Lawsuits Filed Options

[Pickle]

As long as there are those who do not comprehend legal contracts, I will just keep repeating the same phrase over and over and over. THERE ARE LEGAL CONTRACTS THAT MAKE SURE ONE MINISTRY ISN'T TAKEN OVER BY THE OTHER. OR THAT 1 GUY DOESN'T TAKE OVER THE OTHER GUY. AND THE FINAL WORD OF PRESIDENCY HAS NOT EVEN BEEN VOTED ON AND IF DANNY WANTS DOUG TO TAKE THAT TITLE Danny WILL STILL BE CEO. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL agreements THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND ARE STILL BEING MADE, IS NAIVE, SHOWING THEIR IGNORANCE OR ARE SO DESPERATE TO BELIEVE DIFFERENT THEY ARE WILLING TO OVERLOOK THE LEGAL FACTS. No I am not shouting, just trying to get your attention.
One more time, if, down the road, things didn't work out or they wanted to seperate for any reason, each guy leaves with the marbles he came with and his own ministry intact. These types of agreements are not done with a handshake. They are done with signed contracts. If DS was going anywhere these legal safeguards on both sides would not have been put into place. There would have been no need. For those of you who are highly educated but are showing a lack of comprehension on this, put aside your education and just try to see it with a little common sense.

Part of the problem may be that neither A-Facts nor 3ABN has said anything about any legal contracts already having been made. It would be quite helpful if you could post a copy of what you have read in order to clear the air on this one.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Apr 24 2007, 07:15 PM

[Rosyroi]

No it doesn't mean defending lawsuits. It means just what he said.
As long as there are those who do not comprehend legal contracts, I will just keep repeating the same phrase over and over and over. THERE ARE LEGAL CONTRACTS THAT MAKE SURE ONE MINISTRY ISN'T TAKEN OVER BY THE OTHER. OR THAT 1 GUY DOESN'T TAKE OVER THE OTHER GUY. AND THE FINAL WORD OF PRESIDENCY HAS NOT EVEN BEEN VOTED ON AND IF DANNY WANTS DOUG TO TAKE THAT TITLE Danny WILL STILL BE CEO. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL agreements THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND ARE STILL BEING MADE, IS NAIVE, SHOWING THEIR IGNORANCE OR ARE SO DESPERATE TO BELIEVE DIFFERENT THEY ARE WILLING TO OVERLOOK THE LEGAL FACTS. No I am not shouting, just trying to get your attention.
One more time, if, down the road, things didn't work out or they wanted to seperate for any reason, each guy leaves with the marbles he came with and his own ministry intact. These types of agreements are not done with a handshake. They are done with signed contracts. If DS was going anywhere these legal safeguards on both sides would not have been put into place. There would have been no need. For those of you who are highly educated but are showing a lack of comprehension on this, put aside your education and just try to see it with a little common sense.

Looked like shouting to me. I can't read that kind of lettering. Just had to pass all that good writing by... sigh...

duck... goose... whichever



BTW... did the jet that was purchased get sold yet? No one seems to talk about the first one that was too small so Danny had to hire two full time standby pilots to fly the bigger faster better leased jet. Just wondering. Seems like they would be more than willing to sell the first one for those badly needed donations.

One good idea ... auction it off at ebay. Telling everyone it was Danny's first jet would get more money than the jet was worth in the first place. JMO

Rosyroi

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Apr 24 2007, 10:29 PM

[Johann]

Jealousy towards Bob Pickle? Bob has become quite the "spectacle" within the denomination. Since you are not Adventist, I wouldn't expect you to know this. Doing what he has done, in the manner he has done it, and his seeming obssesion with it, has pretty much ensured that he won't be holding any mmm let's say, leadership positions within the church. Not to mention, that Pickle is in a boat load of trouble.

This is quite interesting in the light of a meeting I had recently with a staff member of the General Conference. There I was told that Bob Pickle is known as an honest, diligent, hard worker for revealing the truth and right doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So I understand he has valuable witnesses among our leadership in case he should be taken to court.

[PeacefulBe]

This is quite interesting in the light of a meeting I had recently with a staff member of the General Conference. There I was told that Bob Pickle is known as an honest, diligent, hard worker for revealing the truth and right doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So I understand he has valuable witnesses among our leadership in case he should be taken to court.

Johann,
Thank you for bringing this information forward. It helps to balance out the other perspectives that have been posted.

[Observer]

This is quite interesting in the light of a meeting I had recently with a staff member of the General Conference. There I was told that Bob Pickle is known as an honest, diligent, hard worker for revealing the truth and right doctrines of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. So I understand he has valuable witnesses among our leadership in case he should be taken to court.

The above is clearly the reputaion that Bob has generated. It may be that someone has decided that he has taken the wrong side (Linda's) in this mess. But if that is the case, it is doubtful that such would generally erase the reputation that he has developed in other matters.

[Johann]

The above is clearly the reputaion that Bob has generated. It may be that someone has decided that he has taken the wrong side (Linda's) in this mess. But if that is the case, it is doubtful that such would generally erase the reputation that he has developed in other matters.

I was told that Bob's reputation because he had taken Linda's side had not decreased his credibility in those quarters.

[Observer]

I was told that Bob's reputation because he had taken Linda's side had not decreased his credibility in those quarters.

Johann, I am well aware of denominational leaders who look very positively at the leadership given by several present and retired SDA ministers. As a result of the so-called merger annoncement, I was contacted this week-end in this respect by a denominational leader who clearly affirmed the leadership that is being given by certain people on Linda's side. But, I cannot comment further on this.

NOTE: There are denominational leaders who are privately urging other denominational leaders to act to resolve this mess. But, they feel that any public statements by them would compromise their ability to encourage people behind the scenes to act. Therefore, I cannot say morel.

However, having said that. I think that it is quite possible that you, I, and Bob Pickle may be percieved by someone adversely due to our relationship with Linda. In the case of Bob Pickle, who has justly earned a stellar reputation in other areas, I find it doubtful that his reputation will be generally erased by supporting Linda. But, on an individual basis, perhaps. So be it, if that is true.

[Pickle]

Just a point of clarification:

At present I have only taken Linda's side to the point that I now believe that as of July 17, 2004, Danny had no evidence that she had committed fornication and given him biblical grounds for divorce. I have taken that position because of Danny's own testimony.

Furthermore, I have taken the position that as of March 2005, Walt Thompson had no evidence that Linda had committed adultery. I have taken that position because of Walt's own testimony.

Further than that I am unwilling to take a stand unless I see solid evidence, but I still feel Linda should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

[ex3ABNemployee]

Just a point of clarification:

At present I have only taken Linda's side to the point that I now believe that as of July 17, 2004, Danny had no evidence that she had committed fornication and given him biblical grounds for divorce. I have taken that position because of Danny's own testimony.

Furthermore, I have taken the position that as of March 2005, Walt Thompson had no evidence that Linda had committed adultery. I have taken that position because of Walt's own testimony.

Further than that I am unwilling to take a stand unless I see solid evidence, but I still feel Linda should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

Do you feel the same way about Tommy?

(Ok, dannyscribes. I said it for you. No need for you to do it.)

[Pickle]

Of course.

But maybe I need to clarify what I meant by "proven guilty." I didn't mean I won't take a stand until one is proven guilty in court. I meant that anyone, Tommy included, should be considered innocent until there is some sort of evidence that indicates otherwise.

And since Tommy has so many alleged victims in multiple locations, and no remaining alibi, well, I have to conclude that he is likely guilty.

When you have alleged victims who both like and dislike Dryden, and Dryden being in Virginia until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended, the alibi of this being all due to Dryden's jealousy vaporizes. And other than the Dryden feud assertion, I don't know of any other alibi.

[ex3ABNemployee]

Of course.

But maybe I need to clarify what I meant by "proven guilty." I didn't mean I won't take a stand until one is proven guilty in court. I meant that anyone, Tommy included, should be considered innocent until there is some sort of evidence that indicates otherwise.

And since Tommy has so many alleged victims in multiple locations, and no remaining alibi, well, I have to conclude that he is likely guilty.

When you have alleged victims who both like and dislike Dryden, and Dryden being in Virginia until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended, the alibi of this being all due to Dryden's jealousy vaporizes. And other than the Dryden feud assertion, I don't know of any other alibi.

Yes, I know. I just wanted to beat them to saying it.

Sometimes you have to laugh to keep from screaming.

[Fran]

Of course.

But maybe I need to clarify what I meant by "proven guilty." I didn't mean I won't take a stand until one is proven guilty in court. I meant that anyone, Tommy included, should be considered innocent until there is some sort of evidence that indicates otherwise.

And since Tommy has so many alleged victims in multiple locations, and no remaining alibi, well, I have to conclude that he is likely guilty.

When you have alleged victims who both like and dislike Dryden, and Dryden being in Virginia until 8 years after Tommy's ordination was suspended, the alibi of this being all due to Dryden's jealousy vaporizes. And other than the Dryden feud assertion, I don't know of any other alibi.

Bob;

Didn't I read a confession somewhere?

[mozart]

No it doesn't mean defending lawsuits. It means just what he said.
As long as there are those who do not comprehend legal contracts, I will just keep repeating the same phrase over and over and over. THERE ARE LEGAL CONTRACTS THAT MAKE SURE ONE MINISTRY ISN'T TAKEN OVER BY THE OTHER. OR THAT 1 GUY DOESN'T TAKE OVER THE OTHER GUY. AND THE FINAL WORD OF PRESIDENCY HAS NOT EVEN BEEN VOTED ON AND IF DANNY WANTS DOUG TO TAKE THAT TITLE Danny WILL STILL BE CEO. ANYONE WHO DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL agreements THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND ARE STILL BEING MADE, IS NAIVE, SHOWING THEIR IGNORANCE OR ARE SO DESPERATE TO BELIEVE DIFFERENT THEY ARE WILLING TO OVERLOOK THE LEGAL FACTS. No I am not shouting, just trying to get your attention.

Dis iz jist fer us ignurnt hillbillies dat kaint unnerstand deez thangz

Case Information
Case 2005D30 Last Update 04/25/2007 Last Upload 04/25/2007 @ 04:30
Case Category Civil Case Type - Subtype D - 151 Divorce - Dissolution of Marriage
Other Litigants
Role Name
PlaintiffOrPetitioner SHELTON, LINDA SUE
Litigant Information
DefendantOrRespondent SHELTON, DANNY LEE

This post has been edited by mozart: Apr 26 2007, 02:15 PM

[inga]

You have to agree that when Jesus walked among men he used simple means and did even pack a lunch so He might demonstrate God's power and speak to the hearts of men. What a contrast today....we have a dreamer traveling first class in a private jet, pleading for more money, apparently hiding assets, divorcing and remarrying before national TV, covering up a brother who is an admitted abuser.....blows my mind that anyone can be in his camp defending his actions. I am one of many who hold the purse strings and say STOP with the blind giving.

Well said.

They should be about their Father's business which is ministry, unfortunately they are more often than not about earthly business.

Well said, Di!

I guess I was like so many others sitting in the easy chair.... paying for Sky Angel..... watching 3ABN....writing checks...blindly believing....saying go for it....tell the world....becoming more and more passive.....little sinking in. No more! I must take personal responsibility and seek Him...doing more....serving more....questioning more.....being involved! Come Lord Jesus for a people who are ready and I pray I am with those people who are seeking Him.

Praise God for your testimony!!

If more folks are affected like this by the 3ABN scandal, it's well worth all the bad publicity. We are told that the work will be finished by personal effort. That means that we all must be awake and involved. Although we may help out ministries that are doing a good work, witnessing by proxy is not really a viable option. The world needs our individual witness; they need to see what God has done in our lives.

[mozart]

That means that we all must be awake and involved. Although we may help out ministries that are doing a good work, witnessing by proxy is not really a viable option. The world needs our individual witness; they need to see what God has done in our lives.

PRAISE THE LORD, AMEN & AMEN & AMEN
that's one of the best things i've read on here in weeks. thank you dear inga. that was a blessing.