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

[Pickle]

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

Incorrect. Attorney Miller has informed me that he does not consider entering the letter into the discovery process a violation of anything, since Danny and 3ABN already know the allegation against him.

So FHB, what do you think of his side of the story? What do you think really happened?

[fallible humanbe...]

SH,

No, it isn't blackmail. The definition clearly rules out the possibility of blackmail. Now, let's take a look at some of the statements in to email posted today:

- 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 feel that a portion of my alleged e-mail requires clarification, as you certainly misuse it in commenting upon it.

-I was speaking about my personal feelings at the time in regards to the immediate dispute at hand between management and myself.

-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.

- 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.

What we see here are a question about whether or not the email, as presented, are the accurate words of Attorney Miller. We also see Miller indicate that the content of his original email have been misrepresented. These two realities along with the fact that original was edited and we do not know if and/or how the editing changes the context of the email call into question the entire presentation on the save/not site. Because this question exists one can not logically or reasonably extrapolate the possibility of blackmail out of the words of Miller. In his first email Attorney Miller seems to be clearly stating the simple premise that he felt he had legitimate concerns, there was a disagreement over these, a clash of personalities arose, and the board made a decision to ask Miller for his resignation. It also seems that Miller, though I expect he wishes otherwise, knew that it was in the best interest to not make a major issue about this and willingly resigned. I am sure there were negative feelings, as evidenced by Attorney Miller's words today that his original email were, "my personal feelings at the time."

Blackmail would need intent. Is there anything in Miller's words that indicates this to be true, or even that he thought it might be a remote possibility? No. In fact the final two statements I presented above indicate that, more than likely, Miller thinks/thought exactly the opposite. The issue was handled within the confines of the board room, as it should have been. This would not jeopardize his career at all - in fact, notice in the letter where he makes the following statement about an offer from Dr. Thompson: ". . . [Dr. Thompson] said that he would give me a recommendation if I needed it." Now, does that indicate the existence of blackmail? If you were a blackmailer, and thereby had the upper hand in the situation, would you make such a gracious offer? Additionally, the final two statements indicate that generally speaking there was a good relationship between Attorney Miller and the board he was a member of and served.

You, too, have chosen to use hyperbole to make your point, no, there is no evidence that what happened was, "despicable, immoral, nor indefensible." Was it an unfortunate situation driven by a clash of personalities - seems to be just that.

- FHB

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.

[fallible humanbe...]

Mr. Pickle,

I am going to make it clear right now. I will not engage you in any conversation. I will not tell you what I think, what I know, or what I hear. It is clear to me that you are not interested in reasoned discussion or the truth. You are more than welcome to comment on my postings and ask your questions - but, up front I am telling you I will not respond to you other than this posting here. This doesn't mean I don't have answers, thoughts, or understandings, only that I will not share them with you.

- FHB

Incorrect. Attorney Miller has informed me that he does not consider entering the letter into the discovery process a violation of anything, since Danny and 3ABN already know the allegation against him.

So FHB, what do you think of his side of the story? What do you think really happened?

[sister]

FHB,

I am in no way outing your identity, merely asking a question. For example, since many members here realize the relationship that Beartrap has with the Shelton family it can influence their judgement concerning his statements. If I were Linda Shelton, as has been suggested, it would also alter the way my remarks would be viewed.

I have viewed a recent email written by Walt Thompson, where he states that "sister" is Linda. This is incorrect information, please correct this misunderstanding concerning Linda and I, when you have the opportunity. Thanks.

Sister

This doesn't mean I don't have answers, thoughts, or understandings, only that I will not share them with you.

- FHB

Perhaps you will share your answers, thoughts or understandings with the rest of us, FHB?

This post has been edited by calvin: Aug 6 2007, 06:46 AM

[fallible humanbe...]

Sister,

I speak for my own interest. I am not a voice for any other individual or organization. There are those here who are very clear on this issue and would look at your post as completely disingenuous since you attempt to do what you claim you are not doing.

You can attempt to denigrate my posting, make it of no value, and there are those here who see that my comments to them were indeed rather correct. Thank you for proving my point.

I am sure you have Dr. Thompson's email address since it has been widely published here and on the save/not site. Please feel free to contact Dr. Thompson and set any misconceptions he might have straight - that would not be my responsibility.

Curiously, one might reasonably consider your position to be biased as well.

- FHB

FHB,

I am in no way outing your identity, merely asking a question. For example, since many members here realize the relationship that Beartrap has with the Shelton family it can influence their judgement concerning his statements. If I were Linda Shelton, as has been suggested, it would also alter the way my remarks would be viewed.

I have viewed a recent email written by Walt Thompson, where he states that "sister" is Linda. This is incorrect information, please correct this misunderstanding concerning Linda and I, when you have the opportunity. Thanks.

Sister

This post has been edited by calvin: Aug 6 2007, 06:48 AM

[runner4him]

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

Just a thought....this part of Nick's e mail caught my eye. The plaintiffs request for Joy and Pickle's hard drives and the response of some here about blowing them up and possibly reformating them to delete important information maybe is being considered by the other side as well. Very convenient to have your hard-drive reformated just at this time. Has anyone else considered reformating their own? Just a thought.............

[Clay]

FHB,

I am in no way outing your identity, merely asking a question. For example, since many members here realize the relationship that Beartrap has with the Shelton family it can influence their judgement concerning his statements. If I were Linda Shelton, as has been suggested, it would also alter the way my remarks would be viewed.

I have viewed a recent email written by Walt Thompson, where he states that "sister" is Linda. This is incorrect information, please correct this misunderstanding concerning Linda and I, when you have the opportunity. Thanks.

Sister
Perhaps you will share your answers, thoughts or understandings with the rest of us, FHB?

ADMIN HAT ON:

While you claim not to be outing FHB's identity, you hint that you know it, which of course is going to create an interest in trying to discover who FHB might be. We have asked that people resist the urge to do so. That would include you Sister. Don't go there, don't hint at going there. Any questions contact me, Calvin or Di.

ADMIN HAT OFF:

I am going to be more to the point. Do it again Sister or anyone else tha that has a desire to hint at FHB identity, you are out of here.

This post has been edited by calvin: Aug 6 2007, 06:51 AM

[Observer]

The issue regarding the publication of Mr. Miller's letter is a very complex one. It has a number of aspects. It is complex enough that on some of them I have not decided what I beleive to be correct. In my mind, people on both sides of this question have raised some valid points, and some concerns.

However, I will suggest the following:

1) Once that letter is intered into evidence, and posted on the legal website by the court, it is open for publication by all, and no one sould object. The judge has ruled in regard to what is to be open to the public, and the posting on that website may be considered to be a judicial determination that it may be published wherever and whenever.

Has this letter been entered into evidence, and so posted? I do not know. I have not checked the website.

2) Mr. Miller is a competent attorney. Even a first year law student would know that objections to the public distribution of his letter would not apply to entering it into evidence in a discovery process, and that doing such could result in it being made available to the public. His objections and/or restrictions do not apply to such a situation short of the judge issuing a rulling that restricted it.

Once such is posted in the Pacer system, it is available to the public subject only to the rules of the PACER system in so far as they relate to the further distribution of PACER materials. Yes, there are limitations and restrictions. But, no one has accused people of violating those restrictions. Does anyone accuse Bob and Gailon of violating those restrictions.

NOTE: I do not claim that the source of that letter was the PACER system. PACER will likely be the source that you and I will use. But, if the letter came from other sources, after being entered into evidence, and posted in PACER, it may be further distributed without reference to PACER restrictions.

As to other issues, I am not prepared to comment on them, and on many of them I have not made up my mind.

[fallible humanbe...]

Fran,

I made no comments in regards to "doctored documents" because it is a factor I am not familiar with. As it is with most here, I have no way of knowing if the claim is accurate or not. There are of course three simple possibilities: 1. The claims are true, 2. The claims are false. 3. The claims are based on misunderstandings. I can not comment on what I do not have information about. I imagine that if this issue does become part of the trial proceedings it will become clear to all of us.

I can not speak to the decision of the board other than to say, according to Attorney Miller, "The board was not interested in the details of either of our accusations . . ." Again, as I have stated in other posts, this seems to indicate that the basis of this issue was not in the details of the disagreement between Miller and Administration, but rather a conflict of personalities - which is not a foreign situation in the running of any endeavor with Board Members/Administrators.

I am not sure of the intent of your third question, other than it seems to be suggesting that my post was not to you and other members here, but to Attorney Miller. I speak for my own interest. I am not a messenger, nor a ghost writer. Simply, my post was direct to you and the other members here.

As far as "What do we do with the statements Nick did reveal?" I can not answer this for you. Each one must decide what they will do with anything they read and hear. One must take the entirety of both emails we are privy to and remember that the first is not presented to the public in it's entirety - it has been edited and must be considered as potentially misleading. The email posted by PB is complete and can be considered a reliable source of information. My opinion would include holding the save/not document as less reliable as we don't know how the context was changed by the editing - and the only way to accurately know would be to read it for ourselves and not rely on others to "tell us what is important." When others decide for you what is important you can not make an accurate determination of the truth - it leaves you handcuffed and misled.

To respond to the question about the Board, Attorney Miller's own words would be what I take way from the reading:

From the save/not site:
- "[Dr. Thompson] said that he would give me a recommendation if I needed it."
- "Some of the board members felt badly about it [the reason for his resignation] . . ."
- "I approached the chairman of the board, and one or two influential board members, to work to straighten it [Miller's concerns] up. For the next two or three months, with their assistance, we began to put policies in place, financial, personnel, and other accountability structures for leadership."

From the letter posted here:
- "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."
- "They [the Board of Directors] were not, in my opinion, resisting or opposing meaningful proposals for reform or oversight."
- "But I do not see it [the handling of the dispute involving Miller] 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 [the Board] were a gracious group of Christian gentleman and ladies attempting to responsibly further the gospel broadcasting ministry, at times under challenging circumstances."
-"But they [the Board] would not, in my experience, undermine or go contrary to basic principles of Christian respect and courtesy in dealing with others in doing so."

That is the way I would break it down. I also do not see anywhere in Attorney Miller's correspondence that would indicate he is the type of individual who will play politics and say whatever needs to be said to further his career, they would in fact indicate the opposite. So I take these statements as the exact position Miller takes in regards to the Board of Directors. To me it is rather clear.

There is an owner of save/not and there is a web master. I believe I am clear on who is filling each roll.

- FHB

FHB;

Welcome back!
. . .

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!

[Fran]

Fran,

I made no comments in regards to "doctored documents" because it is a factor I am not familiar with. As it is with most here, I have no way of knowing if the claim is accurate or not. There are of course three simple possibilities: 1. The claims are true, 2. The claims are false. 3. The claims are based on misunderstandings. I can not comment on what I do not have information about. I imagine that if this issue does become part of the trial proceedings it will become clear to all of us.

I can not speak to the decision of the board other than to say, according to Attorney Miller, "The board was not interested in the details of either of our accusations . . ." Again, as I have stated in other posts, this seems to indicate that the basis of this issue was not in the details of the disagreement between Miller and Administration, but rather a conflict of personalities - which is not a foreign situation in the running of any endeavor with Board Members/Administrators.

I am not sure of the intent of your third question, other than it seems to be suggesting that my post was not to you and other members here, but to Attorney Miller. I speak for my own interest. I am not a messenger, nor a ghost writer. Simply, my post was direct to you and the other members here.

As far as "What do we do with the statements Nick did reveal?" I can not answer this for you. Each one must decide what they will do with anything they read and hear. One must take the entirety of both emails we are privy to and remember that the first is not presented to the public in it's entirety - it has been edited and must be considered as potentially misleading. The email posted by PB is complete and can be considered a reliable source of information. My opinion would include holding the save/not document as less reliable as we don't know how the context was changed by the editing - and the only way to accurately know would be to read it for ourselves and not rely on others to "tell us what is important." When others decide for you what is important you can not make an accurate determination of the truth - it leaves you handcuffed and misled.

To respond to the question about the Board, Attorney Miller's own words would be what I take way from the reading:

From the save/not site:
- "[Dr. Thompson] said that he would give me a recommendation if I needed it."
- "Some of the board members felt badly about it [the reason for his resignation] . . ."
- "I approached the chairman of the board, and one or two influential board members, to work to straighten it [Miller's concerns] up. For the next two or three months, with their assistance, we began to put policies in place, financial, personnel, and other accountability structures for leadership."

From the letter posted here:
- "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."
- "They [the Board of Directors] were not, in my opinion, resisting or opposing meaningful proposals for reform or oversight."
- "But I do not see it [the handling of the dispute involving Miller] 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 [the Board] were a gracious group of Christian gentleman and ladies attempting to responsibly further the gospel broadcasting ministry, at times under challenging circumstances."
-"But they [the Board] would not, in my experience, undermine or go contrary to basic principles of Christian respect and courtesy in dealing with others in doing so."

That is the way I would break it down. I also do not see anywhere in Attorney Miller's correspondence that would indicate he is the type of individual who will play politics and say whatever needs to be said to further his career, they would in fact indicate the opposite. So I take these statements as the exact position Miller takes in regards to the Board of Directors. To me it is rather clear.

There is an owner of save/not and there is a web master. I believe I am clear on who is filling each roll.

- FHB

FHB;

Thank you for your kind response. I can't respond right now, but will try again later today.

[erik]

FHB,


you wrote the following

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 have to strongly disagree, in my case i have had had sick stomach after reading so of the more theologically liberal postions that some on here take.

But as bad has those positions are they are like eating a yummy cake compared to the months of defending of a man willing to break his marriage vows repetly, and that defense was coming from Adventists that should know better.

The simple fact is for what ever reason 3abn got rid of Linda and replaced her with tommy S.a person that is by clearly morally in at least has much questions has Linda ever was, And this really not being fair to linda. I would point that linda does not have nurmous people writing letters that she approached them needing sexual favors. Tommy clearly Does, so if 3abn whats to clear the air on this topic how about 3abn presents wee the truth about why tommy need to retire gets told, complete with tommy going and asking for forgiveness to the people he wronged.

Then maybe you righteous finger pointing will hold water with me.

For the record i am very conservative on matters concerning God, much like Jesus was. I also try to extend has much grace has he did to my fellow human beings has he did, i fail on both points very day, but it is my daily goal to be like jesus.

I am sure of one thing that Jesus would and is frowning up the the whole 3abn mess, his frowns are a lot stronger in certain directions then others.

Erik W.

[SoulEspresso]

I'm really disappointed in some here I consider friends. Others with whom I disagree, I appreciate their spirit in all this.

It's a very serious thing to accuse of unethical behavior someone you have found to be truthful in the past.

Nick Miller had to request that the letter come down. It's called attorney-client privilege and he has to protect it. It's why he's respected the way he is.

We have no idea if he is glad they posted it, because he would never say. Even if you've waded through all the threads, you have to keep in mind that Joy & Pickle have way more data than we do. Posting Miller's communication might have been wrong, but we don't have enough data to know that. We're judging by appearances, and if appearances seem to have changed suddenly (I don't think they have!), maybe the best thing to do is wait and see.

Nick's communique aside, the rest of us who are calling for them to withhold data because it's confidential either haven't been paying attention, are willfully foolish, or have a big, fat, hairy double standard. It's really disappointing. If we're going to call for things to be taken down, why is Alyssa's letter here? I'd be way more concerned about that kind of a victim that the kind of victim Miller might be ....

I don't know if it would be right to take Miller's old e-mail down; I don't even know if that's what he really thinks. I'm withholding judgment until more of the saga unfolds. I suspect that in the end we'll see why they did it, even if they can't tell us now.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 6 2007, 11:45 AM

[Clay]

I'm really disappointed in some here I consider friends. Others with whom I disagree, I appreciate their spirit in all this.

It's a very serious thing to accuse of unethical behavior someone you have found to be truthful in the past.

Nick Miller had to request that the letter come down. It's called attorney-client privilege and he has to protect it. It's why he's respected the way he is.

We have no idea if he is glad they posted it, because he would never say. Even if you've waded through all the threads, you have to keep in mind that Joy & Pickle have way more data than we do. Posting Miller's communication might have been wrong, but we don't have enough data to know that. We're judging by appearances, and if appearances seem to have changed suddenly (I don't think they have!), maybe the best thing to do is wait and see.

Nick's communique aside, the rest of us who are calling for them to withhold data because it's confidential either haven't been paying attention, are willfully foolish, or have a big, fat, hairy double standard. It's really disappointing. If we're going to call for things to be taken down, why is Alyssa's letter here? I'd be way more concerned about that kind of a victim that the kind of victim Miller might be ....

I don't know if it would be right to take Miller's old e-mail down; I don't even know if that's what he really thinks. I'm withholding judgment until more of the saga unfolds. I suspect that in the end we'll see why they did it, even if they can't tell us now.

as I told Ariste... this forum is not called "Save3abn.... we are not trying to build a case against them... we discuss.... as to the letter in question, if Calvin's explanation is not working for you, ask him why....

The double standard is where?

Friends can be friends and still disagree... you don't think it was unethical..... I do...

[erik]

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

many a gentle mens agreement has been entered into when it was the the only way, not because it was good for a party.

you are quick to attack the joy/pickle team yet refuse to hold 3abn to the standard you are holding them to.

After all it was 3abn that back pickle and joy into a corner, by sueing them.

I stated that 3abn would lose more then it gains by sueing and it looks like that is starting to become true.

Erik

[erik]

Clay,

I agree with you that method to the end result is very important, and it is clear that Nick miller would like that letter taken down.

I am not sure we can read has much into the motives that pickle and joy have in posting it. Or in mr. miller asking that it be taken down.


Lets say that they remove like they have removed one other idem in the past.

Some will say they were wrong to put it up in the first place, some will say they were wrong to take it down, and some will say they caved into the pressure that the lawsuit has placed on them in the whole matter.


If we are has group of watchers in the 3abn mess are going to hold joy/pickle to a standard of behavior, then it needs to be a equal standard.

Right now has i see that standard is not being held equally.

others may disagree with me and that is ok.

Erik