Was Linda Innocent? Options

[PeacefulBe]

Some people keep asking if Linda was 100 per-cent Innocent! Come on folks. That appears to be an attempt to discover some fault in her. Look long enough, and you will find it.

It just may be that one morning, while Linda was fixing breakfast for Danny, she needed to attend to a personal need. As a result, she may have burned his toast. If you want to charge her with that error, I will grant it. Don't we all know that when a woman is fixing breakfast for her man, she should put self aside, and not attend to any of her personal needs? Amazing that anyone would think otherwise!

The fundamental issue is: Did Linda give Danny Biblical grounds to divorce her? That is the issue. It is not whether or not she burned his toast one morning, or even six mornings.

Gregory, that is one of the fundamental issues. If the tightly held "evidence" is ever released then the matter can finally be openly settled and put to rest.

The additional issues Uncle Sam has raised in this thread are of fundamental importance also. Looking at the facts in the matters is really the only way to find the truth, right? When Linda is free to do so it will be wonderful to see her comments on the issues. We have certainly seen plenty of input on them by Danny and those around him.

As far as FHB's response to the burned toast, perhaps he viewed your anecdote as minimizing Linda's faults. Just a thought.

[HUGGINS130]

The bottom line is neither the church's failure nor Linda's make Danny's failure, faults, flaws shortcomings or sins go away... and you and those inclined to your manner of thinking are just enabling him to avoid responsibility....so I guess that means you've done more than burn the toast too.

DEEP

[awesumtenor]

As far as FHB's response to the burned toast, perhaps he viewed your anecdote as minimizing Linda's faults. Just a thought.

As the originator of this particular tangent, Gregory makes the call vis a vis the scope of what he wants to discuss. He was limiting the discussion at this juncture to whether Linda gave Danny cause in accordance with scripture and church doctrine to divorce her. FHB and others have been trying to expand the scope beyond that so they can say that there are things Linda is guilty of too... but by that standard, one can say the church itself is guilty and even FHB himself is guilty... but as I stated before all that is a weapon of mass distraction.

Gregory, noticing this also, is trying to bring the discussion back around to the original allegations made against Linda. If FHB wants to move on to other things, he can... but Gregory's question remains and for all this sleight of hand, hocus pocus and spin, it comes down to a yes or no question when the smoke and mirrors and bovine excrement are gone.

A yes or no question that so far appears to be "NO". Pointing fingers at Linda about things not relevant to Danny's initial accusation of infidelity, spiritual or otherwise, only serves as an attempt to get those inclined to point out Danny's guilt, in this and other areas, to stop by threatening Linda with public disclosure of malfeasance.

It leaves Gregory's inquiry wholly unaddressed, however. Is it asking FHB, Lee and others too much to stop trying to answer "Is the sky blue" with why they think jello is superior to bundt cake as a dessert?

In His service,
Mr. J

[HUGGINS130]

It leaves Gregory's inquiry wholly unaddressed, however. Is it asking FHB, Lee and others too much to stop trying to answer "Is the sky blue" with why they think jello is superior to bundt cake as a dessert?

In His service,
Mr. J

I know this is serious, but the last statement had me rolling...LOL and no that is not asking too much

[calvin]

it comes down to a yes or no question when the smoke and mirrors and bovine excrement are gone.

In His service,
Mr. J

Please refrain from using any metaphors or references to human, bovine, or any other animal excrement. This language has no place on a Christian message board.

[fallible humanbe...]

A yes or no question that so far appears to be "NO". Pointing fingers at Linda about things not relevant to Danny's initial accusation of infidelity, spiritual or otherwise, only serves as an attempt to get those inclined to point out Danny's guilt, in this and other areas, to stop by threatening Linda with public disclosure of malfeasance.

Kevin,

The issue here has been, from its inception, Danny's character - or lack there of. The same issue needs to be applied to Linda if one is to gain a complete picture of all that has transpired over the last twenty years.

Do you know anyone who is divorced? Has there been a couple that you have been close to that divorced? Is there really only one side. Is one side guilty of all that is wrong in a marriage? Or is one person responsible for wanting the divorce. To date, we have two parties saying neither on e of them really wanted the divorce with one saying that there was a reason for it (legitimate or not). The divorce is nothing but a he said-she said situation. How do those from the outside handle that. The Adventist church as a whole has never dealt well with divorce - I know this from personal experience. So it continues here.

Is it possible that Linda was unfaithful, at least in heart - absolutely! Do we know for sure - no way! You weren't there privy to all the conversations and encounters. You only have the word of others to go on. These may be people - you - consider solid witness, but I don't know them, nor does Peacefully, or Lee, or maybe even "sister" . . . so, you have chosen to believe those that have provided you information they hold - fine, but it can not be used to prove other wrong who question your position. Pickle, for all his twisting, is at least possibly on the right path.

You are free to question me - my motives, my bias, my claims, my intuition . . . but, simply because you do does not make you right and me wrong. And of course the converse is the same.

- fhb

[Clay]

Kevin,

The issue here has been, from its inception, Danny's character - or lack there of. The same issue needs to be applied to Linda if one is to gain a complete picture of all that has transpired over the last twenty years.

Do you know anyone who is divorced? Has there been a couple that you have been close to that divorced? Is there really only one side. Is one side guilty of all that is wrong in a marriage? Or is one person responsible for wanting the divorce. To date, we have two parties saying neither on e of them really wanted the divorce with one saying that there was a reason for it (legitimate or not). The divorce is nothing but a he said-she said situation. How do those from the outside handle that. The Adventist church as a whole has never dealt well with divorce - I know this from personal experience. So it continues here.

Is it possible that Linda was unfaithful, at least in heart - absolutely! Do we know for sure - no way! You weren't there privy to all the conversations and encounters. You only have the word of others to go on. These may be people - you - consider solid witness, but I don't know them, nor does Peacefully, or Lee, or maybe even "sister" . . . so, you have chosen to believe those that have provided you information they hold - fine, but it can not be used to prove other wrong who question your position. Pickle, for all his twisting, is at least possibly on the right path.

You are free to question me - my motives, my bias, my claims, my intuition . . . but, simply because you do does not make you right and me wrong. And of course the converse is the same.

- fhb

the point that you have consistently missed either by accident or purposefully is that regardless of what Linda may have done, she did not deserve to be treated as she was by a "christian" man of God..... He should have taken the high road when dealing with her, but instead he made up lies, accused her of spiritual adultery, offered her money on the condition she not say anything, then proceeded to trash her name and reputation so she could not get employment anywhere else in the church....

If you think that is okay FHB you have issues... then you want to spread the blame and somehow have us believe that maybe she was partly responsible for how she was treated.... you have issues...

[princessdi]

Linda was at 3ABN for 20 years.

She was the VP and privy to all the goings on at 3ABN.

She sat in the board meeting when it was decided that Tommy would stay.

She knew who lived in what housing.

She knew where all the finances were going.

She knew about any internal strife and disagreement.

The point is, she knew.

Naw, you are missing one point. Apaprently there was at least one or two meetings without her knowledge, or else she would not be in the situation she finds herself today. Also, your ID is "fallible" not "gullible" human being. I am sure Linda is not the first wife place in a high position, in name only, to keep the power(shares, money, etc.) in the family.


Girl, please!!! More like "yet to be invented". They have already been to court when Linda contested the Guam divorce, I think that would have been the time to bring it up, if they had any. Does anyone know if that was the reason the Guam divorce was upheld, or was it that Linda initially agreed to it, and tired closing the barn dorr after the horse had gotten out?

Gregory, that is one of the fundamental issues. If the tightly held "evidence" is ever released then the matter can finally be openly settled and put to rest.
The additional issues Uncle Sam has raised in this thread are of fundamental importance also. Looking at the facts in the matters is really the only way to find the truth, right? When Linda is free to do so it will be wonderful to see her comments on the issues. We have certainly seen plenty of input on them by Danny and those around him.

As far as FHB's response to the burned toast, perhaps he viewed your anecdote as minimizing Linda's faults. Just a thought.

[fallible humanbe...]

the point that you have consistently missed either by accident or purposefully is that regardless of what Linda may have done, she did not deserve to be treated as she was by a "christian" man of God..... He should have taken the high road when dealing with her, but instead he made up lies, accused her of spiritual adultery, offered her money on the condition she not say anything, then proceeded to trash her name and reputation so she could not get employment anywhere else in the church....

If you think that is okay FHB you have issues... then you want to spread the blame and somehow have us believe that maybe she was partly responsible for how she was treated.... you have issues...

Clay,

You have made it clear that you feel Linda didn't get her share of the loot. Fine. Maybe you are right - unless you can prove it via a Marital Settlement Agreement you don't have leg to stand on, other than your indignation.

I don't think I have argued your point, merely said you don't have anything that substantiates your claims - which at this point ring hollow.

I don't think unChristian behaviour is acceptable - be it treating your ex-spouse with less than Christlike dignity - or a running stream of allegations and innuendo or vengeful accusations. Your anger at me and my position that there is no balance to your point of view tells me much.

I would ask you to show me where I said she was responsible for any ill treatment you feel she experienced. I said she was responsible for what she knew, what she acted or failed to act upon. I have not in any way said she was responsible for abuse, for disrespect, for ill treatment. You cloud the issue because you feel so emotionally involved and feel I am saying something I am not.

Issues, yes, I do - issues of fairness in the public discovery that occurs here, for which you are partially responsible. You can certainly feel that Linda was mistreated. That Danny should not have sought divorce (though evidence shows it was an agreed upon divorce). That Danny should have gone above and beyond the way he financially handled it (and again there is no evidence that he was maliciously negligent, nor abundantly giving in the process). But the fact remains that here, many of the claims of financial maleficence, maltreatment of employees, turning a blind eye to concerns about staff - fall at Linda's feet as much as they do Danny's.

Fight for Linda's right to be treated fairly in a divorce - but don't confuse that with her responsibility for what happened at 3ABN under her co-leadership with Danny.

- fhb

[Clay]

Clay,

You have made it clear that you feel Linda didn't get her share of the loot. Fine. Maybe you are right - unless you can prove it via a Marital Settlement Agreement you don't have leg to stand on, other than your indignation.

I don't think I have argued your point, merely said you don't have anything that substantiates your claims - which at this point ring hollow.

I don't think unChristian behaviour is acceptable - be it treating your ex-spouse with less than Christlike dignity - or a running stream of allegations and innuendo or vengeful accusations. Your anger at me and my position that there is no balance to your point of view tells me much.

I would ask you to show me where I said she was responsible for any ill treatment you feel she experienced. I said she was responsible for what she knew, what she acted or failed to act upon. I have not in any way said she was responsible for abuse, for disrespect, for ill treatment. You cloud the issue because you feel so emotionally involved and feel I am saying something I am not.

Issues, yes, I do - issues of fairness in the public discovery that occurs here, for which you are partially responsible. You can certainly feel that Linda was mistreated. That Danny should not have sought divorce (though evidence shows it was an agreed upon divorce). That Danny should have gone above and beyond the way he financially handled it (and again there is no evidence that he was maliciously negligent, nor abundantly giving in the process). But the fact remains that here, many of the claims of financial maleficence, maltreatment of employees, turning a blind eye to concerns about staff - fall at Linda's feet as much as they do Danny's.

Fight for Linda's right to be treated fairly in a divorce - but don't confuse that with her responsibility for what happened at 3ABN under her co-leadership with Danny.

- fhb

issues... you have.... you have since your arrival attempted to tie Linda's treatment in her divorce with her co-managing 3abn.... I have not.. they are separate..... your silence regarding her treatment speaks volumes..... issues you have....

[PeacefulBe]

As the originator of this particular tangent, Gregory makes the call vis a vis the scope of what he wants to discuss. He was limiting the discussion at this juncture to whether Linda gave Danny cause in accordance with scripture and church doctrine to divorce her. FHB and others have been trying to expand the scope beyond that so they can say that there are things Linda is guilty of too... but by that standard, one can say the church itself is guilty and even FHB himself is guilty... but as I stated before all that is a weapon of mass distraction.

I believe Uncle Sam set the scope of the discussion when he started the thread. I quoted that scope a bit earlier. Gregory will have to ask Uncle Sam if he wants to limit the discussion to whether or not Linda was treated fairly by Danny - or start a separate thread himself. At least that's what seems the proper course. Am I incorrect in deducing this? Clay, can ya help me out here?

[fallible humanbe...]

..... your silence regarding her treatment speaks volumes.....

Clay,

Please detail this for us. Give us chapter and verse, make known the clarifying facts you have that will give all of those wondering about the fairness, equity, or lack thereof in regards to the divorce the information that makes it unmistakeably clear what you base your decision on.

What did she get and how did that not match what she should have received?

How was the division of property fraudalent?

How much more should she have received?

Can you do more than rail against me? Can you give all of us, for there are many who would like to know, the specifics so they can understand all the claims and counterclaims, the specifics that you base your anger, disdain, and indignation on?

I would also like you to lay out the evidence for your claim that since my arrival, back in early August I think it was, that I have tried to tie Linda's role as VP of 3ABN to her "treatment" in the divorce process. I have always made allowances for the possiblity that Linda may not have been treated "fairly" in the process of the divorce - go back and look at some of our earliest exchanges. What I have done is not given ground on Linda's culpability in regards to her role as VP (an issue seperate from the divorce). I have not given ground on the reality that she is not the innocent you would paint her as. She knew, she benefited, she made her choices.

You can claim she was abused, misled, threatned, but there is another picture of Linda out there painted by those who worked by her side from many years ago that bring an entirely different set of possibilities to consideration. Yes, the old cliche - there are two sides to every story.

Just as Greg Matthews says, there is much more to be told - on both sides. It may never be told in public and those of us who wonder must accept that.

Two questions for you to answer:

1. How was Linda not treated fairly in the divorce? Not, that she was "put out" by her husband, how was she treated unfairly in all aspects of the divorce process? Please be specific with information that substantiates this claim.

2. Using my words, how have I attempted to tie Linda's divorce to her management techniques and decisions at 3ABN?

- fhb

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 31 2006, 12:38 AM

[PeacefulBe]

Girl, please!!! More like "yet to be invented". They have already been to court when Linda contested the Guam divorce, I think that would have been the time to bring it up, if they had any. Does anyone know if that was the reason the Guam divorce was upheld, or was it that Linda initially agreed to it, and tired closing the barn dorr after the horse had gotten out?

Well, invented or not, when it is revealed it should be pretty clear what the truth is and then maybe the matter can finally be put to rest.

[Ed White]

This supreme court ruling below in blue that I had sent in a letter to Linda in 1998 which Pete found and posted it here says something about "fraud", once that is established through cover up & such, then just about every point the guilty party is trying to make after that becomes null and void. This is the way this was explained to me 10 years ago by a legal mind. He also had a training video showing of how US judges are trained to throw a temper tantrum at just the right time to scare the innocent of any point of law they knew better than him/her…very interesting… It would be well if the legal minds here read this court ruling, as I know it would apply to the cover up of those higher than the 3ABN board.
“Just ask any of the Attorneys there on your staff about the below Supreme Court case. "Where an answer is required, and none given, or misinformation is given, its self evident of fraud." U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d. 1021, (5 ThCir. 1970, Cert, denied; 400 U.S. 831, 91 S.Ct. 62; LEd. 2d (1970); and U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d. 297

[HUGGINS130]

Well, invented or not, when it is revealed it should be pretty clear what the truth is and then maybe the matter can finally be put to rest.

still hot mess on toast...with a grip of "I smell a rat!"

This post has been edited by HUGGINS130: Jan 1 2007, 04:57 AM