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

[LaurenceD]

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

"...3,946.66 with interest and fees...Amount owed to Primus Financial Services."

This character Bystander couldn't remember the facts of that other even more important document--3abn vs. State of Illinois -- spouting off just the opposite of what the document actually said. So, naturally, it stands to reason he could cite this one from memory. I think I know why he was able to remember the word primus, and these three numbers so well...6.66. The rest I don't get.

[awesumtenor]

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

The document in question is probably a summons to answer interrogatories from the creditor, where the creditor and the debtor discuss the matter before a judge in civil court.

Such a document would have the amount of the loan outstanding as well as the amount of the attorney's fees and, late fees and any accumulated interest to date on that sum as well as what the interest rate is clearly noted on it.

On an account that has a co-signer, the creditor has the right to seek a judgement against the co-signer for the full amount as well as against the debtor for the full amount and it is a common practice in debt collection to do that; once the judgement has been obtained they can then collect it from either/or. In most cases they go after the co-signer because the co-signer will usually be concerned enough about damaging his credit to pay the debt. Gailon's explanation is consistent with this practice.

If the intent was to get at "the truth", the document would have been produced and then Gailon would have been given a chance to give his version of events. The fact that bits and pieces of the information have been leaked in the most sensational manner possible says this is not and never has been about "the truth"; it is about scandalizing Gailon in an effort to make him stop.

In His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

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...

When arguing a point, I'm certain you will agree that it is important to pay attention to details. In your post, you take Observer to task over what you see as inconsistancies in his.

When you say "The Watchbird claimed Gailon wrote that the insurance will pay it off in the future" I suggest that you misspoke. I think you can agree that "The Watchbird" did not claim any such thing. WB simply posted an email where Gailon stated the car repossession saga from his first-person perspective.

For those interested in the actual body of the above referenced quote by watchbird, click here.

I would further suggest that you might urge your friend Bystander to post the actual judgement he is referring to so that speculation over the details contained therein would be laid to rest.

[Aletheia]

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.

N.W.,

I am aware of quite a bit more then has been posted here, and yes I think Joy's past if it includes deception, embezzlement and fraud, is relevant as far as his credibility goes, and certainly Danny can be held to the same standards, we are not supposed to be biased, partial, nor hypocritical.

One thing I found absurd however, is that Joy referred to FHB's questions about whether this was true or not as libellous, and yet he has Danny guilty of deception, adultery, fraud and embezzlement etc...and can't apply that to himself or his website?

Pickle claims Joy is innocent till proven guilty. Are Danny, "et al"?

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Mar 30 2007, 09:05 AM

[PeacefulBe]

If the intent was to get at "the truth", the document would have been produced and then Gailon would have been given a chance to give his version of events. The fact that bits and pieces of the information have been leaked in the most sensational manner possible says this is not and never has been about "the truth"; it is about scandalizing Gailon in an effort to make him stop.In His service,
Mr. J

Mr. J,

FHB has spoken to this very thing in the past by quoting Bill Moyers:

"Once you decide to titillate instead of illuminate . . . you create a climate of expectation that requires a higher and higher level of intensity"

I hope Bystander will come to the conclusion that it would be wise to take the intensity down a notch, to illuminate us with the documentation he has and drop the titillation. The tittilation may pique our interest for awhile but, without facts to back it up, it will end up being an embarassing excercise in futility.

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Mar 30 2007, 09:07 AM

[princessdi]

One thing I found absurd however, is that Joy referred to FHB's questions about whether this was true or not as libellous, and yet he has Danny guilty of deception, adultery, fraud and embezzlement etc...and can't apply that to himself?

Just might be a case of takes one to know one? I'm just saying. However, at least the explanation for the car seems plausible to me. He had a rough time financially and helped someelse who was having a rough time. He is not presenting himself to the world as a leader in [Adventist] christian living, Danny is. He raised the bar himself.
Pickle claims Joy is innocent till proven guilty. Is Danny?

Yes, he is being asked to answer the charges. He looks even worse because he won't answer then. I think just Pickle's emails are enough to establish that at least somebody took the time to ask him first.

I also want to say that I have a whole lot more respect for GJ who put himself out there, chancing just such an attack on his own life, to stand up for what he blieves to be right. BS, wwjd,Lee,Aletheia, the fact tath you all hide safely your annonymous IDs to throw stones at him, doesn't say much for your credibility, and definitely not your christianity. It woud even be much better if you all would just answer the allegations against Danny with proof, and not try to distract and discredit those who are making the allegations. This is the move of a defense who has no defense. You are almost admitting that everything is true by your actions.

[Aletheia]

When arguing a point, I'm certain you will agree that it is important to pay attention to details. In your post, you take Observer to task over what you see as inconsistancies in his.

When you say "The Watchbird claimed Gailon wrote that the insurance will pay it off in the future" I suggest that you misspoke. I think you can agree that "The Watchbird" did not claim any such thing. WB simply posted an email where Gailon stated the car repossession saga from his first-person perspective.

For those interested in the actual body of the above referenced quote by watchbird, click here.

I would further suggest that you might urge your friend Bystander to post the actual judgement he is referring to so that speculation over the details contained therein would be laid to rest.

Why are you quibbling over this? what does it matter?

Watchbird claimed Gailon wrote. watchbird claimed it was an email from gailon....

Who cares?

I didn't get the e-mail. And if he did send an e-mail, he wrote it.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Mar 30 2007, 09:17 AM

[Clay]

I think there have been enough pages of this exploration.... unless there are new allegations of Mr. Joy being less than credible let's take a break from this one.....