Amazing Story Of 3abn Board Malfeasance Just Posted On Save3abn!, How Attorney Nick Miller Was Blackmailed Options

[Uncle Sam]

I agree that if someone doesn't want their correspondence out in the public it shouldn't be but....

Either Nick is naive or he wanted it out there. Whenever I have had to use an attorney the first thing he said was unless you want it to come back to bite you DO NOT put anything in writing. Now if Nick says I don't want this out there maybe he feels it will get him off the hook if it is spread around...

Just a thought

[Noahswife]

I am afraid that no amount of rationalization is going to justify what I find a totally unacceptable decision. Like everyone else I find the story titillating, but this is only one more example that makes me question the ethics of those making the decisions in these matters.

I do not understand the need to rush to post this item at save3abn.com that overcame the honorable duty to ask Nick once again for permission. A simple yes from him to go ahead or that he agreed that the conditions had been met in "the document that has been referred to" is all that would have been needed to avoid what should be an embarrassment to those who claim to hold the higher moral ground.

To have failed to do that in advance implies to me a concern that he would have said no to the request.

I came to this issue out of concern that LS had been sacrificed unjustifiably for "a cause". This is not the first time I have felt that this has happened on the Joy/Pickle side as well and neither situation is acceptable.

I guess the bus runs both ways.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 3 2007, 06:58 AM

[watchbird]

Well this is the typical response I expected. Rationalize it away that the end justifies the means. I have made a note to myself that I won't be sharing anything in private with them that I don't want to appear in public over the Internet.

..... ..... Surely you have not waited this long to make that note to yourself..... .... ....

But there is another angle to this that hasn't been mentioned so far.... I was told a long time ago in this ordeal that certain persons who had information of some of Danny's unsavory doings would not realease this .... and would not even describe in detail what specific information they had since, in their words quoted to me "evidence is only valuable once and it loses its value once it has been used." And their point was that they were saving their evidence until the only time that it would "count".... which would be when it was subpoenaed by a court which had the jurisdiction and authority to "make a difference" by using their evidence.

In light of this... and other background information on the negative impact that sharing information publicly while a court case is going on can have .... including even warnings to those having evidence to give being threatened by jail if they disclosed anything before it actually is presented in court.... I have to wonder about this strange move by Joy to share information which seemingly belongs in the private phase of "discovery" before the "evidence" has been presented in the courtroom itself and been acted upon by the judge.

Something strange is going on.

[watchbird]

I agree that if someone doesn't want their correspondence out in the public it shouldn't be but....

Either Nick is naive or he wanted it out there. Whenever I have had to use an attorney the first thing he said was unless you want it to come back to bite you DO NOT put anything in writing. Now if Nick says I don't want this out there maybe he feels it will get him off the hook if it is spread around...

Just a thought

It is a "law of mind and humankind" that one judges others by themselves.

Thus and honorable man will judge another man to be as honorable as himself....

Notice the date of the letter... and the use to which the information was said to be put at the time of writing.... as well as his limitations as to where it would be shared... and would not be shared.

I think we can assume from these things that Nick made his decision to write the letter based on certain assumptions he made at the time of writing: 1) there were those in "high places" who needed to know what he knew and whom he also knew had enough confidence in him (remember he is a lawyer who has worked closely with GC lawyers for some years) so that what he said would carry more weight than what others who were unknown to GC persons would know... aand 2) that he could share this information in confidence with Joy, assuming that he was a both a person who would honor his request for confidentiallity and one who was wise in the ways of legal uses of evidence.

Time is showing... and will show.... how accurate he was in his assumptions.

[SoulEspresso]

I don't think the release is particularly sleazy at all, if separate conditions were met. If you write, "Don't publish this," and later write, "You can release the information if X, Y, and Z are fulfilled," you don't have to write a third letter that says, "Now that X, Y and Z have happened, you now have permission to publish this letter."

Wouldn't it be great if we were all unmasked as honest, God-fearing people of integrity! Most of the unmasking in this case has been quite the opposite.

[PeacefulBe]

When one is a representative of Christ, a strongly ethical road is imperative. In this case, with Nick Miller's unmistakable request to keep his email confidential, it is my opinion that it was a huge oversight, if not an out and out blunder, not to have included either a letter of permission from Nick Miller himself or a clear statement that it was now permissable to make it public.

Without such, posting this email, no matter how important the content, takes on the appearance of a betrayal, IMO.

[SoulEspresso]

I love you guys, but come on. I'm seeing a double standard here. Why was it wrong to publish Nick's confidential e-mails, and okay to publish Dr. Walt's confidential e-mails? Because Nick's revealed him to be a good man, and Walt's revealed him to be complicit in sin? At least we have some evidence that Nick gave permission on some level for it to be posted!

Let's withhold judgment until we know more. "Something strange" is going on indeed. I'm waiting 'til we're further down the rabbit hole before going after Joy & Pickle for breaches of confidentiality. If the court orders them to hand over their hard drives, a lot more people could get hurt anyway.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 3 2007, 08:18 AM

[Clay]

Good point SE....

[PeacefulBe]

I love you guys, but come on. I'm seeing a double standard here. Why was it wrong to publish Nick's confidential e-mails, and okay to publish Dr. Walt's confidential e-mails? Because Nick's revealed him to be a good man, and Walt's revealed him to be complicit in sin? At least we have some evidence that Nick gave permission on some level for it to be posted!

Let's withhold judgment until we know more. "Something strange" is going on indeed. I'm waiting 'til we're further down the rabbit hole before going after Joy & Pickle for breaches of confidentiality. If the court orders them to hand over their hard drives, a lot more people could get hurt anyway.

SE,

I agree, these are good points. The only difference I see in these two instances, is that Bob was open all along with Walt that he intended to post the emails, at least as far as I remember. With Nick Miller, there was at least an implied confidence agreement between them.

The bottom line, in my eyes, is still that two men who are calling for things to be open and transparent dropped the ball when posting the email without a clear explanation that it was acceptable to do so. That raises questions and unnecessary speculation that could have been avoided, IMO.

PB

[Noahswife]

Let's withhold judgment until we know more. "Something strange" is going on indeed

SE:

I find this statement in addition to the "NO" troubling:

we felt the benefit to Nick far outweighed any detriment to him at this point.

We? WE? I look forward to hearing if Nick's opinion was consulted in reaching that conclusion. One should think carefully before taking a chance on turning any potential witness into a hostile one.

I apologize if I have failed to respond in similar fashion to any other posted statements, by WT or anyone, that included a request for confidentiality that was not honored. If in this case the conditions for release have been clearly met, then I look forward to changing my current opinion on what thus far is not an adequate explanation for me.

But remember. Just my soap box.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 3 2007, 09:11 AM

[Clay]

I have said from the start.... someone needs to tell everything, just let it all come out.... but that's me..

[SoulEspresso]

I agree, these are good points. The only difference I see in these two instances, is that Bob was open all along with Walt that he intended to post the emails, at least as far as I remember. With Nick Miller, there was at least an implied confidence agreement between them.

If you tell me you're going to post whatever I write, and I write but include a clause that says, "Please don't post this," does that make it okay for you to post it because you warned me beforehand that you would anyway?

The bottom line, in my eyes, is still that two men who are calling for things to be open and transparent dropped the ball when posting the email without a clear explanation that it was acceptable to do so. That raises questions and unnecessary speculation that could have been avoided, IMO.

It would have been nice if the conditions that have been met, according to GaJ, could have been posted along with the e-mail. But I have a feeling those will come out eventually anyway.

I find this statement in addition to the "NO" troubling:

we felt the benefit to Nick far outweighed any detriment to him at this point.

We? WE? I look forward to hearing if Nick's opinion was consulted in reaching that conclusion. One should think carefully before taking a chance on turning any potential witness into a hostile one.

What's to be hostile about? Nick himself, being a man of integrity, doesn't strike me as the kind of person who'll say, "Go ahead and release this now, it will make me look good and help me re-establish my credibility as I work to accomplish new goals." Has no one here ever seen a situation in which other people came forward to make an individual look good, in a way that that individual was in no position to do so for himself?

I apologize if I have failed to respond in similar fashion to any other posted statements, by WT or anyone, that included a request for confidentiality that was not honored. If in this case the conditions for release have been clearly met, then I look forward to changing my current opinion on what thus far is not an adequate explanation for me.

To me, the right things Pickle/Joy are doing have outweighed that which I had a problem with. I assume that when they do something I don't understand, they're trying to do what's right and have good reasons for it. That doesn't mean they are or do. But there is a lot of data yet to be seen, I think we can be confident of that. That's why I'm waiting to complain until I feel we have better reasons to do so.

"Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them." Eph. 5:11.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 3 2007, 09:47 AM

[calvin]

I agree that once information is in the public domain that makes it fair game for discussion. I do not think court ordered subpoena records make those records public. Correct me if I am wrong.

While both sides are fighting it out in court of law they are also fighting in the court of public opinion….and I have seen what I consider half-truths, innuendos and unethical tactics used on both sides.

[SoulEspresso]

Well, Calvin, I watched you suspend Pickle for two weeks for breaking the rules on this board, and I thought it was the right thing to do even though I think he's generally on track.

A subpoenaed record that is not impounded is still in the public domain, regardless of whether that was the court's intention.

More thoughts. I've said it before, but we all need to be darn sure that we don't do anything under any circumstances that we wouldn't be comfortable with 50 million people knowing. That's what I love about GaJ's statement that anything he writes anywhere can be published anywhere. I can't do that--not because I'm hiding anything but because of how my life intersects with that of others.

This is another thread, but one of the values of confessing your difficulties to others is that the more people that know the worst things about you, the harder you are to blackmail.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 3 2007, 10:06 AM

[Rosyroi]

Well, Calvin, I watched you suspend Pickle for two weeks for breaking the rules on this board, and I thought it was the right thing to do even though I think he's generally on track.

A subpoenaed record that is not impounded is still in the public domain, regardless of whether that was the court's intention.

More thoughts. I've said it before, but we all need to be darn sure that we don't do anything under any circumstances that we wouldn't be comfortable with 50 million people knowing. That's what I love about GaJ's statement that anything he writes anywhere can be published anywhere. I can't do that--not because I'm hiding anything but because of how my life intersects with that of others.

This is another thread, but one of the values of confessing your difficulties to others is that the more people that know the worst things about you, the harder you are to blackmail.

I agree that if I had given some important information to someone and had asked that my information would be kept underwraps I wouldn't want it publicised in cyberspace, for various reasons.

On the other hand... the word "blackmail" puts things in an entirely different light. That is if there is a possibility of a threat of it.

JMHO

Rosyroi