Save 3abn Website, site registered to Gailon Joy Options

[Panama_Pete]

Again, I would like to know what Linda has to say about this whole Tommy case since she has no gag order and Bob and Gailon have both been so vocal about how open Linda's side wants to be...

Who told you that there is no gag order?

It's the contract payments that ended in December, not the promise to keep quiet.

Pete

[Ralph]

A disclaimer doesn't mean the information isn't true, it is an effort to insure no legal responsibility for the information to avoid legal situations later on. The fact remains that no matter where you look it up the information is the same.

- FHB

Maybe this is the same reason that the word alleged is used when discussing the alleged abuse by Tommy Shelton of the alleged victims. Remember, "A disclaimer doesn't mean the information isn't true, it is an effort to insure no legal responsibility for the information to avoid legal situations later on. The fact remains that no matter where you look it up the information is the same."

You have a unique way of allegedly sidetracking the discussion from the important issues.


Allegedly written by Ralph

This post has been edited by Ralph: Jan 23 2007, 12:50 AM

[princessdi]

Ok, I thought this was also common knowledge..................
cue Mission Impossible music..........

FHB, Cindy, you assigment, should you choose to accept it, is to read and get a working knowledge of all the facts before posting again, or just post question for information purposes only.......this message will not self destruct and remain as a reminder that you should not be posting until you are informed........................

Cue music.........fade to black.........

Who told you that there is no gag order?

It's the contract payments that ended in December, not the promise to keep quiet.

Pete

[awesumtenor]

Go ahead and hide behind that weak point. A disclaimer does not mean that beartrap is correct. Linda's site has no link to a "webmaster" so based on the information that IS available one must logically assume that Derrell is indeed the Admin and Tech contact for Linda's site. If he did turn it over to Linda why hasn't that information been changed? It seems that if you turn a domain over to another individual and planned on having no other involvement with it whatsoever, you would also alter the Admin and Tech contact info.

It is plain that we can add domain name registration to the ever growing list of things regarding which you are utterly clueless.

Do your homework and you'll realize why the presumption you've made is wrong.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

Who told you that there is no gag order?

It's the contract payments that ended in December, not the promise to keep quiet.

Pete

Well Bob Pickle , for one... He claims it's obvious, and most people know that just by reading the contract...

-

---- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: ~ Cindy
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:33 AM
Subject: Re: opinion?


Here's my opinion: Don't post it.

Whether rightly or wrongly, you have gotten a reputation that will be difficult to change. It's just the facts. And if you post this you will not gain anything.

For example, you were the one who asked online in huge letters, "Is there a lawyer in the house?" Now if you interpret Johann's statement as being a threat, it will further convince people that you are terribly confused and don't have a clue about what you are talking about.

Do you really want that?

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: ~ Cindy
To: Bob
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:58 AM
Subject: Re: opinion?


No Bob, I am not going to quote you.

But my "Is there a lawyer in the house?" was in reference to whether the contract between Linda and 3 ABN was still binding after the 24 mos, and I was hoping*** for one would answer. Don't you think thats a valid question?

But, that was, and is totally unrelated to Johann or anything I have asked him or posted about with him.

You think Johann was talking about that?

That doesn't even make sense.

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: ~ Cindy
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: opinion?


Hi Cindy.

When I said, "Don't post it," I was talking about what you were thinking of posting, not my opinion. Of course, it would not be wise to post my opinion either.

Most folks who read the contract can tell that it is only good through December 2006. People will react negatively to your even asking that question since it seems so obvious to them just from reading it.

You may still wonder about many things, but it isn't wise for you to ask every question that comes to your mind. If at all possible, pick questions that most folks would think are good questions. And if you aren't sure if you can do that, it would be better if you were just a lurker.

You don't mind me being honest, do you?

Johann's message to you makes sense to me in light of your post. And if he could have worded it slightly better to communicate his thoughts better, well, he wouldn't be the only one that could do that in this matter.

I think at this point it would probably be better to just be a lurker. I had a pastor call me today who reads these forums, and he thought about the same.

See you.

Bob



----- Original Message -----
From: ~ Cindy
To: Bob
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:29 PM
Subject: Re: opinion?


Well Bob, Johann and I are still emailing back and forth. I do appreciate your honesty, but you have to know that what you just said clearly shows your take on everything and where you stand, and that changes everything. I reserve the right to repeat or post anything you write, from here on out. Just as you do with those you receive emails from..

I am NOT going to be censored nor adjust my thinking or questions to not rattle or disturb or make angry the majority, nor just lurk. Running with the crowd and letting them rule you is NEVER a good thing, for the majority is lost.

The majority thinks stating the obvious about the contract is a bad thing, and wish to keep it quiet??

How very opposite of honest people. Why are you with, and representing them?

I am sure many would like me to shut up and go away, but me thinks people protest way too much. The more people attack and get upset with me personally rather then dealing with the subject, the more I think they are doing so because there is something really rotten they are hiding and doing.

Christians NEVER fear questions. Why be afraid of the truth?

I never am

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob
To: ~ Cindy
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 2:42 PM
Subject: Re: opinion?


Cindy,

What you don't realize is that the pastor who called me put it a lot less kindly than how I worded the gist of his conversation.

You write:


"The majority thinks stating the obvious about the contract is a bad thing, and wish to keep it quiet??"


I don't understand this statement of yours. Since I stated that the majority would think that the contract just runs through December 2006, and that is what is obvious to them, then why would the majority want to keep that quiet?

The fact that you would make this statement does not put you in the best light, and gives the impression that you just want to argue. In saying that I'm only using words others have used when they have referred to other things you have said.

What people wonder is whether it is possible to carry on a constructive conversation with you, not because they are afraid of being asked questions, but because of the type of questions that get asked.


"The majority thinks stating the obvious about the contract is a bad thing, and wish to keep it quiet??"

It comes across as if you want to argue that the sky is green with purple polka dots, rather than blue. Are you saying that the obvious is contrary to what I said it was, and thus are you trying to argue that the contract is really perpetual? That is utter nonsense, and most folks who read the contract know that it is. So why would they want to argue with someone who says otherwise? Why would they even think about taking that person seriously?

Bob

----- Original Message -----
From: ~ Cindy
To: Bob
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: opinion?


Bob, why should I care about people's opinions, such as an anonymous pastor, or be controlled by them?

And it is not obvious people think the contract is tempory for no one, not one single person, has said that in response to me. They are all claiming the opposite.

And believe it or not, it is possible for people who are unbiased and aren't afraid of being questioned, or for others to be, to answer me and hold a normal conversation. I've had many of those in private messenger here and on maritime. It's the only way to do so without being verbally assualted and accused of falsehoods.

I am well aware that many are intent on painting me as stupid, irrelevant, having a learning disability, and unable to be understood, and not being able to understand. I read all the posts. But this I know. Christians do not react to fellow Christians in this way. They do not respond to questions with ad hominems. Apparently you are one of those people.

At this point, I think it would be best if you didn't e-mail me anymore.

edited to add this: bold text was added by me for emphasis

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 23 2007, 07:29 AM

[Clay]

FHB, Cindy and the other Danny apologists (that would be Joe Smith, Bystander, EyeWitness, and the other pretenders who have waltzed through here).... IMO you are totally clueless.... and I say that in love....

disclaimer: the views expressed by me do not reflect the opinions of the management of BSDA.

The Danny apologists engage in minimizing what Danny has done, and what Tommy Shelton has done...then they attempt to get the discussion sidetracked with minutiae...... tiresome they are.....

[husbandoftheyear]

Let him come here and show us the transfer and make the claim that he isn't involved in any way, shape, or form.

- FHB

Why? I don't remember him being on trial...

Always skirting around the real issues!

[Aletheia]

FHB, Cindy and the other Danny apologists (that would be Joe Smith, Bystander, EyeWitness, and the other pretenders who have waltzed through here).... IMO you are totally clueless.... and I say that in love....

disclaimer: the views expressed by me do not reflect the opinions of the management of BSDA.

The Danny apologists engage in minimizing what Danny has done, and what Tommy Shelton has done...then they attempt to get the discussion sidetracked with minutiae...... tiresome they are.....

I can only speak for myself. I am not a Danny apologist, I don't know the man, and the first time I ever watched 3ABN was 10 commandments weekend, and since being on this forum, as posters here keep referring to broadcasts.

As far as Tommy goes, if he's guilty that will be proved. For many that has been proved by what has been posted here, for me, the evidence here needs to be verified as factual. So, I am trying to do that for myself, off these boards.

What I find sTrAnGe here is that with so many talking about Danny's guilt, they cannot seem to understand that for honest people who look at the whole situation in a unbiased way, most of what they find Danny at fault for, are the same things they refuse to find Linda at fault for.

"The Linda apologists" all claim they are not trying to defend her yet accuse all who mention her, or question her stance and accountability as being "Danny apologists"

This is surely strange behavior to me.

I constantly have to remind myself, that Linda can not be found gulty based on the characters, methods, tactics and spirit of those siding with her here.

On the otherhand, if I had such defending me, I'd have to speak up for myself and ask them to stop from shame, and embarassment.

Thus my question on several occasions:

Where is Linda's voice in all this?


My opinion also.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 23 2007, 07:53 AM

[awesumtenor]

No.

Derrell is the Owner, Admin, and Tech contact for lindashelton.org. The available, verifiable information makes that unmistakeably clear. When that information indicates otherwise then we will know that he isn't involved.

- FHB

There are dozens of domains which have me as Admin and Tech Contact from when I used to work for an ISP because I was the one who submitted the request to the domain name registrarand who set their web site up... and once they were set up and I turned them over I have not had any further involvement with the domains, the information presented on those web sites or anything else pertaining to them...even though my name remains in their WHOIS information.

In order to keep people from hijacking domain names, domain name registrars make it painfully inconvenient to change the contact information for a domain... and most companies dont bother to change the info.. even when the person listed may no longer be with the company or may no longer have any involvement with the domain in question.

You are going to have to do better than this if you are going to 'prove' beartrap a liar... at this point you've proven squat.

In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Jan 23 2007, 08:30 AM

[Panama_Pete]

Well Bob Pickle , for one... He claims it's obvious, and most people know that just by reading the contract...

The contract payments to Linda did end in December. That is the part that is obvious.

What is not so obvious is that those payments, in part, were for the promise of confidentiality. There is no time limit on the promise of confidentiality.

When you visit a law firm, a hospital or a real estate agency, you have a contract. Those contracts end when you get well, finish your legal business, or sell your house.

The contracts do not give the hospital the right to publish your health problems , the law firm the right to publish your will, or the real estate agency the right to tell why you sold your house. Those promises of confidentiality continue after you have moved on with your life.

Bob Pickle mentioned to you that he had an "opinion." And he specifically told you it would not be wise to publish that opinion. You should have listened to him.

Of course, it would not be wise to post my opinion either . Most folks who read the contract can tell that it is only good through December 2006.

However, if Linda does decide to publish books, you will be happy to know that Linda is free to publish fictional novels on any subject under the sun. Therefore, you could actually receive your request of hearing "Linda's voice" at some point in the future.

[Pickle]

The contract payments to Linda did end in December. That is the part that is obvious.

What is not so obvious is that those payments, in part, were for the promise of confidentiality. There is no time limit on the promise of confidentiality.

Pete,

Ellen White wrote that a law that has no penalty is of no force.

Is there any penalty in the contract for speaking out after the final payment is received? Is there any penalty that could be conjured up and stick in court?

[Lee]

Of course Linda can talk now on this board. To say otherwise goes against the freedoms of our Country. She has a free will and she can come on here and defend herself. Says WHO that Linda made a "promise" of confidentiality??--then WHY is she writing a book? Oh-excuse me, an "alledged" book!

To say otherwise is putting your head in the sand.

[awesumtenor]

She has a free will and she can come on here and defend herself.

The same goes for Danny and Tommy and the 3ABN board... ergo there is no need for you and others to do it, is there...

Do you ever consider the ramifications of what you say on the things that you do? Given the frequency with which you are hoist by your own petard, I would have to conclude you do not... pity.

In His service,
Mr. J

[sonshineonme]

AMEN!
Maybe, they need to read the 'fine print'.

Tech City:Thompsonville
Tech State/Province:Illinois
Tech Postal Code:62890
Tech Country:US
Tech Phone:+1.6189231134
Tech Phone Ext.:
Tech FAX:
Tech FAX Ext.:
Tech Email:derrell@mundall.com
Name Server:NS1.SECURESERVER.NET
Name Server:NS2.SECURESERVER.NET
This information was obtained from a different whois server, so we cannot verify its authenticity.

I read it

[Panama_Pete]

Pete,

Ellen White wrote that a law that has no penalty is of no force.

Is there any penalty in the contract for speaking out after the final payment is received? Is there any penalty that could be conjured up and stick in court?

Yes, I think there are penalties.

I think this area of law is called "breach of contract."

Wikipedia:

"Breach of contract is a legal concept in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance."

Writing a non-fiction account would likely be considered "non-performance" since Linda received money with the stipulation she would remain silent. There is likely no expiration on that promise. This silence was part of the "bargained-for-exchange" that Linda agreed to.

So, if silence was part of the contract, and that part of the contract is broken at a later date, the other party could ask for a remedy from the court, depending on the breach.

This violation is no different than if your law firm or medical clinic discloses your legal and medical affairs to the public - without your permission - at a much later date, long after you've paid your legal and medical fees, and moved on.

However, Linda is protected by the First Amendment when it comes to writing books. She can write fiction to no end.

However, I'm not an Illinois lawyer, so my opinion should not be construed with giving legal advice. All of what I have said would have to be verified by someone who is licensed there and can work directly with the person who signed the contract.