The Investigator Of 3abn Options

[watchbird]

American Heritage Dictionary
tri·bu·nal (tr-bynl, tr-), n.
1. Law.
1. A seat or court of justice.
2. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion.

Well, thank you FHB for bringing this to our attention.... too bad you didn't stop and analyze what you said in the context from which it came rather than moving on to your usual muddling of the waters in sweet pious platitudes.... but ...

however you slice it, a tribunal has the power to "ajudicate". Now let's see how Mr. Gailon Arthur Joy [whom Loud Cry is quoting] uses the word in the layout of his "plans". As you begin to read the quote, be asking yourself the question: "WHO is going to be "empaneling a tribunal?"

"There will be a an announcement shortly regarding empanelling a tribunal under the auspices of ASI to which they will be able to give evidence and call witnesses. The specifics and dates are yet to be worked out, but it is another shocking development for the 3ABN board to agree to this. The 3ABN board has agreed in principal to empanel a tribunal under the auspices of ASI. ASI has tentatively agreed to sponsor such a panel, but the specifics are still unresolved and is yet to be fully formulated.

"They (the Investigators) pray the Lord God to be with all the parties as they prepare for this very important event. "

Now wait just a cotton-pickin' minnit! WHO is going to "empanel a tribunal?"

Answer: 3ABN Yeah.... sure.... got that.....

OK........... for what purpose not so clear, but maybe this is it......

"to which they will be able to give evidence and call witnesses"..... Okayyyyy.... and "they" is....
"the investigators".

Next questions: Who is going to be brought before the "tribunal"?
Who is going to bring "charges" against whom?
Will this be a legal procedure?
Will each side have lawyers present?
Will the decision of the "tribunal" be final?

Or are all of these questions contained in the "specifics" that haven't been worked out yet?

Let's look at one more paragraph of this remarkable document that has been placed in our hands.

"It has been profound and certainly nothing close to what they had originally intended, however, in a month they have been absolutely amazed at the doors that have opened before them making it remarkably possible to move this entire bundle of issues to what they hope will be a speedy and equitable solution for Linda, Allyssa and the Remnant Church. "

OK .... maybe I confuse easily.... but I cannot see how anyone, however sanguine and self-confident, could have hope for a "speedy and equitable solution for Linda, Alyssa, and the Remnant Church" in a "tribunal" that is "empanelled" (doesn't that mean set up.... empowered.... created by) by the organization against which they have complaints (3ABN), which is "sponsored" by an organization holding a symbiotic relationship with 3ABN, against which "Linda, Alyssa, and the Remnant Church" also have complaints.

Sorry.... this sounds more like "Kangaroo Kort" to me.... but then.... I'm no legal expert.

HELP!!!! Where are our legal experts!

Please! Help!

Explain this in terms even I can understand. What is going on here? Or there? Or somewhere?

[simplysaved]

They could pull the programming that the network counts on that is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church....

Observer,
You should know by now that official announcements sometimes differ than the truth and especially so at 3ABN. You are correct in saying that it may not be ASI. It may never happen. But we can discuss the information presented.

BTW eveyone- What can ASI, NAD, GC, etc. do in this situation since 3ABN is not owned by them? I think I'm missing some point here.

[justme]

They could pull the programming that the network counts on that is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church....

Do they PAY 3ABN to air their program$???

How much?

If the good shows withdraw then Danny wil have more time to criticize and beg for $$$. i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

[simplysaved]

Don't have that info...you would have to ask someone who either works for or used to work for 3ABN.

Do they PAY 3ABN to air their program$???

How much?

If the good shows withdraw then Danny wil have more time to criticize and beg for $$$. i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

[princessdi]

Exactly, Sarah!! That is what they can and should do> At this point, there are even too many questions surrounding 3ABN for them to do anything else.

They could pull the programming that the network counts on that is owned by the Seventh-day Adventist Church....

Whether they pay or not, each and every netowrk relies on ratings. Sure they might have more time to beg and criticize, but who will watch them?

Do they PAY 3ABN to air their program$???

How much?

If the good shows withdraw then Danny wil have more time to criticize and beg for $$$. i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

[watchbird]

Do they PAY 3ABN to air their program$???

How much?

If the good shows withdraw then Danny wil have more time to criticize and beg for $$$. i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

The amounts charged for programming can be found in the legal document the judge wrote at the time of the refusal of their appeal for getting property tax exempt status. I don't recall the figures, but they were as much or more for denominational programming as for other.

You can watch the "good shows" on other networks. If the church cut them off.... and also put out an order to the church at large so as to untie the hands of those pastors and other persons who would like to speak against the wrongs at 3abn but don't because they don't have a directive from above on which to base their stand, donor support WOULD dry up..... or else they would turn completely Pentecostal. I would not like that .... no one would. But it would be preferable to the mixed signals they send now..... where on their website they claim to not be connected with any denomination, but to their SDA mailing list and in SDA periodicals and advertisement they are called "the face of Adventism"... and acclaimed as"conservative" Adventism.

They would also lose their political clout, which is one of the most important ties they have to the church at the moment. Administrators afraid for their careers if they speak against 3abn.... or even against any of the wrongs going on at 3abn.

[Ralph]

I agree Ralph. Why should 3abn have to agree to a tribunal if they are the ones being investigated? And be so willing to do so unless they feel they have ASI locked up in Garwin Mcneilus? I am wondering if this is another red herring. We wait patiently for a tribunal that never happens. It seems to me that in our country tribunals have no legal standing so whatever comes out in the tribunal, Danny and his gang or Linda and Alyssa could choose to accept or decline. We would be in the same place we are now. In the case of abuse and fraud, shouldn't the authorities be involved? These are criminal activities. How does a tribunal deal with that? Now if the reason for a tribunal is to disassociate the Adventist Church with 3 abn that is one thing. I firmly believe this should happen. When a man was putting up signs in Florida saying Rome was the Anti Christ the GC had no problem sueing him so he couldn't use the Seventh Day Adventist name. IMHO this is much more serious and yet we are talking tribunal? Where is the loud cry we should be hearing from the GC? Is this another tactic to sweep things under the rug?

ASI has every right to talk Jihad. I would expect that an awful lot of money is donated to 3abn by ASI. Also a lot to the GC. They are powerful enough that they should be able to make the GC listen to them. The fact still remains that Danny owns 3abn. How do we get rid of him and his cronies at 3abn? I havn't figured that out yet.

Just knowing that 3abn agrees to a tribunal puts up a lot of red flags. They wouldn't do that unless they were sure, beyond a doubt, that they would come out smelling like a rose.

True, there are legal matters. But unless a case is taken to court (not a tribunal), nothing happens. The only value of a tribunal is the court of public opinion.

We sometimes are naive enough to think that a case depends upon what is right and what is wrong. I wish that was the way it worked, but it usually depends on how good the lawyers are, and 3abn would have the best in the land. My sis worked for a trial lawyer that rarely lost a case, and told of one exchange she had with her boss.

As he came in from a court, she asked, "Well, Don, did you get them off?
"Sure", he replied.
"But Don, they were guilty!!" she protested.
"Sure, guilty as h....., but I got them off."

He smirked, went into his office and closed the door. She told me, "I consider him as guilty as the person he defended."

Any church disciplinary measures follow a strict protocol that starts at the congregational level. And if the local church has gone askew, then it is up to the local conference to investigate.

Do you think that the local church is going to say anything about a 3abn employee when John Lomacang is pastor? Do you think that the Illinois conference is going to say anything when its president is on the 3abn board?

Danny is not an ordained pastor. He is a layman, the same as most of us. Although he is the "face of Adventism" to so many people, he is still just a layman. We gotta remember that. He does not even receive a conference salary. So the guidelines that apply to a conference employee do not apply to him.

This post has been edited by Ralph: Oct 5 2006, 02:51 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

American Heritage Dictionary
tri·bu·nal (tr-bynl, tr-), n.
1. Law.
a. A seat or court of justice.
b. The bench on which a judge or other presiding officer sits in court.
2. A committee or board appointed to adjudicate in a particular matter.
3. Something that has the power to determine or judge: the tribunal of public opinion.

Well, thank you FHB for bringing this to our attention.... too bad you didn't stop and analyze what you said in the context from which it came rather than moving on to your usual muddling of the waters in sweet pious platitudes.... but ...

WB,

I said nothing in reference to this. TB had ventured a question about what a tribunal could possibly do. I merely presented the definition of tribunal for possible consideration. What type of tribunal, who convenes it, the selection process of its members are unknowns at the present time. I netiher advocated for, nor against such a thing.

Using definition #2 above (bolded) and adding this clarification using the V #2 definition in conjunction with VI definition below:

American Heritage Dictionary
ad·ju·di·cate (-jd-kt), v.
1. To hear and settle (a case) by judicial procedure.
2. To study and settle (a dispute or conflict): The principal adjudicated our quarrel.
v. intr.
To act as a judge.
[Latin adidicre, adidict-, to award to (judicially) : ad-, ad- + idicre, to judge (from idex, judge. See judge).]

Gives indication where a tribunal may very well be able to make a binding decision. Will they in this case, who knows? But if the endeavor is entered into this as though it were a binding arbitartion activity, with all particulars signing agreement prior indicating a promise to abide by any decision made by said tribunal - then you would have a situation where closure might be arrived at.

In the original post by LC there are some inconsitancies that need clarification in order to determine if infact such a thing will take place, for instance:

The 3ABN board has agreed in principal to empanel a tribunal under the auspices of ASI. ASI has tentatively agreed to sponsor such a panel, but the specifics are still unresolved and is yet to be fully formulated.

Who brought the possibility of such an event to the table? Did the 3ABN Board initiate the action? Were the board and Linda approached about such a possibility from a third party? The first sentence above seems to indicate the Board was approached with a proposal, while the second seems to allude to ASI being the one approached to take part in such an activity.

As for this statement:

The 3ABN board has agreed in principal to empanel a tribunal under the auspices of ASI.

It seems to me that, in context, LC probably meant "The 3ABN board has agreed in principal to the empaneling of[i] a tribunal under the auspices of ASI." He can speak to that, but that is how I read it contextually. This would then of course mean that the panel/tribunal/arbitrator would not be selected by 3ABN or it's representatives

It is my opinion that the post would be of greater impact if there were less hyperbole in the origianl post, for instance:

This was followed by witnesses of various issues contacting them and adding to the collage of information by the droves. The associates spoke about the findings and pointed out that with each contact and every leaf turned they were being over-run with allegations of inappropriate actions taken and financial issues of significant magnitude and felt compelled to pursue each and every allegation to it's most logical conclusion.

How many constitutes a drove (the dictionary defines it as a "large mass of people"), or are there actual numbers known and what (quantifiably) is meant by "over-run" with? I am genuinely interested in this and not picking at nits. If my interests of clarification don't match up with anyone elses, that doesn't make them any less important in seeking the truth. A closed mind is a dangerous thing, I would think the questions (open mind) would be welcomed and if evidence supports you can strengthen your case by providing answers.

- fhb

[Ralph]

i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

Please write out the meaning for these abbreviations for those of us who are uninformed.

[watchbird]

WB,

I said nothing in reference to this. TB had ventured a question about what a tribunal could possibly do. I merely presented the definition of tribunal for possible consideration. What type of tribunal, who convenes it, the selection process of its members are unknowns at the present time. I netiher advocated for, nor against such a thing.

Using definition #2 above (bolded) and adding this clarification using the V #2 definition in conjunction with VI definition below:

American Heritage Dictionary
ad·ju·di·cate (-jd-kt), v.
1. To hear and settle (a case) by judicial procedure.
2. To study and settle (a dispute or conflict): The principal adjudicated our quarrel.
v. intr.
To act as a judge.
[Latin adidicre, adidict-, to award to (judicially) : ad-, ad- + idicre, to judge (from idex, judge. See judge).]

Gives indication where a tribunal may very well be able to make a binding decision. Will they in this case, who knows? But if the endeavor is entered into this as though it were a binding arbitartion activity, with all particulars signing agreement prior indicating a promise to abide by any decision made by said tribunal - then you would have a situation where closure might be arrived at.

In the original post by LC there are some inconsitancies that need clarification in order to determine if infact such a thing will take place, for instance:
Who brought the possibility of such an event to the table? Did the 3ABN Board initiate the action? Were the board and Linda approached about such a possibility from a third party? The first sentence above seems to indicate the Board was approached with a proposal, while the second seems to allude to ASI being the one approached to take part in such an activity.

As for this statement:
It seems to me that, in context, LC probably meant "The 3ABN board has agreed in principal to the empaneling of[i] a tribunal under the auspices of ASI." He can speak to that, but that is how I read it contextually. This would then of course mean that the panel/tribunal/arbitrator would not be selected by 3ABN or it's representatives

It is my opinion that the post would be of greater impact if there were less hyperbole in the origianl post, for instance:
How many constitutes a drove (the dictionary defines it as a "large mass of people"), or are there actual numbers known and what (quantifiably) is meant by "over-run" with? I am genuinely interested in this and not picking at nits. If my interests of clarification don't match up with anyone elses, that doesn't make them any less important in seeking the truth. A closed mind is a dangerous thing, I would think the questions (open mind) would be welcomed and if evidence supports you can strengthen your case by providing answers.

- fhb

Thank you for returning to this and addressing the same concerns as I expressed.... using both your posting of the definition of a tribunal and what I also consider to be the muddled and extravagant claims in the opening post of this thread.

I have not seen you and I on the same side of many issues here ... but on this one we seem to be in agreement..... that there are holes as big as barn doors in the "proposal" that has been presented here. Don't expect me to supply answers..... I'm just trying to call attention to the "tricks, traps, and pitfalls" that lurk behind the unanswered questions.

[Panama_Pete]

If the good shows withdraw then Danny wil have more time to criticize and beg for $$$. i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

OK, Ralph, I'll take a stab at the definitions:

IIW - It is Written, an Adventist TV program from the Adventist Media Center.

WOH - Windows of Hope, a TV program produced by The Quiet Hour, of Redlands, CA.

TP - Teen Pathways, a TV program that airs on 3ABN and is produced at 3ABN.

AF - Amazing Facts, both Radio and TV programs from Amazing Facts, Inc., Roseville, CA.

GC - General Conference [World Headquarters] of Seventh-day Adventists, located in Silver Spring, MD.

NAD - North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, also in Silver Spring, MD

ASI - Adventist Laymen's Services and Industries - An organization of lay people who bring Christ to the marketplace.

Living in the Toenails - A reference to a statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. The story is located in the book of Daniel.

Tribunal - With the "tri" in it, it originally referred to three judges sitting in judgment of a case.

Jihad - The National Council of Churches weighed in by explaining that “jihad means struggle or exertion in the way of God. The ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against temptation and evil within oneself. The ‘lesser jihad’ is working against injustice or oppression in society.”

[justme]

OK, Ralph, I'll take a stab at the definitions:

IIW - It is Written, an Adventist TV program from the Adventist Media Center.

WOH - Windows of Hope, a TV program produced by The Quiet Hour, of Redlands, CA.

TP - Teen Pathways, a TV program that airs on 3ABN and is produced at 3ABN.

AF - Amazing Facts, both Radio and TV programs from Amazing Facts, Inc., Roseville, CA.

GC - General Conference [World Headquarters] of Seventh-day Adventists, located in Silver Spring, MD.

NAD - North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists, also in Silver Spring, MD

ASI - Adventist Laymen's Services and Industries - An organization of lay people who bring Christ to the marketplace.

Living in the Toenails - A reference to a statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream. The story is located in the book of Daniel.

Tribunal - With the "tri" in it, it originally referred to three judges sitting in judgment of a case.

Jihad - The National Council of Churches weighed in by explaining that “jihad means struggle or exertion in the way of God. The ‘greater jihad’ is the struggle against temptation and evil within oneself. The ‘lesser jihad’ is working against injustice or oppression in society.”

"BINGO O O O " etc, etc ,etc .. thanks , I was away ..

[Ralph]

OK, Ralph, I'll take a stab at the definitions:
WOH - Windows of Hope, a TV program produced by The Quiet Hour, of Redlands, CA.

TP - Teen Pathways, a TV program that airs on 3ABN and is produced at 3ABN.

Thanks a lot! I knew what $$$ meant but was stumped on the two that I left in quotes.

[Ralph]

BTW eveyone- What can ASI, NAD, GC, etc. do in this situation since 3ABN is not owned by them? I think I'm missing some point here.

That's a good question (which usually means that I don't have the answer). At the moment, they seem to be tangled up together like hair in a wad of $gum$. Does this give any hint to the answer?

[Truly Blonde]

Do they PAY 3ABN to air their program$???

How much?

If the good shows withdraw then Danny wil have more time to criticize and beg for $$$. i'd rather see IIW, WOH, TP, AF, anything but him and his.

Elder Bohr told us they pay 3abn $400.00 everytime they put one of his programs on the air. Cracking the Genesis code has 52 sermons. That is $400.00 times 52

TB