides that they will then seek another avenue to achieve their goal this will drag on and continue to drag more people down. Resolution and closure is what is needed."

I understand the above post. But, I disagree with it. I believe that it is impossible for some of the issues to be resolved by any denominational agency, in a process that is fair to the involved parties. Specificly, I beleive that some of the issues can not be resolved in a manner that is fair to Danny by any denominational agency. As I stated above, if the process even appears to be unfair to any party, it will not bring resolution. Therefore, I do not believe that all of the issues can be resolved by ASI, or any other denominational agency.

From this perspective, all parties must be allowed to reject the results as final. All parties must be allowed to seek redress in another venue, and to cooperate in such, if other agencies, to include the civil authorities investigate. Gregory Matthews

[västergötland]

I have reviewed the entire ruling of the court. I have considered other comments on this case. I have come to the conclusion that it may be less than it first appears. I suggest that it may be less because it may lack any showing of an intent to take money that was not rightfully his.

So you are basically saying that the supreme court of Vermont made this judgement over a technicallity, and that embezzlement isnt such a bad crime after all if you can explain why you ought to have the money? Ok then, carry on.

[Observer]

So you are basically saying that the supreme court of Vermont made this judgement over a technicallity, and that embezzlement isnt such a bad crime after all if you can explain why you ought to have the money? Ok then, carry on.

I am saying, as I stated, that it appears to me that there was no intent to obtain money that did nto rightfully belong to him.

As I presently understand the case, the court did not rule that he was not entitled to the money.

It did find him in violation of the law.

On the surface your sarcastic statement ". . .embezzlement isnt such a bad crime after all if you can explain why you ought to have the money?" is simplly that, a sarcastic statement that goes well beyond what I have said, as you likely know, and presents you as intentionally distorting what I have said.

But, for any who may want clairfication: Embezzlement, in common thinking typically involved one attempting to obtain money that does not belong to them. This case differs in that it presently appears to me to simply involve the proceedures by which money was obtained. Yes, one should always comply withe the law. But, a lack of intent to obtain funds that do not belong to you mitigates the crime. Any student of law would know that. The court has clearly ruled that a violation of the law occured. It did not find an attempt to defraud, as I understand it.

As to technical issues: If you carefully read the ruling, the Court addressed many technical issues. In llitigation, responsible attornies will raise technical issues, as that is required for proper litigation. Such were raised, and the court ruled on each. You will note that the Court ruled that the prosecution made technical violation of defense rights. Then the Court disposed of such.

As to a ruling by the Court that GAJ was convicted on technical grounds: If you ever expect a Court to make such a ruling you misunderstand legal rulings.

The Court made it's ruling. You may call it what you will.

I simply point out that the intent to defraud was never determined by the Court. It simply found that GAJ failed to follow what was required under VT law in regard to the transfer of funds. It did not rule that GAJ was not entitled to an equivalent amount of money.

[fallible humanbe...]

In general terms, this issue is a serious one. However, it must be studied in depth to see if in the specifics it is as serious as it looks on the surface.

I have reviewed the entire ruling of the court. I have considered other comments on this case. I have come to the conclusion that it may be less than it first appears. I suggest that it may be less because it may lack any showing of an intent to take money that was not rightfully his. In short, it appears to me to be a case in which GAJ took funds that he was owed, but, he technically violated the law in the manner in which he took those funds.

Greg,

According to the brief it is GAJ who is focusing on technicalities in his appeal, qouting the ruling, "We find these arguments to be hypertechnical, without substance, and insufficient to warrant reversal."

The intent to embezzle was clearly evident to the jury considering the case. The idea of intent is brought up by the defendent in his appeal, claiming that his "intent" was to repay the money. But clearly the law states that regardless of intent to repay the monies, the act of embezzlement occurs when the money is taken by the accused - there is no way to retroactively wipe out the action of embezzlement as it is defined by law.

GAJ's argument on appeal did not challenge in any way the conviction but rather challenged technicalities that the court sufficiently answered as non-substantial to the ruling of the lower court. In all three of the challenges presented by GAJ the higher court effectively points out that none interfered with the proceedings or jury deliberations, citing solid case law in answering each of the defendents contentions.

The only thing that changed from the initial indictment was that 9 of the 10 ten counts of embezzlement were set aside and the conviction was on only one of the counts.

- fhb

[fallible humanbe...]

[quote name='Observer' post='161083' date='Nov 22 2006, 12:46 PM']
But, for any who may want clairfication: Embezzlement, in common thinking typically involved one attempting to obtain money that does not belong to them. This case differs in that it presently appears to me to simply involve the proceedures by which money was obtained. Yes, one should always comply withe the law. But, a lack of intent to obtain funds that do not belong to you mitigates the crime. Any student of law would know that. The court has clearly ruled that a violation of the law occured. It did not find an attempt to defraud, as I understand it.
[/quote]

Direct citation form the Supreme Courts decision:

[quote]
The crime is consummated when the money is intentionally and wrongfully converted, temporarily or permanently, to the defendant's own use.

and

As an agent, rather than a debtor, of Stacey, defendant was obligated to hold and remit to Stacey its percentage of any amounts collected. State v. Thyfault, 121 N.J.Super. 487, 498, 297 A.2d 873, 879 (1972); see also restatement (Second) Agency § 13, at 58 (1958) ("An agent is a fiduciary with respect to matters within the scope of his agency."). In discussing the obligation of an agent to his principal, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has noted that the money held by an agent to the account [149 Vt. 613] of his principal "always, and in every shape, belongs to [the principal]." Tuckerman, 76 Mass. at 196. The court also stressed that the agent "is at all times the keeper of [his principal's] property" and the agent can never "rightfully set up any claim of ownership to it in himself...." Id. Given the existence of an agency relationship--as found by the jury--defendant's conversion of the money credited to Stacey's account was precisely the activity prohibited by the embezzlement statute. See 13 V.S.A. § 2531.
[/quote]

So, it doesn't matter how it was appropriated. The agent (GAJ) is not to use the principals money as it always belongs to the principal until it is released from the principal to the agent.

[quote name='Observer' post='161083' date='Nov 22 2006, 12:46 PM']
As to technical issues: If you carefully read the ruling, the Court addressed many technical issues. In llitigation, responsible attornies will raise technical issues, as that is required for proper litigation. Such were raised, and the court ruled on each. You will note that the Court ruled that the prosecution made technical violation of defense rights. Then the Court disposed of such.[/quote]

They were termed "hypertechnical" and they also ruled that on each of these issues it was the defense attorney's responsibility to raise an objection before trial. Failure to do so waived any right to argue these technicalities after the completion of the trial. They were also technicalities that have been deemed to be inconsequential.


[quote name='Observer' post='161083' date='Nov 22 2006, 12:46 PM']
As to a ruling by the Court that GAJ was convicted on technical grounds: If you ever expect a Court to make such a ruling you misunderstand legal rulings. The Court made it's ruling.
[/qoute]

And in making its ruling it indicates that the defendent received a fair trial and was summarily found guilty of embezzlement.

[quote name='Observer' post='161083' date='Nov 22 2006, 12:46 PM']
I simply point out that the intent to defraud was never determined by the Court. It simply found that GAJ failed to follow what was required under VT law in regard to the transfer of funds. It did not rule that GAJ was not entitled to an equivalent amount of money.
[/quote]

The issue was never that GAJ was entitled to funds. The issue was the appropriation of such funds via illegal means. The judge did charge the jury telling them that intent to defraud is evidenced in word AND action.

[quote]
[149 Vt. 612] The trial judge properly charged the elements of the offense of embezzlement. Regarding intent, the judge stressed that "there must be a fraudulent intent and the State must prove fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt." And the court properly noted that "the intent to embezzle is a state of mind which can be shown by words or conduct."
[/quote]

It would seem than that the trial judge and jury did determine there was intent to defraud.

- fhb

Note: The quote tags did not work so I bolded my responses.

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Nov 23 2006, 02:20 PM

[Observer]

FHB:

Actually I agree with the majority of what you have stated. I do not now, and have not intended to debate most of what you have said. Most of it is correct.

I acknowledge tha GAJ was conviced of the crime of embezzlement. Whether he was convicted of 10 counts or one count, one count makes for a conviction. That is a reallity. The conviction stands today because he chose not to appeal further.

I did not get the sense that the court (or jury) determined that GAJ attempted to obtain money that was not rightfully his. I did not get a sense that any determination of his right to the money was made.

Yes, I so far today have briefly reviewed the legal rulling. Perhaps I have missed the above, and it is in the document.

But, at this point the major issue on which we seem not to agree is whether or not GAJ attempted to obtain money that was not rightfully his. In any case, the Court has rulled that he used the wrong method to obtain it. It was for that reason that GAJ seemingly has been conviceted of a crime--a crime apparently committed 18 + years ago.