The Lawsuit Continues., This is where we are, and what is happening. Options

[Pickle]

The continuing insults to Dr Thompson are uncalled for in my opinion.

You are entitled to your opinion, even when you're wrong. But my point is valid and still stands: Both Greg and Walt are free to pick up the phone and call me anytime they want to if they have a concern. They don't have to disseminate false information.

[ex3ABNemployee]

When Danny Shelton sued us in federal court he gave up a good bit of his right to privacy. Check out the caselaw on that.

Danny Shelton chose to sue us for defamation per se, for allegedly claiming that he lined his pockets with money from 3ABN in violation of the Internal Revenue Code. If he has now changed his mind about that sort of allegation and doesn't want us to challenge his claims to the contrary, then why doesn't he amend the complaint and take that allegation out?

It's the same sort of thing regarding the proposed protective order wanting to put all donation information off limits. Yet the lawsuit claims that we have caused donations to go down. Now if they don't want us to challenge that claim, why don't they sinply amend their complaint and take out all references to allegations that we caused donations to decline?

Do they want to sue us or not?

Bob, the problem here is that Danny thinks the court should operate the same way he runs 3ABN. It should all be one sided and everything should benefit him. No one else matters.

[Noahswife]

Some of us are just not as logical as you are. I read the above and gathered the same as Sister. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that something vital is missing from these documents. I believe that because of the vast amount of hog wash that has been dumped on us.

Please, Sister did not ask you to give her advice. Your words appear to be high and mighty, like you rule the actions of others. Are you Emily Post? Did you miss the class on "How to Win Friends and Influence People"?

[Pickle]

Greg,

Anytime you have a question, you are more than welcome to pick up the phone and give me a call. Unless I feel like I can't disclose something, I will do my best to answer your questions.

If you follow such a course, you will undoubtedly improve the accuracy of your statements and avoid making defamatory claims. And you might end up being more accurate in your statements than your dad. ...

FHB/Greg,

I want to personally apologize to you for my response to your allegations being so strong. I had not yet read and analyzed Danny Shelton's memorandum, and now I see that you were relying on the erroneous and contradictory statements and assertions made therein.

Will you accept my apology?

Further, do you see why it is so hazardous to trust the word of anyone on Danny's side?

[Pickle]

The attempts at impoundment were allegedly for the purpose of preventing Gailon and myself from putting lies into legal papers and then making them a part of public record by filing them in court. However, consider this quote from Danny Shelton's memorandum in support of his motion to quash:

At best, the instant Subpoena represents a gross misunderstanding of the discovery process and, at worst, a deceitful abuse of subpoena power.

That's talking about me. Now is that kind? Is that true? Or is that a lie and defamatory?

The answer will be quite surprising. You'll have to wait maybe a week to get the answer.

[Ian]

FHB/Greg,

I want to personally apologize to you for my response to your allegations being so strong. I had not yet read and analyzed Danny Shelton's memorandum, and now I see that you were relying on the erroneous and contradictory statements and assertions made therein.

Will you accept my apology?

Further, do you see why it is so hazardous to trust the word of anyone on Danny's side?

IMO, your apology might have illicited a reply if you weren't so obviously continuing to do what you apologised for.

It makes it look like you are just once again trying to get FHB to reply to you when you are very aware he has told you flat out he won't be dialoging with you or answering any of your questions or sharing his thoughts with you, because of your games and tactics in the past.

That's my paraphrase, and as I said, my opinion

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 16 2008, 07:43 AM

[Ian]

The attempts at impoundment were allegedly for the purpose of preventing Gailon and myself from putting lies into legal papers and then making them a part of public record by filing them in court. However, consider this quote from Danny Shelton's memorandum in support of his motion to quash:

"At best, the instant Subpoena represents a gross misunderstanding of the discovery process and, at worst, a deceitful abuse of subpoena power."

That's talking about me. Now is that kind? Is that true? Or is that a lie and defamatory?

The document and statement you quoted is from the Lawyers representing DS, and is quite broad in it's definition, and quite legal... and also accurate IMO.

Again, Imo, you are very confused, the lawsuit is about defamation of character, and it does involve defamation per se, BUT you are the defendant, not the plaintiff. A legal, and proper defense to that is NOT to keep claiming both here and in court documents that you are the one being slandered or defamed by being accused of this or that in court. That is not cited as a defense in anything I have read on the subject of defamation, libel or slander.

Also IMHO: The proposed protection order is also to protect people's privacy rights, and to prevent you from trumpeting personal and private information to the public in order to embarass people, or harass them even when it has nothing to do with 3abn issues and concerns here, and (or) from taking partial or incomplete information and spinning it to claim it says or proves something it doesn't actually say or prove, as has been done here in this forum, on others, and on your websites....

(Fact, not opinion: Joy did say under oath in these latest documents, that you are more owner than he, and are the one who recently re-registered them according to his information and belief. He previously claimed under oath that you are the author and webmaster, and one who originally registered them. That makes your claim here on this forum "It's not my site", and recent follow up to me when I asked you about that, "I didn't spin or stammer that" rather suspect... One of you, at the least, is lying.)

But my conclusion here is that the object of the lawsuit is to stop the defamation not give you the opportunity to continue doing the same thing.

The answer will be quite surprising. You'll have to wait maybe a week to get the answer.

More like 2-3..

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 16 2008, 09:12 AM

[LaurenceD]

One of the common misconceptions, esp by those playing lawyer, is that statements labeled as one's "opinion" (IMO, IMHO, etc.) somehow exempts one from defamation. Courts look far beyond the simple claim that such and such is merely one's opinion. "Opinion" means nothing at all in many cases. There's little if any legal safety included in making such claims. What's important is rather based on the reasonable person policy: could someone understand the statement differently? In the context of many statements of opinion there is often an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion--a kind of wolf in sheeps clothing.

Lately, we've seen a growing overuse of the "IMO" term and it strongly suggests someone whose knowledge can't be trusted, someone unfamiliar with the territory.

[Pickle]

Right, Lawrence. Obviously someone hasn't read United States v. Miller.

[Ian]

Right, Lawrence. Obviously someone hasn't read United States v. Miller.

You guys are such comedians.

And I thought I was just over emphasizing that I am posting for myself, and by myself, and what I was posting was my own personal opinion...

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 16 2008, 09:10 PM

[Pickle]

If you'd take the time to read it, you'd find that you are wrong.

[Ozzie]

IMO, your apology might have illicited a reply if you weren't so obviously continuing to do what you apologised for.

It makes it look like you are just once again trying to get FHB to reply to you when you are very aware he has told you flat out he won't be dialoging with you or answering any of your questions or sharing his thoughts with you, because of your games and tactics in the past.

That's my paraphrase, and as I said, my opinion

And... what's that worth in the grand scheme of things?

[Ozzie]

The document and statement you quoted is from the Lawyers representing DS, and is quite broad in it's definition, and quite legal... and also accurate IMO.


(Fact, not opinion: Joy did say under oath in these latest documents, that you are more owner than he, and are the one who recently re-registered them according to his information and belief. He previously claimed under oath that you are the author and webmaster, and one who originally registered them. That makes your claim here on this forum "It's not my site", and recent follow up to me when I asked you about that, "I didn't spin or stammer that" rather suspect... One of you, at the least, is lying.)
But my conclusion here is that the object of the lawsuit is to stop the defamation not give you the opportunity to continue doing the same thing.
More like 2-3..

And... both could very well be telling the truth. Have you stopped to consider that prospect or is your vision too narrow?

[PeacefulBe]

And... what's that worth in the grand scheme of things?

Far more than the collywobbles, IMO

[Richard Sherwin]

Collywobbles? Had to look that one up. Learned a new word. Thanks.

Far more than the collywobbles, IMO