Lawsuits Filed Options

[LaurenceD]

This sounds to me like an al qaeda operative, not a Christian in any sense of the definition.

-------- Original Message --------
From: ******
To: Daryl Fawcett
Subject: The church at risk
Date: Monday, February 19, 2007 8:55 PM

Daryl

As an official website of your conference, it is hard for me to fathom that you are willing to put the conference at risk with the materials you are publishing in various and diverse places, as well as those you allow to stand on your site.

3ABN can easily prove that they have had reduced income, from testimonies from former donors, because of materials you allow on your website and material you are publishing on other websites.

The law firm they are using, or rather is being provided free of charge for them has never lost a lawsuit. From what I have been told, they do not take on cases they will lose.

Stand out side your home some time, and ask your self the question "Wonder where I am going to live when I have to sell this to pay legal fees" for a liable suit you will lose.

Not all things are as they appear to be, it is in your families and your Church's best interest not to be someone else's monkey.

You may not like me, may not respect me, may even detest me, but that is still no reason too put the Church at risk.

I have nothing to gain by telling you this do I? Nothing at all.

******

PS I will not bother you more about this.

[Rosyroi]

From http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-whos...-the-church.htm:

Let me get this straight.

Don't tell the truth about 3ABN admin problems. (sex,drugs, money mismanagement, lies, spying on, etc)

Because you told the truth, donations went down. People woke up from their slumber.

Danny Shelton/3ABN will sue you ( G.McNeilius money being supplied) because you told the truth instead of being asleep in the pews letting the other guy tell the truth.

Ok... got it.

Rosyoi

ps. JMO

[beartrap]

It's a minor point, but there is quite a difference between "liable" and "libel."

Bystander was rather prolific in his misuse of the word "liable" instead of using "libel" or "libelous" in his threats.

Well, I must say ,your post is absolutely a beautiful example (actually it will be evidence) of what constitues slander/defamation of character and liable suits. The way that you stated these accusations as facts ,will make the charges brought against you fall into place as slick as water off of a ducks back. Thank you for making a job like this, so much, easier.

Lee, in your opinion, would you think that being called "a demon of satan" or "satan himself" would be a liable remark or a slanderous remark? I get confused.

Sister if you are going to tell something at least be accurate instead of putting your spin on it. The truth is, Danny did not say 3abn was going after anyone that supports Linda. Ludicrous. The lawsuit is for those that have made slanderous and liable statements that are not true and there have been many.

But the vast majority of 3abn workers know that these people are not thieves, liars, burglars, hypocrites and so on and so forth. That is the real reason why they work "under" someone who would file a lawsuit. Because they know that the slanderous and liable things that have been said have hurt the cause of Christ.

If she was served with papers from 3abn for making slanderous statements, she would be required to come to court, wherever that might be....It could be very likely that it wouldn't be in her state, so she would have to pay her own expenses for travel...Once there, the 3abn attorneys would put her on a witness stand and would show her, what, if any, allegations and/or slanderous and liable remarks that she had made during the course of however many months that she had been making them.

This post has been edited by beartrap: May 15 2007, 10:22 PM

[mozart]

Well, other less drastic forms of intimidation have failed. If it were an easy suit to presswhy in heck did it take so long?

very punny

"By jove Oye thinks he's got it"

Bystander was rather prolific in his misuse of the word "liable" instead of using "libel" or "libelous" in his threats.

This post has been edited by mozart: May 15 2007, 11:18 PM

[PeacefulBe]

Are you suggesting, Daryl, that someone other than the plaintiffs and defendants knows what the lawsuit is about even though the court documents are sealed? If so, what might the implications of that be?

There definitely was a statement made as to the content of the lawsuit.

http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads....ge/1#Post121320
Stan Jensen asked on 4/17/07:
I understand the legal expenses of the current lawsuit over save3ABN will not be funded by 3ABN donors?

Do I understand that correct?

Danny Shelton answered on 4/23/07:
That is true. We have a donor who has been donating funds for some time for the purpose of legal bills incurred whether lawsuit or not. He is not taking a tax donation for these donations.
He and his family believe in 3ABN and the decisions we have made. They like our 3ABN Board have decided that people who are accusing myself and the 3ABN board of gross misconduct and out right crimes need to be held accountable.
We have filed a lawsuit against two individuals in particular to begin with.
I won't say anymore on that subject right now.

This conversation took place AFTER the lawsuit was filed and Danny did not deny Stan's offering that the current lawsuit was over save3ABN.

Let me get this straight.

Don't tell the truth about 3ABN admin problems. (sex,drugs, money mismanagement, lies, spying on, etc)

Because you told the truth, donations went down. People woke up from their slumber.

Danny Shelton/3ABN will sue you ( G.McNeilius money being supplied) because you told the truth instead of being asleep in the pews letting the other guy tell the truth.

Ok... got it.

Rosyoi

ps. JMO

Rosyroi,
Nice summation!

[PeacefulBe]

Bystander was rather prolific in his misuse of the word "liable" instead of using "libel" or "libelous" in his threats.

Beartrap,

Interesting documentation of Bystander's thoughts on this case. I was particularly amazed at the following:

But the vast majority of 3abn workers know that these people are not thieves, liars, burglars, hypocrites and so on and so forth. That is the real reason why they work "under" someone who would file a lawsuit. Because they know that the slanderous and liable things that have been said have hurt the cause of Christ.

Justifying a lawsuit because they perceive that Save3abn has hurt the cause of Christ? I guess they forgot about the counsel on Christian Love in Romans 12:9-21:

9 Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. 10 Be devoted to one another in brotherly love. Honor one another above yourselves. 11 Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving the Lord. 12 Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. 13 Share with God's people who are in need. Practice hospitality.
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. 20 On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Note to Garwin McNeilus and Danny Shelton: The Cause of Christ is of supreme and eternal importance. It is an affront to attack those who you perceive as hurting that cause in the same manner as one might attack a competitor in the dog-eat-dog world of big business (where moth and rust doth corrupt). Scripture makes it clear that in The Cause of Christ, Jesus is the CEO and the entire Legal Department. We are His PR department. Think about the impact of your present ad campaign.

[calvin]

I know who wrote the letter too and I agree with Observers assessment of purpose and intent.

Well, my feelings are hurt. Why didn’t I get a THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING uh I mean law suit warning letter too.

O.K. Now that Pickle has posted the letter, I will comment on it. I have known about that letter for some time. I know who wrote it. Let us look at it a bit:
1) Who do you think wrote it? Do you think it was written by one of Danny's defenders? That is a point on which honest people can differ. Some may think that it was written by a close defender of Danny/3-ABN. Others may think that it was written by one who simply wanted to warn Daryl of potential problems.

My take on it, from the standpoint that I know who wrote it: I believe that it was written by a person who does agree with, and defend Danny/3-ABN on some points. However, this is not a person who has written much in defense of Danny/3-ABN. I believe that there was a genunine aspect of that person wanting to warn Dayrl of potential harm. I do not believe that it was written with prior knowledge of, or at the request of either Danny or 3-ABN. I believe that the idea to write that letter came from the mind of the person who wrote it.

2) Does the letter contain a threat to litigate against the church? If so, does it contain a threat for either Danny or 3-ABN to litigate against the denomination?

My immediate answer is: No, it does not. First it is a statement of potiental harm. It is not saying that anybody will file a lawsuit against the denomination. It implies that such could be done, and that the denominaiton could be placed in potential harm if such were done. It could be argued as to whether or not such a lawsuit would place the denomination/Conference/Chruch in danger. But that is not the issue. The letter is talking about potential harm.

O.K. If the above is true, does not not imply that Danny/3-ABN would file such lawsuits? No. It does not. It implies that someone could, without being specific. If you understand what I call the 3-ABN mess, there are other people who could file such lawsuits other than Danny/3-ABN.

Tommy Shelton, potentially could do so. He is neither Danny, nor 3-ABN. Would that be wise? that is another question. But, he could do so. I beleive that others could do so.

Frankly, in my opinon, there are people on both sides of this issue who potentially could file lawsuits that potentially could endanger the denomination. Again, I am not saying that it would be wise to do so. I am not saying that they would get a judgement in their favor. I am simply saying that they could file, and that there is a potential danger to the denomination if they did.

I also am not saying that it is clear-cut that the denomination would be endangered. The might be. They might not be.
That is my take on the letter that Bob Pickle posted. Yes, it is a real letter. Yes, I beleive that I know who wrote it. No, it was not written by someone who spends time defending Danny and 3-ABN.

[PeacefulBe]

I know who wrote the letter too and I agree with Observers assessment of purpose and intent.

Well, my feelings are hurt. Why didn’t I get a THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING uh I mean law suit warning letter too.

Awww Calvin,

Don't be sad. We can put our heads together and write one for you if it will cheer you up.

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: May 16 2007, 07:47 AM

[LaurenceD]

Bystander was rather prolific in his misuse of the word "liable" instead of using "libel" or "libelous" in his threats.

I'm not trying to excuse Bystander, but he may have been thinking of bystander liability or liability to bystanders. Or, he may actually be struggling with the parameters of bystander recovery ...when someone is liable for emotional distress caused by negligently injuring one of their own realtives.

(ducking and running)

[Daryl Fawcett]

Based on the inteview at C/A and the question asked to Danny Shelton and his response, it would seem that the person who asked the question knew some details about the then pending lawsuit.

If, however, this person was told details about the lawsuit before the lawsuit was launched and before it was impounded, would that also be contempt of court?

By the way, I posted my response to Pickle's post before reading what was posted on page 22 of this thread, however, my question in the above post still stands, to which I hope somebody can give some type of an answer.

[Shepherdswife]

I too have been interested that the reason that has come up over and over that all this should be ignored is that "3ABN (Danny, etc) is doing SO much for the cause of Christ! Souls are being won, etc"

As if the end justifies the people who are getting hurt along the way. As if anyone who points out a problem is themself the problem.

Interesting thinking...

shepherdswife

[Pickle]

This conversation took place AFTER the lawsuit was filed and Danny did not deny Stan's offering that the current lawsuit was over save3ABN.

If the court documents are sealed, how would anyone know whether the lawsuit was filed at that point or not? How would Stan know that the suit was already filed as well as what the suit was about, if indeed it was filed by then and is about that?

[Observer]

Based on the inteview at C/A and the question asked to Danny Shelton and his response, it would seem that the person who asked the question knew some details about the then pending lawsuit.

If, however, this person was told details about the lawsuit before the lawsuit was launched and before it was impounded, would that also be contempt of court?

By the way, I posted my response to Pickle's post before reading what was posted on page 22 of this thread, however, my question in the above post still stands, to which I hope somebody can give some type of an answer.

Common sense will probably provide answers to some questions that are being asked:

1) No, it would not be contempt of court to tell someone about the lawsuit prior to the documents being filed.

2) It would not be contempt of court for such a person told prior to impoundment, telling others about the lawuit, even after the impoundment, unless that person had become subject to the order of the court, and knew about that order.

3) One might assume that Danny knew about the impooundment, and the lawsuit. No, I consider his minimal statement in regard to the fact that the lawsuit had been filed against two people would not be contempt of court. I consider it to be allowable.

4) One has to assume that the lawsuit was filled prior to serving the papers on Joy and Pickle. How long was that period? I do not know? Three days? One week? Two weeks? I do not know. The question now becomses: Was the request to seal the documents made at the time the lawsuit was filed, or at some later time? It could have been either. If it was a later time, when? When was the order issued to seal the documents in relation to the request to seal them? Was it issues immediately, one day, two days later, etc?

The bottom line, there would be no contempt of court for any information rerleased prior to the granting of the order.


Folks it is a waste of time to discuss whether or not Danny violated the order of the court. If he were to do so, the consequences might be that the documents would be released from inpoundment?

Again, I do not know, as I am not legally trained, and I do not have knowledge of the doucments.

[mozart]

AWW....Calvin *sniff*, want me to write you one?

I know who wrote the letter too and I agree with Observers assessment of purpose and intent.

Well, my feelings are hurt. Why didn’t I get a THE SKY IS FALLING, THE SKY IS FALLING uh I mean law suit warning letter too.

[Chez]

From http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-whos...-the-church.htm:

I don't know who this person is; but I do know that back in the 1980's a black woman in Florida was told that she couldn't sue the US Air Force and win. Well she went ahead and sued them for discrimination and some other issues and won! I say that to say this: The law firm may have never lost a case, but there is a first time for anything. Because they haven't lost one in the past, doesn't mean they won't lose this lawsuit. When people start sending out letters such as this, folks are scared that more dirt (or truth) is going to be exposed. My question is: Are all of the members of 3ABN's and Amazing Facts's Boards ready to deal with the fallout? Garwin McNelius's money is nothing compared to the treasures of heaven. I would think that he would use his money for the greater good beyond building a facility in India and suing members of the SDA Church. [This is a funny old world.] God's truth will march on with or without Danny Shelton, Garwin McNelius, and the others who want to sue church members.