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

[Panama_Pete]

Once again a red herring Pete, whether the document is produced for all to see during the discovery process during the court proceedings will play itself out with time... What was the point here of issuing this statement at this time and in this way? As I have stated more than once, if Mr. Miller has no objection neither do I. At this time I only have questions from my own world view of things and observations of patterns of conduct.

nw

I really don't know what the point was of posting the Nick Miller letter at this time.

However, I have been thinking about your statement where the "proceedings will play itself out with time..."

In time, but at whose cost? We have to consider who is paying for these proceedings. And the clock for legal fees is running.

What if Gailon Joy posted that letter just to prove to the other side that their case is frivolous and without merit? Lawsuits usually get settled out of court. What if Joy is trying to discourage an expensive and time-consuming process that goes all the way to March 2009, and beyond?

For instance, as for the trademark "Save3abn.com" just go to "FordReallysucks.com" Don't you think Ford Motor Company would have stopped that if they could have done so? Another site is about Godaddy.com called NoDaddy.com

So, how in the world does a little organization like 3ABN expect to put Save3abn.com out of business if Ford cannot put FordReallySucks.com out of business?

Perhaps, the plaintiff's case is so weak that a settlement is in order? Maybe that's the real point of posting the letter. And maybe they're posting it now, because they have a deadline to meet to make any counter claims.

A settlement might save possible counter claims by the defendants. It's possible the defendants, and any additional parties, really don't want to be forced to file counter claims against fellow Christians, and that the Miller letter is meant to send a message of some kind to the plaintiffs.

Just a thought that there could be more here than meets the eye.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Aug 4 2007, 01:30 PM

[runner4him]

I really don't know what the point was of posting the Nick Miller letter at this time.

However, I have been thinking about your statement where the "proceedings will play itself out with time..."

In time, but at whose cost? We have to consider who is paying for these proceedings. And the clock for legal fees is running.

What if Gailon Joy posted that letter just to prove to the other side that their case is frivolous and without merit? Lawsuits usually get settled out of court. What if Joy is trying to discourage an expensive and time-consuming process that goes all the way to March 2009, and beyond?

For instance, as for the trademark "Save3abn.com" just go to "FordReallysucks.com" Don't you think Ford Motor Company would have stopped that if they could have done so? Another site is about Godaddy.com called NoDaddy.com

So, how in the world does a little organization like 3ABN expect to put Save3abn.com out of business if Ford cannot put FordReallySucks.com out of business?

Perhaps, the plaintiff's case is so weak that a settlement is in order? Maybe that's the real point of posting the letter. And maybe they're posting it now, because they have a deadline to meet to make any counter claims.

A settlement might save possible counter claims by the defendants. It's possible the defendants, and any additional parties, really don't want to be forced to file counter claims against fellow Christians, and that the Miller letter is meant to send a message of some kind to the plaintiffs.

Just a thought that there could be more here than meets the eye.

You have made some good comments. It is all about saving time/money, avoiding more threats, protecting innocent people from being harrassed, saving 3ABN, saving the contributions and assets that have come from all the well-meaning people who have believed in sacrificial giving to give the message to the world, and more. I know it is impossible for any of us to always do the right thing but I believe that the motives of these two men (although I have not met one of them personally) have been from the beginning to save this ministry. Believe me it is not for personal gain that they have begun this work. They have labored on in spite of personal cost. Why? They believe in the cause.

This post has been edited by runner4him: Aug 4 2007, 02:40 PM

[Noahswife]

Pete~

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Let me go to something that I have not expounded on but is a concern of mine.

Mr. Miller has dual roles at 3abn as both their counsel and as a board member. I have no knowledge what he may or may not have signed regarding his duty as a former board member not to disclose. I assume even if he did not sign anything that common law governs what he may or may not disclose. Does this disclosure subject him to litigation?

However, attorney/client privilege is not something that is merely a plot device on tv and in movies. It is sacrosanct to attorneys, their past and future clients and the local and state bar ethics committees that investigate complaints that the privilege was violated. Contrary to what some here seem to believe, our "right to know" does not supersede a client's right to assert the privilege until such time as the appropriate forum determines privilege does not apply. There are situations where something clearly falls within the concept of A/C privilege. However, many situations are not so clear as the umbrella is large and litigation occurs when a client asserts that the privilege applies or has been violated.

I do not know if a non-attorney views this issue as seriously as an attorney. I do not know if the contents of the letter would be considered a violation of the privilege. I do not know if plaintiff would have asserted the privilege in a motion to impound the document. But clearly Joy/Pickle knew risk was involved for Mr. Miller based on the statement of same in the posted email.

Attempting to speed up litigation or pressuring plaintiff's does not justify disclosure without consulting Mr. Miller.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 4 2007, 03:21 PM

[Panama_Pete]

Pete~

I appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Let me go to something that I have not expounded on but is a concern of mine.

Mr. Miller has dual roles at 3abn as both their counsel and as a board member. I have no knowledge what he may or may not have signed regarding his duty as a former board member not to disclose. I assume even if he did not sign anything that common law governs what he may or may not disclose. Does this disclosure subject him to litigation?

However, attorney/client privilege is not something that is merely a plot device on tv and in movies. It is sacrosanct to attorneys, their past and future clients and the local and state bar ethics committees that investigate complaints that the privilege was violated. Contrary to what some here seem to believe, our "right to know" does not supersede a client's right to assert the privilege until such time as the appropriate forum determines privilege does not apply. There are situations where something clearly falls within the concept of A/C privilege. However, many situations are not so clear as the umbrella is large and litigation occurs when a client asserts that the privilege has been violated.

I do not know if a non-attorney views this issue as seriously as an attorney. I do not know if the contents of the letter would be considered a violation of the privilege. I do not know if plaintiff would have asserted the privlege in a motion to impound the document. But clearly Joy/Pickle knew risk was involved for Mr. Miller based on the statement of same in the posted email.

Attempting to speed up litigation or pressuring plaintiff's does not justify disclosure without consulting Mr. Miller.

nw

Thanks for your point of view. It's good to bounce these ideas around to see what we come up with.

I was thinking about that attorney-client privilege, too. That's a good point to mention. We would have to see the contract to know for sure. The contract I signed with a law firm spelled out the specific issues covered by that A/C relationship.

[Noahswife]

Thanks for your point of view. It's good to bounce these ideas around to see what we come up with.

I was thinking about that attorney-client privilege, too. That's a good point to mention. We would have to see the contract to know for sure. The contract I signed with a law firm spelled out the specific issues covered by that A/C relationship.

Pete~

Even if the contract Mr. Miller had with the plaintiffs did not address A/C privilege, it is still an issue covered under the governing state bar's Code of Professional Responsibility. If Mr. Miller drafted the document, the presumption I suspect would be in favor of Plaintiffs whether the issue was addressed in the legal agreement or not.

If you were considering Mr. Miller as a potential attorney to represent you would you want to know if any of his past clients believed he had violated attorney-client privilege even if he did not believe he had?

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 4 2007, 04:08 PM

[Johann]

It is my understanding from the correspondence I have had with Nick Miller on this case that since his former client, 3ABN, has not kept their promised confidentiality it is essential that his name be cleared against their false accusations. And yet it is difficult for him to fight his own case against his former client.

Why should anyone here take issue with someone who is willing to use legitimate measures to do what is right and help clear the name of a person who has had to suffer false accusations?

Is it not sufficient that the enemy of truth and what is right issues accusing statement in this case? May the Lord have mercy!

[PeacefulBe]

Speculation about why the email from Nick Miller was posted how and when it was is good. It shows that our minds are seriously processing the important information that is being brought to light. There is also no dispute that the information in the email is of incredible import in proving just what this battle is about.

However, there is a far larger picture here. I believe it is a question of Christian ethics, of conducting ourselves by God's principles. We are lovingly admonished in Proverbs 3:5 - 8 to:

5 Trust in the LORD with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;

6 in all your ways acknowledge him,
and he will make your paths straight.

7 Do not be wise in your own eyes;
fear the LORD and shun evil.

8 This will bring health to your body
and nourishment to your bones.

Is there any doubt that this applies to this investigation? Either we are following His leading or we are following His adversary. This investigation, and the ones following its progress, need conduct themselves in a way that is above reproach. Each thing that is said, each bit of information that is posted, should be presented as though a carbon copy was being handed to the Lord. Nothing should smack of a personal vendetta against someone perceived to have caused us harm and no person, in any way, should be sacrificed or betrayed to make a case. Those are the tactics we have seen from the "other side". They should not be ours.

Just for the benefit of the argument, let's imagine that Nick Miller was not ready to have this email made public. There was no way for the viewing public to know either way anyway since there was no disclaimer posted along with the letter. But, back to the argument. Would it be a valid purpose to post that email no matter if Nick wanted it done or not, simply because it might get impounded and then those details would not be made public? It would probably have an impact on public opinion, because this is big news, but what if the cost to Nick was too great? This information would still be weighed in this lawsuit so it would not be lost to the cause.

We can't rationalize away principles. The ends do not justify the means when one is following the Lord.

As I read and thought about the posts that preceed this one and the investigation itself, I remembered a story about Moses. In Numbers 20, those pesky wandering children were once again whining about how they would rather be dead since they were so thirsty. God told Moses and Aaron to gather them by a rock and speak to the rock and water would gush out. Moses got impatient and in anger at the thankless flock he was leading through that wilderness he smote the rock twice instead of speaking to it as God had directed. The end result was the same. The whiney ones and their flocks got the water the wanted and needed, but at what cost? I believe the application of this story needs no further description.


This is a worthy battle. The documentation suggests that there are bad things that appear to have been hidden behind the scenes that are unbecoming of a ministry that represents the Lord, a ministry that has relied on the sacrificial gifts of donors, many who are members of the SDA church. But, let the battle plan be the Lord's and patiently proceed as He would want. Bob and Gailon have put their very lives into this battle and have accomplished some huge things.

I would prayerfully ask that we each take a deep breath and do our own individual reality checks. Ask yourself what your motivations are in this struggle. Do you want truth to reign supreme? Do you want God's will to be done? Are you motivated by a feeling of revenge or retribution that makes you want those who are the subject of the allegations to squirm and scream as judgement falls on them? Can we remember that evey soul is precious and it matters how we treat each one? Let's not spoil it and pick up torches and pitchforks. That is not God's way.

[Artiste]

It is my understanding from the correspondence I have had with Nick Miller on this case that since his former client, 3ABN, has not kept their promised confidentiality it is essential that his name be cleared against their false accusations. And yet it is difficult for him to fight his own case against his former client.

Thank you for clearing this up, Johann.


*********************************************

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 4 2007, 07:54 PM

[Pickle]

I assure you all, Nick Miller is very tight-lipped on matters that pertain to attorney-client privilege. But don't ask me what exactly those matters are since he couldn't tell me because of attorney-client privilege.

It is one thing to ask questions. It is quite another to assume certain things without any evidence. For example, I get the impression that it has been assumed that Gailon was referring to a subpoena by the Plaintiffs asking for a copy of Nick's letter. But Gailon never said that, and certainly there are other possibilities.

[PeacefulBe]

I am posting the following email from Nick Miller, with his permission, to set the record straight in this matter:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Nicholas Miller
Date: Aug 5, 2007 7:08 AM
Subject: FW: Recent Post on Save3abn
To: ***********


Hello *******,



Below is the message I just sent to Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle. It speaks for itself. You have my permission to post it on the blacksda website.



Thank you for your courtesy and concern in contacting me regarding this matter,



Blessings,



Nicholas Miller

_____________________________________________


From: Nicholas Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 10:06 AM
To: G. Arthur Joy, Bob Pickle
Cc: Walt Thompson, Ken Denslow
Subject: Recent Post on Save3abn



To Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle,



It has come to my attention that you very recently posted a new page on your “save3abn” website that features comments and an e-mail allegedly made or authored by myself. As you know, you did not obtain my permission or consent before posting this material on your web-site, and I am hereby requesting that you remove it. As you know, we communicated well-before the “Save3abn” site was operational, and you made no representations at the time that you planned to distribute our communications in a mass fashion. Indeed, when we communicated, I made clear that I was doing so on conditions that what I shared be limited to those who had received the false communications about me. Posting these communications on a publicly accessible web-site goes far beyond this limited scope. I am thus asking you as Christian gentlemen to honor our agreement, and remove the page regarding my involvement in this matter.



Due to a recent hard-drive reformat, I have not been able to determine whether the posted e-mail is entirely authored by myself. I do, however, acknowledge that the much of the substance of the message reflects comments that I have previously made. I do feel that a portion of my alleged e-mail requires clarification, as you certainly misuse it in commenting upon it. When I possibly indicated that I willingly resigned from “a board that would not take seriously its oversight role,” I was speaking about my personal feelings at the time in regards to the immediate dispute at hand between management and myself. I would not say, and it would not be fair to say, that the Three Angels board did not generally take its oversight role seriously. To the contrary, the board had always been very responsive, indeed, appreciative, to any changes and reforms in accountability or oversight that I had previously initiated or supported. The board, in my view, was responding to the breakdown in relationship between management and me in a pragmatic way. They were not, in my opinion, resisting or opposing meaningful proposals for reform or oversight.



The board and I may disagree about the appropriateness of their response in my particular instance. But I do not see it as a part of a pattern or practice in their oversight or exercise of responsibility over Three Angels generally. To the contrary, I found Dr. Thompson and other members of the board consistently responsive to whatever management and operational concerns that I raised, and a number of committees dealing with these matters were still operational at the time of my departure. I found generally that they were a gracious group of Christian gentleman and ladies attempting to responsibly further the gospel broadcasting ministry, at times under challenging circumstances. One may or may not agree with all the ways the board has responded to those challenges. But they would not, in my experience, undermine or go contrary to basic principles of Christian respect and courtesy in dealing with others in doing so.



Unfortunately, you have not always seemed to take the same high road in responding to Three Angels’ challenges. The “ends justify the means” is not a philosophy as Adventists that we embrace. Rather, we think it is a course of action followed by those opposed to the true gospel. I think that this whole conflict is revealing a spirit and principles on both sides that is a cause of concern. You can certainly help begin mending this image by honoring my request to remove your recent post regarding myself.



Sincerely,





Nicholas Miller

[Noahswife]

In view of the above email, I am not going to post my the comments I had prepared in response to Johann, Bob or Artiste's latest posts on this thread.

However:

Thank you for clearing this up, PB.

NW

[Panama_Pete]

I was impressed by one sentence.

Due to a recent hard-drive reformat, I have not been able to determine whether the posted e-mail is entirely authored by myself.

Same with me.

I'd tell you what I think, but I recently reformatted my computer. Hence, I no longer know what I think.

I'm joking of course. He does go on to say it reflects comments that he has previously made.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Aug 5 2007, 09:21 AM

[Noahswife]

I was impressed by one sentence.

Well Pete~

I was impressed with two sentences.

Indeed, when we communicated, I made clear that I was doing so on conditions that what I shared be limited to those who had received the false communications about me. Posting these communications on a publicly accessible web-site goes far beyond this limited scope.

That was the initial point of posts by myself and others and all the justifications and speculations were quite informative about attitudes that I find more than a little disturbing. Are you willing to accept any underhanded and dishonest approach to get what you want? If that is the case, just what is it that you truly want other than more details to justify your conclusions.

nw

BTW, I do notice it did not take PB very long to get a response from Mr. Miller.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 5 2007, 09:56 AM

[Clay]

quite messy.... and in my opinion if you have the "truth" on your side, you can afford to be patient as well as ethical.... makes me wonder what is the hidden agenda of Pickle and Joy....

[Pickle]

Clay,

So while we waited 9 months, we should have instead waited 9 years? Even if his letter is now, if I understand correctly, a matter of public record?