Countdown....will Pickle And Joy Do The Right Thing..., now that we know they did not have permission.... Options

[Snoopy]

I can't help but wonder if Mr. Miller, himself, is being threatened by a particular group of attorneys...

I also believe that he is in a very difficult position.

There is much, much more to all of this than we know, I am certain.

~~Snoopy~~

[Grith]

I sometimes really look at things differently. . . .

The world needs to hear the truth and the whole truth. I am sorry for Nick that a Confidence was broken, but I am happy that Danny can not longer touch him without us having a knowledge of his promise.

I sort of see this as Gailon doing, for Nick, what he cannot do for himself

I’m probably all wet. I have been sick and I am very tired, but that is one way to look at this.

Back to the broadcast.

Fran, I'm sorry that you are sick. I hope you will fell better soon.

I don't think you're all wet. Actually, your thoughts make a lot of sense to me. Now only time will tell if you are correct.

[Pickle]

There needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Where I don't know however in this case the letter writer asked directly to you that it not be made public and then when it was there was another direct request that it be removed. If you expect people to help you out in your investigation it would seem that you need to show that their letters can be kept in confidence.

Richard

It wasn't all that long ago that I repeatedly told someone who wanted me to keep something confidential, "I will not participate in the cover up of a crime."

There is plenty that I haven't said, plenty that I have kept confidential, but there are situations in which I will not keep quiet, regardless.

[Pickle]

this sub-forum was created so that the 3abn situation could be discussed.... pro and con..... when those who feel like they are bringing injustice to light use the same tactics that they are exposing, it compromises someone's credibility....

Can you name an instance where the other side refused to cover up serious wrong doing, even though they were asked to do so?

[Clay]

Can you name an instance where the other side refused to cover up serious wrong doing, even though they were asked to do so?

Pickle... I will not be drawn into a discussion that will result in your continued justification/rationalization of your actions with this letter....

[Pickle]

That's fine.

[Richard Sherwin]

Well we all have the freedom to do as we wish and give our opinions as we wish. You have done so and so have we.

While I agree with what you are doing I do question some of the tactics.

Richard

It wasn't all that long ago that I repeatedly told someone who wanted me to keep something confidential, "I will not participate in the cover up of a crime."

There is plenty that I haven't said, plenty that I have kept confidential, but there are situations in which I will not keep quiet, regardless.

[Johann]

Pickle... I will not be drawn into a discussion that will result in your continued justification/rationalization of your actions with this letter....

Why do you ask us what we think if it has to be your thoughts?

[Pickle]

Well we all have the freedom to do as we wish and give our opinions as we wish. You have done so and so have we.

While I agree with what you are doing I do question some of the tactics.

Richard

If no one questioned anything, it would be a sign of stagnation.

The issue I would have is condemning tactics if those tactics aren't known.

And I have a problem with condemning the publishing of something that is a matter of public record.

[fallible humanbe...]

Fran and others,

Nick Miller would not have engaged in an orchestrated game of dishonesty and manipulation. It is obvious that his conversations with Robert and Gailon were to end there. He has made that clear and has maintained the same position in his email posted on save/not and in his email to PB.

To suggest that this has been some elaborate ruse is to do dis-service to an individual who has worked to help 3ABN meet its God-given objective and is almost as bad as the publishing his letter against his will.

It is interesting to note that the email posted on save/not has been edited, as evidenced by the ellipsis at the beginning. I and others have maintained in many threads here and at msdaol that this method has served to create perception, not share the truth - and has been used extensively to make a "case" against 3ABN and its leaders, all the while being completely ignored by most. The editing of emails and videos to serve an agenda/purpose is not the way any Christian should pursue a concern. If the truth of an individuals point can stand total disclosure - meaning no editing necessary to make a case or prove a point . . . then you probably have truth. However, when you need to hack things up so they fit with your accusations - this is ultimately dishonest; or when you have to use suggestive diction to make your case this is dishonest.

Many have put their faith in what they have been feed by the save/not site . . . others have called the methods used to gather "information" suspect, and more seriously, an evidence that what is being presented may in fact be less than honest, and most certainly misleading. This is merely another point in the later instances case. Unfortunately, many read there and here and do no checking, do not seek to uncover the truth - merely follow the crowd because of a prior dislike of 3ABN or it's more conservative Adventist direction.

It is obvious via his letter (yours and others speculative interpretation and editorializing not withstanding) that Attorney Miller does not harbor a grudge against the board and has high regard for the members of the board. For individuals here to suggest that he is doing so just to "cover his behind" is tremendously disingenuous. Is it surprising to anyone that on a Board of Directors there are disagreements - sometimes possibly heated ones that need to be worked through? A board made of human beings is going to go through this, and at times individuals my leave of their own volition, be asked to leave respectfully, or be removed. It is obvious, via Miller's own words, that the Board was open to his suggestions and had acted on such over his association with 3ABN. In the instance that resulted in his leaving 3ABN he says, "They were not, in my opinion, resisting or opposing meaningful proposals for reform or oversight. " Now, that seems rather clear - since he was the one who communicated with the Board, was at the meetings, on the phone calls, writing emails back and forth . . . his opinion seems to be one that would be based on very substantial and clear experience and knowledge.

It is also merely an attempt to stir the turgid waters to suggest that Attorney Miller is being threatened by the firm handling the 3ABN case. Does he sound like a man who can be threatened and pushed around? To belittle Attorney Miller's comment that a recent hard drive reformat resulted in losing data is also revealingly disingenuous. Shouldn't readers take Attorney Miller at his word and move forward from there, accepting his word as just that - his honest word? In both instances it appears to more of an attempt to find a negative where there is none, than an honest and genuine search for what is true and accurate.

Has anyone considered who entered this letter into the discovery process? I haven't seen a mention of that, it is a question that has been skirted. If it was entered by the defendants was that just as much a violation of Attorney Miller's request for confidentiality as posting it on the save/not site?

- FHB

=edited to create better clarity of thought, correct errors of diction and punctuation=

I sometimes really look at things differently.

• Nick can not talk
• If Nick leaks the information, his career is shot to pieces by the blackmailer
• Nick is being held hostage, at best.

Nick is behind the eight ball. Dogged if he does and dogged if he doesn’t!

• Danny breaks this confidentiality agreement
• Because Nick has ethics, Danny gambles on that very thing and knows Nick will be quiet!
• Nick has remained silent

.How can Nick be released to tell the truth?

• If someone else breaks the news, then he is free to speak the truth in a court of law.
• Here he must tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth!
• His character is in tact and the truth will be brought forward, which I am pretty certain
• is his desire.

There must be come communication between Nick and Gailon where Gailon can publish thee note.

• Maybe Nick said not to publish unless it became absolutely necessary.
• We don’t know!
• Could it be that the only ethical way Nick can talk is in court?
• We all know Nick can not disclose.
• To get Nick onto the stand to tell the truth and the whole truth, this information is being used.

So the dilemma.

• Nick wants to tell the truth and nothing but the truth.
• Gailon needs to set Nick free bu allowing him the only opportunity he has to do this.Nick has evidence his billings were doctored.
• Nick knew what was going on.
• Nick tried to fight the dragon.
• Powers that be knew all about it, they didn’t even want to see the billings because they would be liable themselves.
• Chop, Chop, cut nick off and ruin his career for life.

Therefore, I sort of see this as a life link for Nick.

• Now Danny has no time to destroy Nick.
• The element of surprise was used to tie Danny’s hands.
• Now Nick is truly safe.

If Danny saw that Nick was going to take the stand, the mud slinging that Linda got would begin against Nick.

• I believe Gailon is providing an escape for Nick.
• It is what he wants and needs.
• He has provided protection, and provided an ethical way for his to speak.
• When he reaches the stand, we will find out what we don’t know about permissions that we cannot see clearly now.

Since the letter is out there, let it be. It is out. What will we do, put Nick in greater Danger by dhoving it under the rug.

The world needs to hear the truth and the whole truth. I am sorry for Nick that a Confidence was broken, but I am happy that Danny can not longer touch him without us having a knowledge of his promise.

I sort of see this as Gailon doing, for Nick, what he cannot do for himself

I’m probably all wet. I have been sick and I am very tired, but that is one way to look at this.

Back to the broadcast.

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Aug 6 2007, 07:39 AM

[Artiste]

Unfortunately, many read there and here and do no checking, do not seek to uncover the truth - merely follow the crowd because of a prior dislike of 3ABN or it's more conservative Adventist direction.

I believe the the folks here *would* like a more conservative Adventist direction, one that does not include coverups of child molestation, disgusting immoral behavior, and the misuse of donor funds.


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

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 5 2007, 06:32 PM

[Fran]

Fran and others,

Nick Miller would not have engaged in an orchestrated game of dishonesty and manipulation. It is obvious that his conversations with Robert and Gailon were to end there. He has made that clear and has maintained the same position in his email posted on save/not and in his email to PB.

To suggested that this has been some elaborate ruse is to do dis-service to an individual who has worked to help 3ABN meet its God-given objective and is almost as bad as the publishing his letter against his will.

It is interesting to note that the email posted on save/not has been edited, as evidenced by the ellipsis at the beginning. I and others have maintained in many threads here and at msdaol that this method has served to create perception, not share the truth - and has been used extensively to make a "case" against 3ABN and its leaders, all the while being completely ignored by most. The editing of emails and videos to serve an agenda/purpose is not the way any Christian should pursue a concern. If the truth of an individuals point can stand total disclosure - meaning no editing necessary to make a case or prove a point . . . then you probably have truth. However, when you need to hack things up so they fit with your accusations - this is ultimately dishonest; or when you have to use suggestive diction to make your case this is dishonest.

Many have put their faith in what they have been feed by the save/not site . . . others have called the methods used to gather "information" suspect, and more seriously, an evidence that what is being presented may in fact be less than honest, and most certainly misleading. This is merely another point in the later instances case. Unfortunately, many read there and here and do no checking, do not seek to uncover the truth - merely follow the crowd because of a prior dislike of 3ABN or it's more conservative Adventist direction.

It is obvious via his letter (yours and others speculative interpretation and editorializing not withstanding) that Attorney Miller does not harbor a grudge against the board and has high regard for the members of the board. For individuals here to suggest that he is doing so just to "cover his behind" is tremendously disingenuous. Is it surprising to anyone that on a Board of Directors there are disagreements - sometimes possibly heated ones that need to be worked through? A board made of human beings is going to go through this, and at times individuals my leave of their own volition, be asked to leave respectfully, or be removed. It is obvious, via Miller's own words, that the Board was open to his suggestions and had acted on such over his association with 3ABN. In the instance that resulted in his leaving 3ABN he says, "They were not, in my opinion, resisting or opposing meaningful proposals for reform or oversight. " Now, that seems rather clear - since he was the one who communicated with the Board, was at the meetings, on the phone calls, writing emails back and forth . . . his opinion seems to be one that would be based on very substantial and clear experience and knowledge.

It is also a merely an attempt to stir the turgid waters to suggest that Attorney Miller is being threatened by by the firm handling the 3ABN case. Does he sound like a man who can be threatened and pushed around? To belittle Attorney Miller's comment that a recent hard drive reformat resulted in losing data is also revealingly disingenuous. Shouldn't readers take Attorney Miller at his word and move forward from there, accepting his word as just that - his honest word? In both instances it appears to more an attempt to find negative where there is none, than an honest and genuine search for what is true and accurate.

Has anyone considered who entered this letter into the discovery process? I haven't seen a mention of that, it is a question that has been skirted. If it was entered by the defendants was that just as much a violation of Attorney Miller's request for confidentiality as posting it on the save/not site?

- FHB

=edited to create better clarity of thought, correct errors of diction and punctuation=

FHB;

Welcome back!

Back a few years ago Linda and Danny were interviewed on Club Adventist.

I started a list of questions. I wanted a list large enough to make sure Linda could not answer on line.

I even told her to be wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove. I told her NOT to answer what she could not! I did not expect an answer to any of the questions either.

I planned to ask the same questions to Danny, in the same wording complete; only changing Linda to Danny. I wanted to be fair.

Club Adventist refused to allow it. He allowed 3 questions, one at a time. So I got peeved and asked some stupid questions with no meaning at all.

However, Nick Miller replied to some of my questions I asked Linda. At that moment, I knew he was very smart & innocent or he was blind as a bat.

I found his reply very interesting indeed! Questions I knew the answers to were not answered, but he also answered some very accurately. I did not feel he was feeding me a line. I did, however, believe he left some blank that maybe he was aware of at that time.

I am now convinced he is honorable. Thank you for clarifying that point. When he does testify, I believe he will again be honorable and answer honestly again.

Bob is a black and white person. There are no gray areas. He stands for exact truth in everything! I know! Believe me, I know!

Joy, on the other hand, weighs the balance of truth and justice/harm. He does not hurt people with the intent to harm. I know this from experience also. He takes his moves after much thought and takes then very seriously. Joy and Pickle know all. Everyone has been telling them and they have it compiled and ready to go.

I believe Joy is far more sensitive of others feelings than Bob is. That is why I believe we don’t have all the facts to judge the posting of that email.

FHB;

• Please tell me why you made no comments about the doctored documents mentioned?
• Why do you suppose the full board refused to even see the evidence of the document?
• Was this post made to Nick to tell Nick that 3ABN plans to keep quiet and they expect him to do the same?
• Do you actually believe Nick will lie under oath? I don’t.
• What do we do with the statements Nick did reveal?
• What do you feel about the statements about the board member/members?

One thing I am not sure of is “who” exactly posted that email? Is there another party of which we are not aware? I do not believe Gailon posted that email at all! But since it is there, he says leave it there.

Why not, it speaks to Nick’s integrity, right FHB? That is something we agree on for sure!

[Skyhook]

I have a naive question. Is the kind of blackmail that has been done to Nick Miller a crime? A felony. perhaps?
If so, is it not unethical to ignore it if one knows about it?

[fallible humanbe...]

SH,

The fact that the OPoster used the word "blackmail" in their posting title on another thread doesn't mean that it is so. In fact it is clearly used for hyperbole as the page on save/not doesn't have the word "blackmail" or any synonym within its content. Go to the page, do a "Find in this page" and type in blackmail . . . nothing.

It is simply an attempt to create perception by tossing out words that are inflammatory. Take a look at the definition:

1. any payment extorted by intimidation, as by threats of injurious revelations or accusations.
2. the extortion of such payment: He confessed rather than suffer the dishonor of blackmail.
3. a tribute formerly exacted in the north of England and in Scotland by freebooting chiefs for protection from pillage.
–verb (used with object)
4. to extort money from (a person) by the use of threats.
5. to force or coerce into a particular action, statement, etc.: The strikers claimed they were blackmailed into signing the new contract.

Doesn't work!

In the email posted on save/not, Nick Miller makes the following statement: ". . . I willingly tendered my resignation." True it seems as if, by the content of the email, that there was a clash of personalities, but no one blackmailed Attorney Miller. Nor did he suggest such by either of the emails that have been posted over the past few days.

In fact, not only does Miller, not claim blackmail, he refers to an agreement between 3ABN and himself and refers to it as a "gentleman's agreement", which seems to indicate that it was a mutually acceptable situation: "I have had a gentlemen's [sic] agreement with 3-ABN not to raise this story, if they did not spread about me the allegation of billing impropriety".

So your question seems to be simply answered by reading the emails as posted. By the way, do you know who introduced the email from Attorney Miller into evidence as part of the discovery process? It would seem that a logical argument is this: The email was introduced with intent that this would make it "public", therefore giving the webmaster at save/not a rationalization they could live with. That seems like a calculated path, as well as a rather significant rationalization to violate the express request of Miller when he sent the communication. So again, I ask, who introduced the email into the case and what was the real intent for doing so? Possibly a way to continue creating perception rather than working with truth?

- FHB

I have a naive question. Is the kind of blackmail that has been done to Nick Miller a crime? A felony. perhaps?
If so, is it not unethical to ignore it if one knows about it?

[Skyhook]

FHB, Is not the falsification of billing records in order to make it appear that Mr. Miller has done dishonest billing, thus jeapordizing his carreer, and use that as a weapon to avoid certain reforns and force a "friendly separation" a form of blackmail? Whether or not it meets any legal criteria of blackmail, it says a lot about the character of the perpetrators, and definately fits the defination of despicable, immoral, disgusting and indefensable behavior.