Mr Joy's Creditability, Owner of save3abn.com Options

[Observer]

The court document had know other name on it than Gailon Arthur Joy. The amount said 3,946.66 with interest and fees, not 1,600.00. Amount owed to Primus Financial Services.

Not to mention that you first told wwjd that Gailon did not even know what we were referring to. A little later, it seems he did know, except the figures are different and there was no other name on the judgment.

Bystander:

If, GAJ was sued as a co-signer, would it not be true that his name would be the only one on the legal document?

NOTE: In my mind, in order to sort this out, we need more than some legal document that is part of the court filing. We need the loan document that establishes whether or not GAJ was a co-signer to the loan.

If the amount owed was $1,600 is it not possible that aomount, plus interest, plus the legal fees, might be $3,946.66?

NOTE: As stated above, we need other information that estbllishes the amount of the interest owed, as well as the amount of the legal fees that could be collected. I can imagine that it would be permissable to collect $2,000 in attorney and legal fees, plus interest. But, that is simply my imagination, and you need to give us a more complete story.

I do not know. I am only asking?

[sister]

Bystander, are you using the same tactics as Danny? You claim to have a document in your hand, but do not want to embarrass Gailon Joy by producing it. In this case, produce the document for everyone to see, at this point I doubt anyone is willing to rely upon your word, except your cronies, of course.

Sister

[Johann]

Bystander, are you using the same tactics as Danny? You claim to have a document in your hand, but do not want to embarrass Gailon Joy by producing it. In this case, produce the document for everyone to see, at this point I doubt anyone is willing to rely upon your word, except your cronies, of course.

Sister

Even the chairman of the board once admitted to me that he was using the same tactics. He stated that his facts were fully verified, but when I asked him if he had seen the documents he admitted he hadn't. It is sad when you are dealing with "Christian" people who treat you like that.

[awesumtenor]

(Uh oh! That went back too far. Edited for pre-3ABN content)

How so? This entire thread is about pre/non-3ABN content... sauce for the goose...etc. Judgements and reposessions are matters of public record. Danny's camp is saying Gailon is not credible because there is an issue with a judgement and a repossession in his past; someone's putting forth that the same issues are in Danny's past and yet they have no problem finding him credible should then be fair game as rebuttal.

They opened this can of worms; they should have to deal with what crawls out of it...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

How so? This entire thread is about pre/non-3ABN content... sauce for the goose...etc. Judgements and reposessions are matters of public record.

Are you saying that there are public documents about this?

[awesumtenor]

Are you saying that there are public documents about this?

I am saying if Danny Shelton has creditor judgements or car reposessions in his past, they are matters of public record and one only need know the municipality in which the judgement was filed and make a trip to that courthouse to get the court filing in question.

As such, if it is true and verifiable, it should be grist for the mill just as Gailon's issue is... especially seeing that the argument is being made that having a judgement or a reposession in one's past makes one less credible.

In His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

It might be a wise thing to run this by the Boss before getting too far along with it. He may agree that the can of worms has been opened and now related pre-3abn things are fair game - but then, again, he may not.

Of course, a comparison of the claims made against GAJ and any pre-3abn judgements in Michigan or wherever against Danny would not be prohibited over on save3abn...

[Aletheia]

Bystander... You claim to have a document in your hand, but do not want to embarrass Gailon Joy by producing it.

Of course he did not say that. Bystander actually wrote: "The court document had no other name on it than Gailon Arthur Joy. The amount said 3,946.66 with interest and fees, not 1,600.00. Amount owed to Primus Financial Services."

You must be thinking of Joy:

"I did indeed read the topic last evening and was told that a realtor had made some rather profound allegations last weekend while I was away. I had hoped to disregard it to avoid further embarrassment to the accuser. ...However, I will direct my response directly to the accuser and copy the circle in an e-mail response that will go far wider than just BSDA...and...cause him as much embarrassment now as it did then!!!"

Bystander wrote: "The court document had no other name on it than Gailon Arthur Joy. The amount said 3,946.66 with interest and fees, not 1,600.00. Amount owed to Primus Financial Services."
--------

1) Post the court document so we can see it.

2) I'm fairly sure you have your facts wrong. I can't locate any such post where I said any such thing. But I don't mind being corrected.

Of course what you really said was that you had just talked to Gailon about it, and yet didn't know what was being talked about:

QUOTE wwjd Mar 28 2007, 03:09 PM
You will notice pickle never answered about the car repossession. I saw a copy of that judgement today so it did happen or is going to happen.

I know nothing about that. But why don't you post it so we can all see it?

I just talked to Gailon. Sounds like it's not even his car. You got your facts straight?

Then next, as usual, you began to tell everyone what's what:

Based on what I recall Gailon telling me yesterday about the car repossession issue:
Gailon does not own the car in question.
Gailon co-signed on a loan for a car.
The owner paid the loan down to $1600.
The owner had trouble paying off the rest.
The lender wanted Gailon to pay up.
Gailon suggested that they half the payments down to $160, and let the owner pay that each month.
The lender refused.
Gailon said, "Fine. Take it to court."
The lender did.
The court decided that the owner had to pay up, $160 a month.
The owner has paid that amount, and the car has not been repossessed.

and claim it 's true without demanding proof from Gailon, or providing it here, while demanding Bystander do so...

[PeacefulBe]

Just like Sunday, Aletheia, proof is coming. Will it also be coming from Bystander?

[Pickle]

Of course what you really said was that you had just talked to Gailon about it, and yet didn't know what was being talked about:
I know nothing about that. But why don't you post it so we can all see it?

I just talked to Gailon. Sounds like it's not even his car. You got your facts straight?

Those were two separate postings that got married together by the forum software because they were posted too close together. I wrote the first sentence before calling Gailon.

Then next, as usual, you began to tell everyone what's what:
and claim it 's true without demanding proof from Gailon, or providing it here, while demanding Bystander do so...

Innocent till proven guilty, right? Thus I think we need evidence that the charge is credible first. That's the American way.

[Aletheia]

Bystander:

If, GAJ was sued as a co-signer, would it not be true that his name would be the only one on the legal document?

NOTE: In my mind, in order to sort this out, we need more than some legal document that is part of the court filing. We need the loan document that establishes whether or not GAJ was a co-signer to the loan.

If the amount owed was $1,600 is it not possible that aomount, plus interest, plus the legal fees, might be $3,946.66?

NOTE: As stated above, we need other information that estbllishes the amount of the interest owed, as well as the amount of the legal fees that could be collected. I can imagine that it would be permissable to collect $2,000 in attorney and legal fees, plus interest. But, that is simply my imagination, and you need to give us a more complete story.

I do not know. I am only asking?

It is my understanding if two were on the loan papers they would both be named as co litigants.

If what Gailon is claiming is true I think it likely two different incidents are being talked about, if that's the case the dates will verify it or not.

You suggest the amount is higher in the papers because of judgments added, but I thought Bob claimed it was paid off, and The Watchbird claimed Gailon wrote that the insurance will pay it off in the future:
"Unfortunately, the borrower was recently in a motor vehicle accident where he was struck hard in the rear end and pretty much totalled the vehicle.Therefore, the insurance carrier will now pay the entire balance off and we will have to find him a new vehicle. An unfortunate end to a good deal!!!"

Does accident insurance pay off court judgments for defaulting on a loan?

I don't think so...

Incidentally Gregory, in another thread you appeared to be making some unsupported and unproven claims about the separation agreement between 3ABN and Linda. Even though Linda never kept it, and 3ABN allowed themselves to be defrauded and kept their part and paid her anyway; I asked you to quote from it to illustrate and prove what you were claiming, and you have yet to do so.

{anyone wishing to argue that Linda kept her part be prepared to explain how her website illustrates and proves that just to start-- oh and please do so in the topic, I am referring Greg to)

Did you miss the post? I even quoted the agreement to make it easier for you...

Here you go:
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=188515

[Noahswife]

Aletheia,

May I ask your opinion on just one thing? If you truly believe that Mr. Joy's past or present financial dealings is subject to examination and the findings should be used to determine his credibility in his asking questions regarding this whole situation, do you believe Danny Shelton should be held to the same standard?

Also, will you be using the same diligent energy to look into DS's past financial history?

Sigh.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Mar 30 2007, 08:00 AM

[sister]

Of course he did not say that. Bystander actually wrote: "The court document had no other name on it than Gailon Arthur Joy. The amount said 3,946.66 with interest and fees, not 1,600.00. Amount owed to Primus Financial Services."

Aletheia, if Bystander is quoting from the court document it is implied that he either is holding it in his hand, has it on his computer screen and is referring to it, or (shame on him) he has not seen it and is just quoting someone else, who either has or has not seen it.

Come on Aletheia, read before you post! Bystander obviously implies intimate knowledge of the entire court document.

Sister

[Aletheia]

Those were two separate postings that got married together by the forum software because they were posted too close together. I wrote the first sentence before calling Gailon.
Innocent till proven guilty, right? Thus I think we need evidence that the charge is credible first. That's the American way.

Wow-- all I can say is that must have been one fast conversation to get all the info you posted, and still allow the posts before and after it to be married together...

Yes innocent till proven guilty, I've always said that. You however don't seem to understand that, or apply that to those you accuse.

Pickle did you read, and do you agree with what Joy wrote:

"I have made it a rule not to abuse the legal process by filing suit against another, even when abused or defrauded, but if one is foolish enough to bring a suit that abuses process against me, then I will defend VERY AGGRESSIVELY!!! If, in fact, one files an action and it is good law, I would simply stipulate or default and make appropriate restitution. It is the only fair way!!! "

Just wonderin...

I always liked that McCartney song "someones knockin' at the door, somebody's ringin' a bell, do me a favor, open the door, and let 'em in..."

Reminds me of Jeus saying "Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

Aletheia, if Bystander is quoting from the court document it is implied that he either is holding it in his hand, has it on his computer screen and is referring to it, or (shame on him) he has not seen it and is just quoting someone else, who either has or has not seen it.

Come on Aletheia, read before you post! Bystander obviously implies intimate knowledge of the entire court document.

Sister

Oh for pity's sake! He said he saw it, and told what he saw. People can do that! Please stop trying to add details you have no knowledge of, and then acting like the people you talk about have to agree with your assumptions, it's absurd.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Mar 30 2007, 08:15 AM

[awesumtenor]

Oh for pity's sake! He said he saw it, and told what he saw. People can do that! Please stop trying to add details you have no knowledge of, and then acting like the people you talk about have to agree with your assumptions, it's absurd.

For all of your speaking on what others have told you they have seen... what have you actually seen yourself, Cindy?

We're still waiting on that list of what you've actually witnessed with your own eyes and heard with your own ears.

If you havent seen the document in question here, how do you know what you've been told is true? What have you done to verify it prior to pronouncing it true?

In His service,
Mr. J