Legal Posturing Options

[Observer]

NOTE: I want to be quite clear here. The documents related to the lawusit by 3-ABN against Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle haev been impounded. They are not open to the public. Those who have access to them are under judicial order not to share the information that they know about them. I do not have access to those documents. Those who have access to them have not discussed their content with me. I do not know that charges that are alleged against Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle. (I wish that I did. .) Therefore comments that I make about this case are either speculative, or intended to be general in nature, and they are will not be based upon any of the sealed documents. As people are asking questions, I will at times make some general comments in regard to common lawsuits.

As I have publicly stated, we can expect the lawyers for both sides to spend some time in technical and proceedural matters. I have suggested that two early issues will be to challeng the impoundment order, and to request a change of venue, if that is desisred.

People have asked me why 3-ABN chose to file the lawsuit in Massasschutes, rather than in say Illionis.

My speculative response is as follows:

1) 3-ABN expects to obtain a judgement against Mr. Joy.

2) They expect to demand some sort of financial damages as a result of the judgement that they expect to obtain against Mr. Joy.

3) They believe that Mr. Joy has assets, located in Massasschutes, that may be used to satisfy any financial damages that he may be ordered to pay them.

4) If this is true, it will be fairly easy for 3-ABN to ask a court in Massasschutes to order Mr. Joy's assets to be surrended to pay that judgement.

5) If 3-ABN had filed in Illinois, it would have required more litigation, and more billable attorney hours to then go to Massassachuts to obtain access to Mr. Joy's assets.

6) 3-ABN has potentially simplified the satification of any judgement that they obtain against Mr. Joy by filing in Massasachutes.

How does Mr. Pickle fit into all of this? Again, my response is speculaltive. He does not live in Massasschutes:

1) 3-ABN believes that it is much less likely that Mr. Pickle has assets that may be used to satisfy any judgment against him.

2) 3-ABN may seek an order to cease and desist against him, and be satisfied with that.

NOTE: I will post more comments here as I have them. If the time comes when the documents are unsealed, I will review them, and post my understanding of them.

[mozart]

3) They believe that Mr. Joy has assets, located in Massasschutes, that may be used to satisfy any financial damages that he may be ordered to pay them.

4) If this is true, it will be fairly easy for 3-ABN to ask a court in Massasschutes to order Mr. Joy's assets to be surrended to pay that judgement.

5) If 3-ABN had filed in Illinois, it would have required more litigation, and more billable attorney hours to then go to Massassachuts to obtain access to Mr. Joy's assets.

6) 3-ABN has potentially simplified the satification of any judgement that they obtain against Mr. Joy by filing in Massasachutes.

It appears that Danny learned a lot from that Guam divorce.

How does Mr. Pickle fit into all of this? Again, my response is speculaltive. He does not live in Massasschutes:

1) 3-ABN believes that it is much less likely that Mr. Pickle has assets that may be used to satisfy any judgment against him.

2) 3-ABN may seek an order to cease and desist against him, and be satisfied with that.

if that happens, Pickle should beg the mercy of the court that he be jailed with his notebook computer instead.

[PrincessDrRe]

Personally - IMUP (in my unprofessional opinion)

Whomever Danny has as lawyers are not advising him well.....

Why?

Because when you sue someone you are then allowed to EVERYTHING THEY POSSESS in regards to records.

IOW....

Financial documents, accounting records, divorce decrees, prior lawsuit information that is "concerned" with the case (or not - could be deemed relevent or not), bank records, phone records, deeds, tax information, security files, employee records.....

Evidence discovery goes both ways......

[mozart]

If the suit is just about copyright infringment then why would anything else be relevant? so not sure what on Danny's part will be exposed. seems this suit is just to intimidate joy and pickle and to keep them distracted and preoccupied on their defense and to cost them money.
We should keep them in prayer.

Personally - IMUP (in my unprofessional opinion)

Whomever Danny has as lawyers are not advising him well.....

Why?

Because when you sue someone you are then allowed to EVERYTHING THEY POSSESS in regards to records.

IOW....

Financial documents, accounting records, divorce decrees, prior lawsuit information that is "concerned" with the case (or not - could be deemed relevent or not), bank records, phone records, deeds, tax information, security files, employee records.....

Evidence discovery goes both ways......

[runner4him]

If the suit is just about copyright infringment then why would anything else be relevant? so not sure what on Danny's part will be exposed. seems this suit is just to intimidate joy and pickle and to keep them distracted and preoccupied on their defense and to cost them money.
We should keep them in prayer.

I agree...prayer is much needed...the financial burden alone will be tremendous. But I am thankful that both Joy and Pickle do not seem to be the type of men who will be intimidated. They would never have gotten into this "pickle" if they were easily intimidated. I chuckled over the comment about Pickle taking his laptop to jail. It is not a funny matter but I can almost see him keeping up from the cell. Pray that God works to bring out all the truth if this goes forward. It looks to me like DS is making an even bigger mistake by seeking the worldly court system to air the dirty linen....he seems to have baskets full of it.

[betrayed]

Pray that God works to bring out all the truth if this goes forward. It looks to me like DS is making an even bigger mistake by seeking the worldly court system to air the dirty linen....he seems to have baskets full of it.
[/quote]


Well, I ain't been to a "regular" SDA church in awhile, but a different Sabbath keeping church cuz of 3ABN.

I's a wonderin about the ole SDA church manual, theys used to have.

Don't it says somethings about suing your brethen? Not submitteing to the church authority? My takes on this is that if this church manual waz followed, that this Danny guy should be disfellowshipped just on this issue alone. I ain't talking about the other alleged issues raised on these forum/threads...

Also, don't 3ABN claim, to be non demonational, not associated with any church, then howz come them SDa churchs goes against the church manual withs regards to the section on solicitation of funds from the pulpit or distributing their materials.

This Danny guy or any 3abn persons ain't supposed to be asking for monies from the pulpit per the church manual!

So whatz that church a gonna do about it? Keep on sweeping it the ole carpet?

[Observer]

Pray that God works to bring out all the truth if this goes forward. It looks to me like DS is making an even bigger mistake by seeking the worldly court system to air the dirty linen....he seems to have baskets full of it.
Well, I ain't been to a "regular" SDA church in awhile, but a different Sabbath keeping church cuz of 3ABN.

I's a wonderin about the ole SDA church manual, theys used to have.

Don't it says somethings about suing your brethen? Not submitteing to the church authority? My takes on this is that if this church manual waz followed, that this Danny guy should be disfellowshipped just on this issue alone. I ain't talking about the other alleged issues raised on these forum/threads...

Also, don't 3ABN claim, to be non demonational, not associated with any church, then howz come them SDa churchs goes against the church manual withs regards to the section on solicitation of funds from the pulpit or distributing their materials.

This Danny guy or any 3abn persons ain't supposed to be asking for monies from the pulpit per the church manual!

So whatz that church a gonna do about it? Keep on sweeping it the ole carpet?

AS has been posted many times. The current CHRUCH MANUAL clearly states that there are situations where the church has neither the authority nor the ability to resolve disputes, and in such cases recourse is only to the civil authorities.

The CHRUCH MANUAL also states that the church should not be diverted from its mission to preach the gospel to become a civil magistrate.

In my opinion, There are a number of the issues associated with 3-ABN that fit this category.

It may be sad that things have come to the place where civil litigation may be initiated by people on both sides. If that happens it will be in a context where those who file are not in opposition to the CHRUCH MANUAL.

While I am a critic, clearly on a certain side. I do not criticize any of the parties who either have already filed, or may file in the future. To be clear: I do not criticize them for filing civil litigation.

The bottom line is: There is no other recourse for some of the issues.

[mozart]

While I am a critic, clearly on a certain side. I do not criticize any of the parties who either have already filed, or may file in the future. To be clear: I do not criticize them for filing civil litigation.

The bottom line is: There is no other recourse for some of the issues.

I agree, when the church, the conference and ASI refuse to address any of these issues then what choice is there. Seems many of these issues are civil anyway.

[SoulEspresso]

Well, when the church authorities are too cowardly to deal ...

[Fran]

AS has been posted many times. The current CHRUCH MANUAL clearly states that there are situations where the church has neither the authority nor the ability to resolve disputes, and in such cases recourse is only to the civil authorities.

The CHRUCH MANUAL also states that the church should not be diverted from its mission to preach the gospel to become a civil magistrate.

In my opinion, There are a number of the issues associated with 3-ABN that fit this category.

It may be sad that things have come to the place where civil litigation may be initiated by people on both sides. If that happens it will be in a context where those who file are not in opposition to the CHRUCH MANUAL.

While I am a critic, clearly on a certain side. I do not criticize any of the parties who either have already filed, or may file in the future. To be clear: I do not criticize them for filing civil litigation.

The bottom line is: There is no other recourse for some of the issues.

Observer;

I am in a quandary.

What does "Impound" means vs. "sealed".

When the police impound my car, it physically goes to lock up. If something is sealed, what does that mean?

Does it mean something is "impounded" by taking it away and then sealing?

Was any thing taken away from Joy and Pickle besides there freedom to speak about what ever it is they are being charges with?

[Observer]

Observer;

I am in a quandary.

What does "Impound" means vs. "sealed".

When the police impound my car, it physically goes to lock up. If something is sealed, what does that mean?

Does it mean something is "impounded" by taking it away and then sealing?

Was any thing taken away from Joy and Pickle besides there freedom to speak about what ever it is they are being charges with?

I once made a point of that. I have been informed that in the State of MA, the preferred legal term is "impound." I am more familiar with the term "seal."

I guess that the bottom line is that the court has ordered that the documents related to the case cannot be disclosed to people outside of the litigants--those named as plaintiffs and defendants and their legal advisers.

Typically, that judicial order would be a temp. one until a hearing would be held for the other side to challenge, and/or for the court to rule as to whether or not the judicial order would be permanent, or time limited. While that would what would typically happen, there are those who believe that the judicial order prevents them from stating whether or not such a hearing has been scheduled, and if it has what that date is for that hearing.

Well, when the church authorities are too cowardly to deal ...

Soul:

Perhaps, on an individual basis, there might be someone who may fit you comment. But, as a general rule, I woule suggest that the denominaiton simply does not have the authority to deal with the issues.

It might be argued that the denominaiton could issue a statement of some sort. O.K. That raises the issue of tactics. Would such be effective? That is a tactical question.

In addition, there is much to these issues on which final conclusions can only be reached if, and after, the civil authorities act. As this is true, how could the denomination issue a statement dealing with such issus prior to a final action by the civil authorities?

Perhaps some watered down statement could be made? If so, whom would it satisfy? Again this is an issue of tactics.

[daylily]

Well, I ain't been to a "regular" SDA church in awhile, but a different Sabbath keeping church cuz of 3ABN.

Betrayed, I'm just curious. why in the world would 3ABN keep you from attending a regular SDA church???

[mozart]

my question exactly. would you please explain this betrayed?

Betrayed, I'm just curious. why in the world would 3ABN keep you from attending a regular SDA church???

[SoulEspresso]

Soul:

Perhaps, on an individual basis, there might be someone who may fit you comment. But, as a general rule, I woule suggest that the denominaiton simply does not have the authority to deal with the issues.

It might be argued that the denominaiton could issue a statement of some sort. O.K. That raises the issue of tactics. Would such be effective? That is a tactical question.

In addition, there is much to these issues on which final conclusions can only be reached if, and after, the civil authorities act. As this is true, how could the denomination issue a statement dealing with such issus prior to a final action by the civil authorities?

Perhaps some watered down statement could be made? If so, whom would it satisfy? Again this is an issue of tactics.

I can appreciate the question, don't get me wrong. I've always appreciated your posts even on the rare occasion I don't agree 100%. I think we're on the same side.

Of course not all in church leadership are cowardly (shoot, I have family members working throughout the denomination at different levels), and in my geographic area we were privately advised by our conference to steer people away from 3ABN toward Hope. But that isn't enough. When the saints see people on TV and support them with their money, they become old friends in a way and going to another channel seems like disloyalty.

Last year the Washington Post accidentally (on purpose?) described 3ABN as a "growing offshoot" of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If they don't distance themselves publicly before all this hits the media fan it will soon be too late.

I would like to see a public statement by the denomination, calling for Danny Shelton and the 3ABN board to resign. They don't have the authority to tell Danny what to do--but it would make the statement that the Adventist Church disapproves of this kind of public sin.

Originally, ASI was asked to provide a group of qualified people to hold hearings about the allegations that have been made. Why can't the church call for a different independent body, an ad hoc group, to do the same thing? I know it would offend a lot of people, not least of all the people who are paying for Danny's lawsuits, but last I knew, the favor of God wasn't for sale.

Maybe only the courts can determine some of this stuff. But the church has a responsibility to distance itself from sin. Yes, it will cause short-term pain for a lot of long-time 3ABN supporters who believed they were spreading the gospel by writing checks. But after a certain point, silence becomes complicity in evil. The church's public silence is allowing Danny to continue sinning publicly.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: May 8 2007, 09:29 AM

[Observer]

Originally, ASI was asked to provide a group of qualified people to hold hearings about the allegations that have been made. Why can't the church call for a different independent body, an ad hoc group, to do the same thing? I know it would offend a lot of people, not least of all the people who are paying for Danny's lawsuits, but last I knew, the favor of God wasn't for sale.

To hold such hearings, they must be credible. To be credible, 3-ABN must cooperate. The denominaiton does not have the power to force the needed cooperation. It is believed that such cooperation will not happen.

Yes, I would wish for some kind of a statement, but that is not going to happen.

I, as a person directly involved in the attempt by ASI to find a resolution, had felt that there was a very limited area in which ASI could be helpful to all. But, that could not be effected.

IOW there is very little that the Church can do. The only recourse left is to the civil authorities.