Damage Control, Emails Options

[Pickle]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Questions pertaining to conversation with Hal Steenson
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:29:36 -0600
To: Danny Shelton
CC: Walt Thompson, Elder Ken Denslow

Greetings, Danny.

In my [second] email to you of December 6, I left you hanging a bit at the end, and I don't think that's fair. So I thought I'd write you again and fill my comment in a little. In that email I wrote:

"On November 4 you wrote to me and said, among other things,

" 'I will just say this, ... I have done nothing legally wrong in my administration with 3ABN.'

"According to what Hal Steenson and John Lomacang told me, I'm uncertain that this is true. But I won't go into that now."

It isn't fair to you to keep you hanging forever on that one, so I will touch on it now. On August 3 or 4 (most likely 4), 2006, at the ASI Convention, I had opportunity to privately ask Hal Steenson a few questions without anyone overhearing us. One of those questions was simply when your daughter Melody got married. Hal diverted the conversation to that of you and Linda, a topic I wasn't even going to touch, and gave me as proof of Linda's guilt three things:

• Since the only Bible grounds for divorce and remarriage is fornication, and since you got remarried, Linda has to be guilty.
• Since the board is composed of godly people and they went along with it, Linda has to be guilty.
• There is a recording that is so bad, conference presidents have listened to it and after 30 seconds they say, "Turn it off," it is that convincing.

As of late October, your conference president had not yet heard it. Thus,

Question 32: Who all has heard this recording, and which conference presidents have heard it, or did Hal get his details mixed up?

I found the following at http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html and http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/illinois.html, information that is particularly relevant to reporters. I would imagine that under the statutes individuals would be treated roughly similar, but I'm not an attorney, and so I do not know for sure. The actual state statute appears here, and I'll quote just a little from it as well.

"Criminal purpose. Federal law requires only one-party consent to the recording and disclosure of a telephone conversation, but explicitly does not protect the taping if it is done for a criminal or tortious purpose." (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/consent.html)

"720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-1, -2: An eavesdropping device cannot be used to record or overhear a conversation without the consent of all parties to the conversation under criminal statutes. An eavesdropping device is anything used to hear or record a conversation, whether the conversation is in person or conducted by any means other than face-to-face conversation, such as a telephone conversation.

"In addition, it is criminally punishable to disclose information one knows or should know was obtained through an eavesdropping device. Offenses of the eavesdropping law are punishable as felonies, with first offenses categorized as lesser felonies than subsequent offenses. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-4. Civil liability for actual and punitive damages is authorized as well. 720 Ill. Compiled Stat. Ann. 5/14-6." (http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/illinois.html)

"Sec. 14‑2. Elements of the offense; affirmative defense.

"(a) A person commits eavesdropping when he:

...

"(3) Uses or divulges ... any information which he knows or reasonably should know was obtained through the use of an eavesdropping device." (720 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/Article 14)

You'll notice that Illinois law appears to cover the recording of any type of conversation, while federal law seems to specifically concern just telephone conversations.

Question 33: Is Hal correct that such a recording exists and/or was made, and if so, how many parties were there to the conversation and how many of those parties gave their consent to being recorded?

Question 34: Assuming that the recording does exist and/or was made, to whom, besides myself, and by whom was information from that recording divulged, and can you demonstrate that the taping was not done for a tortious purpose?

Out of everything that Hal told me, this recording was the one thing that was concrete, not merely based on someone's word. I therefore told him I wanted to hear it. At that point he proceeded to say, "You are led of the pits of hell." "You are one sick puppy." "You are sick." "You need to get a life." "You need to be born again." He then repeatedly threatened to call security. It was quite an unnerving experience.

Question 35: Do you have any explanation for the stark contrast between the relative ease at least one 3ABNer manifested when talking about evidence of Linda's infidelity, and the apparently extreme paranoia manifested when asked to actually give proof that such evidence really exists?

That's it for this one.

Have you found anything to explain the title discrepancy yet? Or anything that would explain the discrepancies that Walt said you told him regarding your brother's child molestations allegations, and which Walt wanted me to verify? Did you get the email I sent Sunday about the proof you said you have about Linda taking a number of vacations with the doctor in the U.S. and Europe between May and October 2004?

Hope to hear from you soon.

Bob

[Panama_Pete]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Questions pertaining to conversation with Hal Steenson
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 22:29:36 -0600
To: Danny Shelton
CC: Walt Thompson, Elder Ken Denslow

Greetings, Danny.

There is a recording that is so bad, conference presidents have listened to it and after 30 seconds they say, "Turn it off," it is that convincing.

As of late October, your conference president had not yet heard it. Thus,


Hope to hear from you soon.

Bob

Bob,

We have to keep in mind that 3ABN has the ability to do more things to audio tapes than McDonald's can do to hamburgers.

3ABN has a complete recording studio, a radio network with 81 affiliates, and TV and Radio editing booths.

With skillful editing, I think 3ABN could turn the Pope into a Protestant if they wanted.

[Chez]

Bob,

We have to keep in mind that 3ABN has the ability to do more things to audio tapes than McDonald's can do to hamburgers.

3ABN has a complete recording studio, a radio network with 81 affiliates, and TV and Radio editing booths.

With skillful editing, I think 3ABN could turn the Pope into a Protestant if they wanted.

Pete,
If what you are implying is true, Danny and 3ABN have not thought about the consequences. God said that whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also reap. Think of the examples in the Bible. Look at David and God's response to his evil act. Consider God's response to others who have acted in a way contrary to his Word. In addition, consider the fall out. When God says enough, watch out!

[Pickle]

What follows is the 1985 letter that was sent to Tommy Shelton alerting him to the fact that his ordination had been suspended.

Several points may be noted, which answer some questions people have had:

• This letter was sent to Tommy by an Illinois Church of God organization 8 years before Pastor Glenn Dryden moved to the state. Thus, the information it contains has nothing to do with Pastor Dryden.
• This letter was sent 17-18 years before Roger Clem came forward in West Frankfort, and thus the information it contains has nothing to do with Roger Clem.
• "In the mouth of two or three witnesses, every word shall be established." We thus have at least three witnesses.

Just to make it crystal clear, I did not receive this letter from Pastor Glenn Dryden, Roger Clem, or Gailon Joy. I was told that this letter received a wide circulation in southern Illinois because Tommy's supporters circulated it in order to generate letters of support in favor of Tommy.

If he wishes to address any of the allegations referred to in this letter, he would be most welcome to do so.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 31 2006, 04:45 PM

[Pickle]

General Assembly of the Church of God in Illinois
George L. Newton
Executive Secretary/Treasurer

Phone: (XXX) XXX-XXXX

P.O. Box J
Mt. Zion, Illinois 62549


October 25, 1985

Reverend Tommy Shelton
Route # 1 Box 189-B
West Frankfort, Illinois 62896

Dear Tommy :

On October 25, 1985, the Illinois Ministerial Credentials Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of God in Illinois met in regular session at the Church of God State Office building at 4225 South Camp Warren Lane, Decatur, Illinois at Camp Warren. In concern for your best interest and the Church of God, the following action was taken:

"The ordination of Tommy Shelton has been suspended immediately until further notice pending the results of the official police investigation concerning criminal sexual abuse charges against him. This action is effective this day, October 25, 1985."

This action was taken for the following reasons:

1. Improper counseling procedures followed by you and admitted by you.
   
2. Numerous charges of misconduct reported to this committee.
   
3. We have been advised that an investigation is underway by the West Frankfort Illinois Police Department concerning criminal sexual abuse charges against you.
   
4. Controversy surrounding your ministry and personal lifestyle.

Tommy, you are advised to surrender your Ordination Certificate to this office in the enclosed self addressed envelope and to cease all activities related to ministries of the Church of God until you are further advised by this committee.

Be assured this was not an easy decision for this committee to make. We will be praying for you and your family that God’s complete purpose will be accomplished in your life.

If we can be of help in any way, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

[signed]

George L. Newton
Executive Secretary


[signed]

Tom E. Smith
Committee Chairman
GLN/TES: jn

Copy Furnished: Keith Huttenlocker, Division of Church Service; Edwin R. Beasley, State Chairman; Pastors - Southern Illinois District Churches of God

"Illinois Ministries... Striving for Excellence"



This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 31 2006, 05:14 PM

[Pickle]

On November 27, 2006, 3ABN Board chairman Dr. Walt Thompson wrote me and said:

Subsequently, after this issue has been brought back to the forefront ... I contacted the only person from the Chruch of God that I could find that knew about the situation, and who had been present and witness to the events. ... The picture that was painted by that leader of the Church was exactly as portrayed earlier by Danny. ... I have been informed that the Church of God is a congregational type or organization with different jurisdictions in different states and that there was no higher authority that I could speak with to resolve the issue further. It was not entirely clear to me how that worked. I was also told that one leader pestered Tommy over and over again until Tommy voluntarily gave up his ministerial license. These are the facts as I have been able to sort them out.

The natural assumption is that everything in the above came from the unnamed source, not Danny, but that could be wrong.

Four questions remain:

• Who was this unnamed source, and how did Walt just happen to get that particular name?
• Did Walt contact the General Assembly of the Church of God in Illinois and get his information from them, something he was invited to do in Pastor Dryden's 2003 letter, or was this unnamed source not even a past or present officer of the General Assembly?
• Who led Walt to believe that "one leader pestered Tommy" when the letter announcing the suspending of Tommy's ordination was signed by two individuals, and was the result of an action taken by an entire committee?
• In what sense at all can these circumstances be considered a "voluntary" surrender of his ministerial license?

Of course, it is always possible that Walt was referring to a different revoking of Tommy's credentials, not the 1985 one. Yet even then, what he was led to believe would consititute a serious distortion of reality.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 31 2006, 05:14 PM

[Aletheia]

Fair enough, good job.

I'm thinking we can get somewhere with this.

Aletheia

[Pickle]

Fair enough, good job.

I'm thinking we can get somewhere with this.

Aletheia

Why thank you.

[lurker]

Tommy Shelton just resigned/retired from his job as production manager at 3ABN. He was praised by his coworkers for having done a good job and being pleasant to work with. He was invited to come back from time to time.

[Pickle]

Tommy Shelton just resigned/retired from his job as production manager at 3ABN. He was praised by his coworkers for having done a good job and being pleasant to work with. He was invited to come back from time to time.

As pointed out at http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=166852, it would be helpful to find out what sort of retirement package he will receive, if any. According to Gailon, the decision of the board to terminate Tommy was circumvented in the early 1990's by hiring Tommy on a contract basis.

Also, I think it would be helpful to get a transcript of the actual remarks made.

[Pickle]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Questions on John Lomacang's claims.
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:09:31 -0600
To: Danny Shelton
CC: Walt Thompson, Elder Ken Denslow, Pastor Lomacang, Mollie Steenson

Hi Danny.

Before getting to the subject of Pastor Lomacang's claims, I'd like to review just a little bit. This series of communications was initiated by yourself when you wrote me on November 23. That email exchange led to Dr. Walt Thompson's emails to me of November 24 and 27 in which he gave me information about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, and your handling of those allegations, at the end of which Walt wrote:

"I would like to request that you ... varify [this letter's] contents."

Since Dr. Thompson, your board chairman, had given me only one named source out of two sources for his information, and since you were that single named source, the only way I could fulfill this part of Dr. Thompson's request was to contact you further. I therefore wrote you on November 29, December 5, December 6, and a second time on December 6 seeking verification for the information Dr. Thompson had given.

Yet to date I have received nothing at all from you that makes any attempt whatsoever to verify Dr. Thompson's information. With that in mind, please note the following from Judge Rowe's opinion in 3 Angels Broadcasting Network v. The Department of Revenue of the State of Illinois:

"I must conclude from the evidence of record, that applicant is controlled by Danny and Linda Shelton, and all final decisions are made by them and not by a disinterested impartial board of directors" (p.36).

I think it very important to make some sort of reply to the questions raised as soon as possible, for each week that goes by just raises more questions: If the wishes of the 3ABN board chairman can so easily be ignored by yourself over such serious issues as the alleged mismanagement and cover up of child molestation allegations, is Judge Rowe correct in her assessment after all? And could that potentially be used to undermine a future appeal of her decision?

Toward the end of my second email of December 6, I wrote:

"On November 4 you wrote to me and said, among other things,

" 'I will just say this, ... I have done nothing legally wrong in my administration with 3ABN.'

"According to what Hal Steenson and John Lomacang told me, I'm uncertain that this is true. But I won't go into that now."

In my email to you of December 20, I explained to you what Hal Steenson had told me, but I made no comment about what John Lomacang had told me. I will do that now.

On or before August 24, 2006, Pastor John Lomacang wrote a gentleman named Jonathan the following, which was posted on the adventism_prophecy@yahoogroups.com email discussion list::

"If you honestly want to know the truth you can call me. Sorry for the misrepresentations that you have read and heard. When we talk on the phone you can ask me any questions that you wish. I am leaving my home number. Please call me. If there is anyone who is willing to hear what they are not being told you can have them call me there also."

Taking Pastor Lomacang up on his invitation, I called him on September 1. In that conversation he referred to a concrete piece of evidence against Linda, namely phone card phone records. According to him:

• These phone card phone records amounted to hundreds of hours of phone calls made by Linda to Norway.
• Regarding how these records were obtained, John stated that there is a phone number one can call to get them.
• When asked whether he had personally seen these records, John replied, "Yes."

I either was told by or got the impression from John that these phone cards were purchased from Wal-Mart. Linda agrees with this detail:

"I do not remember everything precisely, but I do know I purchased phone cards from Walmart."

Wal-Mart's web site presently lists three Wal-Mart branded, AT&T prepaid phone cards. I therefore called AT&T and spoke to multiple customer service representatives to ensure that I was getting the correct information. These representatives told me:

• Anyone who has access to both the phone card and the PIN number can obtain the following information for 60 days after a call is made:
  • The called-from and called-to area codes and/or country codes, but not the actual called-from and called-to numbers.
  • The date and time of the call, the duration of the call, and the amount of total "minutes" or billed units the call cost.
• These records are available verbally over the phone. They are not available in writing or through the mail, a policy that has been in force for at least several years.
• The only way to obtain written records and actual called-to and called-from numbers is by subpoena.

In light of the recent Hewlett-Packard scandal, it seems appropriate to ask,

Question 36: Did you or anyone else obtain a subpoena to obtain these records, and if not, were these records either obtained illegally or forged, or was John being less than truthful when he said he had personally seen these phone card phone records, or is there any other explanation for this major discrepancy?

Since according to AT&T call-to and call-from numbers cannot legally be obtained without a subpoena,

Question 37: How exactly did you determine which calls were made by Linda, and which calls were made to Dr. Abrahamsen, which ones to Pastor Thorvaldsson, which ones to Irmgard Thorvaldsson, and/or which ones to some other individual in Norway?

As far as phone card phone records actually existing, it would be nice to chalk this one up to an innocent mistake, but that does not appear possible, as will be seen later.

Here are a couple other details from Pastor Lomacang's conversation:

• John promised that I could see for myself the same phone card phone records that he had seen if I came to 3ABN.
• He promised that I could bring anyone I wanted to with me, and we could all see these phone card phone records.
• When I told him that it was unrealistic to ask someone to travel all that distance (there are less expensive ways to obtain such documentation), he said that that wasn't his decision, and that if it were up to him, he would have nailed the coffin shut a long time ago.

Thus, according to Pastor Lomacang, since it wasn't his decision and since if it were up to him these records would be more freely available, it must have been the decision of the 3ABN board or 3ABN management that this piece of evidence could be seen if one traveled to 3ABN. Therefore,

Question 38: Whose decision was it that these phone card phone records could be seen by whomever came to 3ABN and asked to see them?

This phone conversation with Pastor Lomacang was September 1. By September 8 it had dawned on me that if I went to my brother's wedding, I would be returning home right by 3ABN on October 23. That fact led me to pursue taking John up on his offer to see these phone card phone records. I accordingly communicated with him via email on the following dates:

• September 8.
  
• October 2.
  
• October 3 (a).
  
• October 3 (b ).
  
• October 10.
  
• October 16.
  
• October 17.

Why I wrote that many times may be apparent shortly.

The only reply I ever got was on October 2:

"I received your email. You will need to contact the general manager of 3ABN to make an appointment. Her name is Mollie Steenson. If she approves then your trip will occur. She will determine the usefulness and necessity of your meeting."

It did sound a bit strange that Mollie would decide whether I could go to my brother's wedding, but it is likely that John just made a poor choice of wording.

I accordingly wrote Mollie on:

• October 3.
• October 10.
• October 16.
• October 17.

The only reply I have ever received came on October 17, before the final communication listed above:

[Because of software limitations in the number of quotes, the rest of this letter will be posted separately.]

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jan 2 2007, 04:20 PM

[ex3ABNemployee]

It did sound a bit strange that Mollie would decide whether I could go to my brother's wedding, but it is likely that John just made a poor choice of wording.

Thanks, I needed that laugh.
I know you weren't trying to be funny, but I still enjoyed it

[Aletheia]

Bob,

Considering the number of time's you have been asked by Danny Shelton to stop e-mailing him until the ASI process is complete, and yet you continue to do so.

And that you were told that ASI would be examining the phone records by Mollie Steenson:

Subject: RE: Appointment to see phone records
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:33:21 -0500
From: Mollie Steenson

Hi Bob,

Rather than making the evidence available to individuals, which 3ABN has that validate the basis for the actions we have had to take in this matter, we have turned this matter over to a group of respected church leaders who will be looking at all the evidence, not just portions of it, and they will publicly give their findings in the near future.

At this point I believe what you are doing here is just flat out harassment.


My opinion.

[Pickle]

[Here's the rest of the letter posted above.]

"Rather than making the evidence available to individuals, which 3ABN has that validate the basis for the actions we have had to take in this matter, we have turned this matter over to a group of respected church leaders who will be looking at all the evidence, not just portions of it, and they will publicly give their findings in the near future."

Out of the eleven emails I sent John and Mollie regarding seeing these phone card phone records as promised, the phrase "phone card(s)" occurs ten times, and that does not include when a previous email was attached to a new one for reference purposes. Not once in the two replies I got from John and Mollie did they indicate that there had been some mistake, and that these phone card phone records were really something else or did not exist after all. Thus it is difficult to assume that there has been some sort of misunderstanding.

I also mentioned in my email to Mollie on October 3:

"[John] indicated that that wasn't his decision. So I assume that it was 3ABN's board or management that determined that those interested in seeing this evidence can indeed see it if they come to 3ABN."

Mollie thus far has made no correction to this conclusion that it was a decision by the 3ABN board or 3ABN management that anyone who wished could see these phone card phone records if they came to 3ABN.

Now for the next troubling discrepancy. John explicitly said on September 1 that these phone card phone records documented hundreds of hours of calls. I used the phrase "hundreds of hours" 15 times in my eleven emails to John and Mollie, not including the number of times that this phrase appeared in the previous emails I attached. Not once did John or Mollie indicate that John was mistaken in his claim.

But here is information from Wal-Mart and AT&T that raises questions about this claim:

• Wal-Mart currently sells Wal-Mart branded AT&T prepaid phone cards in denominations of 150, 500, and 1000 minutes.
• 1000 minutes would be the equivalent of 16 hours and 40 minutes if the calls were domestic calls that were billed at that flat rate with no surcharges, and thus "hundreds of hours" would require a minimum equivalent of 12 phone cards.
• Each minute of actual time to a land line in Norway currently costs 7 "minutes," and thus "hundreds of hours" using 1000-minute cards to a land line in Norway would require a minimum equivalent of 84 phone cards, assuming that there were no surcharges.
• Each minute of actual time to a cellphone in Norway currently costs 20 "minutes," and thus "hundreds of hours" to a cellphone in Norway using 1000-minute cards would require a minimum equivalent of 240 phone cards, assuming that there were no surcharges.

Since every phone card has different PIN numbers, in order to legally obtain information for "hundreds of hours" of calls, one would need to get a hold of a lot of Linda's phone cards, and she does admit that you did borrow one and refused to return it. Thus,

Question 39: How many of Linda's phone cards did you in actuality get a hold of, and how many hours of time do they really represent, including and not including recharges?

In my eleven emails to John and Mollie, I asked the following question a total of six times beginning with September 8, and though it is rapidly approaching four months later, neither of them has had the courtesy to give any sort of reply. Thus,

Question 40: Did John's statement that there were hundreds of hours of phone calls by Linda to Norway refer to a) actual time spent on the phone or b ) billed units; in other words, did "hundreds of hours" really mean 10 to 30 hours of actual time spent on the phone, since we must divide the value of the phone card by a factor ranging from perhaps 7 to 20?

John also stated on September 1 in our phone conversation that his involvement in this whole matter began on March 9, 2004. In trying to figure out the details about these phone card phone records, I asked him whether these calls were made prior to March 9. He said that they were. Thus,

Question 41: Over how long a period of time do these phone card phone records cover, and over that period of time, how many days was Linda actually in the States and Dr. Abrahamsen actually in Norway, and according to these phone card phone records, what was the total amount of time Linda spent on the phone to Norway (allowing us to calculate an average amount of time per day and per week)?

To make it easy to follow everything, here is Mollie's sole reply again from October 17:

"Rather than making the evidence available to individuals, which 3ABN has that validate the basis for the actions we have had to take in this matter, we have turned this matter over to a group of respected church leaders who will be looking at all the evidence, not just portions of it, and they will publicly give their findings in the near future."

There were a total of four questions in my reply of October 17 to the above:

"1) Has there been a change of policy since September 1, when Pastor Lomacang promised that we could see the phone card phone records if we came by? He indicated that that wasn't his decision. Or was he somehow totally mistaken?

"2) Pastor Lomacang indicated that these records showed hundreds of hours of phone calls, but I have thus far been unable to confirm from him that these hundreds of hours are actual time spent on the phone rather than billed phone card units. Can you confirm this?

"3) What group of respected church leaders has the matter been turned over to? Who are they?

"4) Will they be making public the evidence that supports their findings, or will they only make public their findings?

"I ask this last question because from a damage control and apologetic perspective, the only real way to put all the rumors to rest once and for all is to come across as if 3ABN has nothing to hide.

"Take for example these phone records, which Pastor Lomacang stated emphatically that he had personally seen. After he promised that we could see them if we stopped by, it has taken more than five weeks to discover that 3ABN will not allow this, and that gives the impression that they either do not exist or that they do not say what he claimed they say.

"This is even more so the case since I asked him on September 8 and October 2 and October 3 and October 10 and October 16 whether the hundreds of hours were actual minutes or billed minutes, and though I did get a short reply from him on October 2, he has yet to answer that simple question. The definite impression being given is that there never were hundreds of hours spent on the phone."

Since it is now two and a half months later and still no reply from Mollie, I will ask the following of you:

Question 42: Who made and authorized the dramatic change in policy between September 1 and October 17 regarding who could see these phone card phone records, and why did it take from September 8 (one week after John promised they could be seen) until October 17 to be informed that there had indeed been a change in policy?

Question 43: What group of respected "church leaders" has the matter been turned over to, have they agreed to investigate the matter and is it certain that they will do so, and if so, what specific issues have they agreed to investigate, and if not, why have they not agreed and/or why is it not certain?

Question 44: Have they agreed to examine the question of whether the phone card phone records or any other evidence, such as the recording Hal Steenson alleged exists, was legally or illegally obtained, and if not, will evidence of this sort even be allowed to be considered?

Question 45: Will both the findings of, and the evidence considered by, these respected "church leaders" be released, and if not, what sort of process is in the works to assure Seventh-day Adventists everywhere that the findings will not constitute yet another attempt at evasion, stonewalling, and/or cover up?

Trusting that this new year will be much more pleasant for you then last year has been,

Bob

[Pickle]

Aletheia,

• This isn't the first time I've asked Question 44, and I've yet to get an answer. But then, given everything else, three weeks isn't all that long to wait for an acknowledgement that you even asked the question.
• I asked the question about billed units vs. actual time on September 8, and I was told that I could see the phone card phone records on September 1. ASI was not involved at that point, as far as I know.
• I think it was around November 12 that I first heard something definitive about ASI.

In other words, to claim "ASI" as an excuse for not answering legitimate questions when those questions were asked or in the works prior to ASI getting involved, if they really are getting involved, it really makes no sense.

Especially is this so when Danny has absolutely refused to give any assurance whatsoever that he will allow ASI to examine the question of the authenticity and legality of these alleged phone card phone records.

ex3ABNemployee,

Glad to lighten your load today.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jan 2 2007, 05:09 PM