Questions For Joe Smith, for starters: "mansion" & "huge pool" Options

[Pickle]

Hi Joe. You earlier stated:

I couldn't agree more with the quote from EGW. I have been silent about many things because I do not want to come under attack again. But as some have said... speak up or stick your head in the sand. I will say this... What I know is not from 2nd hand information. I was there. I have known the Shelton family personally for many years and have been around 3ABN nearly from the start. There are huge amounts of twisted information. Don't be sooo quick to believe the threads are correct... Many of the perks mentioned there.. were completely accepted and wanted by Linda. She drew the same salary and benefits as Danny ... the house , the pool, the sona, the Horses... don't forget.. 1/2 of horses are Linda's still yet... I also know that she lives in a mansion herself... with a huge pool now...Again I was there when these things were happening.
Joe

You've probably caught on that I hate the he said, she said stuff, and instead look for concrete facts presented by either side that can be irrefutably proven one way or the other independently of testimony. So what you said above caught my eye, particularly the part I bolded.

Could you post some pictures of her mansion and huge pool? (I'm trying to get ahold of some, but if you beat me to it, that's quite all right.) Do you have any specs on her home, like square footage and number of rooms and bedrooms?

I think that's the kind of info we need to kill this rumor mill.

[Fran]

Hi Joe. You earlier stated:
You've probably caught on that I hate the he said, she said stuff, and instead look for concrete facts presented by either side that can be irrefutably proven one way or the other independently of testimony. So what you said above caught my eye, particularly the part I bolded.

Could you post some pictures of her mansion and huge pool? (I'm trying to get ahold of some, but if you beat me to it, that's quite all right.) Do you have any specs on her home, like square footage and number of rooms and bedrooms?

I think that's the kind of info we need to kill this rumor mill.

Bob & Joe;

While both of you are getting this information on Linda's place, can we get the same information about Danny & Brandy's home? That way we can compare and contrast.

[Johann]

Bob & Joe;

While both of you are getting this information on Linda's place, can we get the same information about Danny & Brandy's home? That way we can compare and contrast.

I have a picture of their house. I did not manage to copy it. I might get some help later.

This post has been edited by Johann: Dec 26 2006, 12:55 AM

[Aletheia]

Bob & Joe;

While both of you are getting this information on Linda's place, can we get the same information about Danny & Brandy's home? That way we can compare and contrast.

I'm not quite sure what this would accomplish. But in the interest of fairness, shouldn't we say "Can we also get the same information on Danny and Linda's home? The one she according to various reports received from at least 1/2 to more then the fair marketshare of, when Danny bought her part out due to their divorce? Also receiving most of the furnishings? Surely that had nothing to do with Brandy for she had nothing to do with the original purchase of Danny and Linda Shelton's home?

Also when Danny was called a slumlord etc, because of the employee homes on the 3ABN property,,
I thought it rather partial and onesided to leave out the fact that if this was the case then Linda was equally accountable being a co-founder of and vice-President of 3ABN, (as well as the rest of the 3ABN board) no one thought this idea had any merit going by the responses. Nor did anyone think my request for pictures of these alleged tar paper shacks or hovels so I, or others could judge for ourselves, important enough to respond to, nor did anyone act like they needed to prove anything they said...

True Christians are called to righteous judgment and are to do NOTHING with partiality and bias, or hypocrisy, for the bible identifies this as inexcusable.

"Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons" Acts 10:34

Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.


Are we demanding proof from all? are we examining both sides? Using the same standards for both sides here? Are we condemning one side for not answering questions or providing proof while excusing the other for the same thing?

Maybe it's time to examine ourselves here?

I'm sure some will justify themselves, and continue with their ways and thoughts, but my words here are for those with a conscience who know that only Christ can justify us.

For myself, no one is guilty here until proof is furnished. Christ was accused by a multitude, but despite their mouths they could find him guilty of nothing...

People, all people, are innocent till proven guilty.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 26 2006, 07:25 AM

[Pickle]

Didn't see your request for pictures of the allegedly substandard housing, but good idea.

The idea of being equally accountable is a little sticky, if you think about it. By title, of course there would be a good bit of accountability. In reality, how do you prove what one actually knew and agreed with? That's more difficult. Now if someone can find memos signed by Linda backing inappropriate things, that would prove it.

Sure, pictures of Danny and Linda's house would be great. And, if the house is inordinately large, and if we can prove that it is the size it is because of decisions Linda, not Danny, made, then we would have incriminating evidence against her. But proving this would be a tall order.

Regarding furnishings and such, that stems from an email from Walt Thompson, posted courtesy of Gregory Matthews:

"Just to make this letter a bit more complete, let me tell you what I know about Danny's attempt to save Linda for himself - even after the divorce papers were signed. He paid off the remaining debt on her new car, her daughter's car, all of the credit cards, and other joint bills. He bought her interest in the house, helped her move to Southern Illinois, build a porch on her home there, gave her all of the things in their home including things that were really his. (He did these things with money obtained in a loan from a friend.) Over and over again he took her out to eat and did many other things to show how much he really cared for her. In fact, many of the employees and some of us on the board were concerned because of how she was leading him on and keeping him in turmoil. Over and over, she threatened him, saying, that if she was going down, she would bring him and the ministry down with him."

Since Danny was the sole source of Walt's information about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, we can assume that Danny is possibly the sole source of his information here.

Now notice the following quote from a person that I will not name:

3) He did not pay off my car, nor did he make any payments towards the car the last 2 1/2 years...but I did hear he bought Brandy a new car...before they were married.

4) No, he did not pay off my daughter's car.

5) No, he did not pay off all of the credit card bills...this is a subject for our divorce case which is pending.

6) Yes, he did buy my half of the house.

7) Well, I guess if you can call bringing truckloads of my clothes and dumping them on my living room floor "helping me move" to Carbondale, then he helped me move. At that time I was locked out of the house and the only things I got were the things he allowed me to have.

8) Yes, he did build a porch on to my mobile home in Carbondale.

9) No, he did not give me "all of the things in the home..." He has all of the furniture, the boat, the jacuzzi, the sauna, about 18 Gibson guitars, the horses, horse trailor, etc...subject to divorce case which is pending.

10) We did meet occasionally in Marion at a restaurant to discuss the issues.

...

12) No, we never bought or owned a second Toyota vehicle.

Aletheia, if you would be so kind, why don't you start another thread where we can hash out other issues other than questions that need to be directed to Joe. I really don't want to get into he said, she said here. How could we prove whether Danny gave the furnishings or not?

Joe made specific claims about Linda now living in a mansion with a huge pool. Such claims are isolated from any decisions Danny might make. If it was a house bought by both of them, then we'd have to figure out who made the decision to buy that kind of house. Why go there?

And my whole point in this is not about the house at all. I'm testing Joe's credibility. He has made a number of claims. Are his claims credible? If Linda does indeed live in a mansion, then maybe so. If not, then maybe not.

And if he has never personally seen Linda's house and pool, then he must be relying upon the word of ....

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 26 2006, 07:28 AM

[Aletheia]

Didn't see your request for pictures of the allegedly substandard housing, but good idea.

The idea of being equally accountable is a little sticky, if you think about it. By title, of course there would be a good bit of accountability. In reality, how do you prove what one actually knew and agreed with? That's more difficult. Now if someone can find memos signed by Linda backing inappropriate things, that would prove it.

Sure, pictures of Danny and Linda's house would be great. And, if the house is inordinately large, and if we can prove that it is the size it is because of decisions Linda, not Danny, made, then we would have incriminating evidence against her. But proving this would be a tall order.

Regarding furnishings and such, that stems from an email from Walt Thompson, posted courtesy of Gregory Matthews:
Since Danny was the sole source of Walt's information about the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations, we can assume that Danny is possibly the sole source of his information here.

Now notice the following quote from a person that I will not name:
Aletheia, if you would be so kind, why don't you start another thread where we can hash out other issues other than questions that need to be directed to Joe. I really don't want to get into he said, she said here. How could we prove whether Danny gave the furnishings or not?

Joe made specific claims about Linda now living in a mansion with a huge pool. Such claims are isolated from any decisions Danny might make. If it was a house bought by both of them, then we'd have to figure out who made the decision to buy that kind of house. Why go there?

And my whole point in this is not about the house at all. I'm testing Joe's credibility. He has made a number of claims. Are his claims credible? If Linda does indeed live in a mansion, then maybe so. If not, then maybe not.

And if he has never personally seen Linda's house and pool, then he must be relying upon the word of ....

Bob, I recognize the quote, I wasn't agreeing or disagreeing with you, nor do I want to go hash things out with you,and why do I have to go to a different thread for pointing out we need to investigate both sides, and be impartial here?


You constantly ask anyone posting anything which you perceive disagrees with you for proof, what's wrong with asking that of all? Have you asked that of Watchbird, Sister, Johann, etc.?

I haven't seen it..

Nor did I see you ask Fran for the same thing you just said I needed...

but carry on, I'll leave this thread to your arguments, and what you see as important or relevant in your investigation, without any check or balance or input. For surely you are very sure of your own judgment, and need none to impede your opinions or question you, or test anything.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 26 2006, 08:01 AM

[lurker]

So if Danny borrowed money from a "friend" and said he was using it on Linda: Since she and her daughter can easily prove that the cars and credit card bills were not paid off by him (the bank and credit card companies can confirm this) what or who did he use the money on? Did he use it all to impress Brandy or as seed money to get "The Ten Commandments Twice Removed" printed?

Has he ever made payments on the loan? Has the person who made the loan to him come to the conclusion that he or she was taken advantage of?

From what we have heard (yes, I know he said-she said) the reason he built the porch on the mobile home was so he could hang around Linda and check up on her.

This post has been edited by lurker: Dec 26 2006, 09:39 AM

[Pickle]

Aletheia,

Was that really necessary?

For your information, I have earlier disproven one of WatchBird's claims, and she can verify that.

Lurker,

I would caution you to take what either side says to be fact until it is proven one way or the other.

You are correct in pointing out that we ought to be able to prove or disprove the claims about the cars and credit card bills.

[Johann]

I also know that she lives in a mansion herself... with a huge pool now...Again I was there when these things were happening.

It is quite interesting that you call her home a mansion. I have been there. I had a dip in her pool. How small can it be for you to call it "huge"?

It all "started" in our kitchen at 3ABN. And I was right there in Norway the only time Linda was there before her divorce. Were you as close as that, or closer? Or is your information from someone who wasn't even that close? I was in daily communication with a certain Mr. Danny Shelton and with Linda through quite a bit of this whole process. Were you also?

I have talked to one of those whom Danny Shelton claims had several consultations with Linda, and he tells me he never had a real consultation with Linda. Now you claim you know it all. What do you know? What is the source of your information?

Johann

[watchbird]

Aletheia,

Was that really necessary?

For your information, I have earlier disproven one of WatchBird's claims, and she can verify that.

Lurker,

I would caution you to take what either side says to be fact until it is proven one way or the other.

You are correct in pointing out that we ought to be able to prove or disprove the claims about the cars and credit card bills.

I'm not sure that I want to "verify that" just the way you have stated it. I did give information that seemed to conflict with what you said.... then I went to my source and learned that I had not gotten the whole picture previously and that when I had the whole picture my information and yours fitted together in complementary fashion. And I made a statement on the forum in which this occured, confirming what you had said. So I don't think that you "disproved" what I said... for what I said was not in error so much as it was incomplete. But certainly you did cause me to investigate further and correct the partial picture I had had, and for that I am grateful.

And I'll add, that I have very much appreciated the careful, tactful, and thorough jobs of investigation that you have been doing over the last few months.... second your caution about taking anything as fact until it is "proven"... or at least until there are a number of credible witnesses who agree... for not all that needs to be known is possible of being "proven" in the absolute sense of the word "proven".

[Aletheia]

It is quite interesting that you call her home a mansion. I have been there. I had a dip in her pool. How small can it be for you to call it "huge"?

It all "started" in our kitchen at 3ABN. And I was right there in Norway the only time Linda was there before her divorce. Were you as close as that, or closer? Or is your information from someone who wasn't even that close? I was in daily communication with a certain Mr. Danny Shelton and with Linda through quite a bit of this whole process. Were you also?

I have talked to one of those whom Danny Shelton claims had several consultations with Linda, and he tells me he never had a real consultation with Linda. Now you claim you know it all. What do you know? What is the source of your information?

Johann

See, this is exactly what I am talking about.

And how you see and understand things, and what you claim. Johann, has more weight then anyone disagreeing with you, and is the truth, rather then anyone having an opposing testimony, and they are in error or lying, WHY?

Because you say so, and anonymous people who don't prove what they say either, agree with you? Yet those who say different have to prove what they say? and only they have to prove they are credible while you and tose who sing your same song, "sister" for one, do not?

This Bob, is why, Yes, what I said WAS NECESSARY from my point of view.

But as I said, carry on, and do what you must...

~ Aletheia

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 26 2006, 08:44 AM

[Pickle]

Aletheia,

That's why I try to ignore everything that can't be proven irrefutably one way or the other.

There's really nothing in what Johann said that I can take and run with, pro or con. Do you see anything?

[Aletheia]

Aletheia,

That's why I try to ignore everything that can't be proven irrefutably one way or the other.

There's really nothing in what Johann said that I can take and run with, pro or con. Do you see anything?

I apologise for speaking prematurely here and saying I was leaving and yet continuing to post.
I shouldn not have done so, and now I am in a position where I have to say I was wrong to do so, as I am not keeping my word.

As I said, Bob, my first post wasn't directed at you, it was actually in response to Fran's.


This one is.

And I am not holding you personally accountable to prove or disprove anything Johann says or claims, or to demand he prove he is a credible witness as you do to Joe.

I guess people accusing Danny of stealing money or frequenting prostitutes, or having incestuous thoughts or actions towards his stepdaughters, or not paying off credit cards and buying out Lind'a half of the house or being responsible for the choice of his and Linda's big house or having his name on things you require Linda's name on to consider her equally accountable, don't require proof..

But for those who accept someones word, ANYONES, without proof, they ARE on dangerous ground, for anyone can err in judgment.

You me, or another. If we only choose to try and verify part instead of all, we are sinners and accountable to God.


Is there really nothing Johann has said, in all these posts of his which you can prove or disprove? or find it necessary to? With so many believing him, that is hard for me to fathom why he hasn't been questioned about his credibility.

For me, his claims are much more to the point of all this, and more pertinent then whether Linda lives in a nice house with a pool.

Personally I don't care. It seems she had a nice lifestyle before the divorce also with two, and now she is one.

I have already PROVEN that according to Guam law in an uncontested divorce she had to received AT LEAST half of the marital assets and community property.

You are already aware of my posts on Maritime, here's the followup from me when that arguments was brought up again here:
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=164425

The burden of proof to the contrary belongs on whoever makes that claim.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 26 2006, 10:23 AM

[Grace]

Well, I believe Johann because I know him personnally and my husband, who's a friend of him and has known him for many years, testifies that he's always been an honest, true man of God. I know he wouldn't lie.

[Aletheia]

Well, I believe Johann because I know him personnally and my husband, who's a friend of him and has known him for many years, testifies that he's always been an honest, true man of God. I know he wouldn't lie.

And many knowing the Apostle Peter and knowing his character and his declaration that in truth he perceived that God was no respecter of persons would have ever testified that he himself was and had erred in judgment, but the truth is found in God's word, he had done so, and Paul rebuked him to his face for it, and being a honest and loving man, Peter immediatly saw his error and moved to correct it.

So what do claims and opinions really prove?

Those on the inside may indeed have a better understanding, but for those looking in?

As has been said before, it's a bunch of he said, she said.