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

[fallible humanbe...]

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

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.

SE, here you are operating under a presupposition that what you have been told is indeed accurate, truthful, and complete. There are posts here, as well as on msdaol that have effectively detailed the error or misleading nature of content on the save/not site. The mere possession of an official document does not mean that the individual is accurately or honestly placing that information in the appropriate context. Additionally, the practice of only presenting what seems to validate your case is a very ineffective way to make said case. For instance, and only be is it recent and fresh in everyone's mind, the email posted on save/not from Nick Miller. A possibly significant (in import not necessarily size) portion has been edited out leaving only what serves the sites purpose - creating perception. Just in case any reader needs to see it visually, here it is copy and pasted exactly as it appeared at 4:14 CST on 07 Aug 07:

From: Nicholas Miller
To: G. Arthur Joy
Subject: RE: Statement
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 17:34:58 -0800

Gailon,

...

As to Bob's question, the short answer is this:


The first sentence certainly is not how one would begin an email and the ellipses indicates editing. This leaves the question, what effect does the missing content have on the context of the entire email. This is not the first time this has happened, and it has happened with video as well as with email presented on the site.

It should be clear that where one questionable decision has been made in regards to the content created for the save/not site, there may very well have been and continue to be others. The practice of accepting blindly what is said there is foolish at the least and dangerous at its worst.

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 ....

The issue of double standards is a sword that cuts both ways. For months many have railed about the release of information by 3ABN. There have been claims that because it hasn't been released, then it doesn't exist - yet here in the past few days have been one rationalization after another about why it is wise to manipulate information for the purpose of succeeding in court or the effort against 3ABN. 3ABN has held that they did not release their information to the public for altruistic reasons. One can argue this is merely a ruse, however, as this court case will potentially prove - the evidence does exist and it will make clear the validity of actions taken by 3ABN and its representatives. Let's consider what will happen if the accusations against Linda are proven valid. What then? Some have argued that she won't be any worse off than she is now. Yet she has been singing and presenting at camp meetings across the country, has spoken in churches, all things that were claimed she wasn't being allowed to do. If the accusations are true, what then? It would appear that she will be in a very tenuous position - one that would be worse than the one some claim she is currently in now.

Back to the double standard. The save/not site is not questioned by many, maybe most. When they speak they are not unlike E. F. Hutton . . . people listen. Then they believe without question what is said. There is no challenge on the obvious manipulation of peoples words, the evident misrepresentation of fact, and the total disregard for individual confidentiality. At present they do not hold themselves to the standard they hold others to.

I can't speak to the appropriateness of the presence of Alyssa's letter here on bsda. As Clay has pointed out this is space is much different in purpose and operation than is the save/not site. There are a myriad of reasons people come to this site, this discussion being only one. Save/not has a defined and stated purpose and everything that is posted there is designed to achieved their predetermined agenda. When you evaluate these two instances you must do so with the understanding that they are mutually exclusive - they are not related because of the established purpose of each site. The poster of the letter, "Source," made one single post on this site - that one. Calvin replied early in the thread, "Source had my permission to post the letter. This letter is in the public domain and has been distributed broadly throughout Adventist circles. Many of you insiders where aware of it" (emphasis mine).

As for the removal of Attorney Miller's letter from the save/not site, I think it is clear what he wants to have happen. He has made a public statement and unless you think he is less than honest in his motives - meaning you believe he would lie about his desires in public while saying something else in private - then we must take him at his word.

- FHB

[Snoopy]

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.

Hey - good point. I wonder if any of thosed ALLEGED false billing records were ever mailed anywhere. Wouldn't that make it mail fraud, a federal offense?

Nope - I'm not an attorney. But I did see "The Firm" - what an awesome movie!!

[fallible humanbe...]

Snoop,

It is just this type of comment made here that, like PB's haybaling story in another thread as metaphor, that blow up into pseudo-fact. This activity proves a dis-service to anyone you direct here by telling them they can find "truth" here. This purely fabricated concept (mail fraud) creates perception, a continuing endeavor here by some designed to damage 3ABN financially and perceptually. I realize there are those here sincerely looking for the truth of the matters - but the muck they have to wade through to find even a smackeral (my apologies to A.A. Milne) grows deeper with these fanciful notions.

Just for the record, here is the definition of mail fraud, which when reviewed reveals that the documents in question (and there is only the word of Attorney Miller that they were doctored*) would not constitute mail fraud.

The use of the U.S. Mail to defraud companies or individuals. This has become one of the main statutes to prosecute individuals on federal fraud charges. Prosecution under the mail fraud statute must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. That the statement is false;

2. That it was made with the intention it should be relied on;

3. That it was made for the purpose of securing money or property;

4. That the statement was delivered by mail;

5. That money or property was obtained by means of the false statement.

- FHB

* The comment is not made to call Attorney Miller's veracity into question, only to make the point that it would need to be independently verified, beyond doubt, for the discerning individual to feel comfortable with calling them "doctored documents" and passing it on as fact.

Hey - good point. I wonder if any of thosed ALLEGED false billing records were ever mailed anywhere. Wouldn't that make it mail fraud, a federal offense?

Nope - I'm not an attorney. But I did see "The Firm" - what an awesome movie!!

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Aug 6 2007, 04:39 PM

[Skyhook]

Hey - good point. I wonder if any of thosed ALLEGED false billing records were ever mailed anywhere. Wouldn't that make it mail fraud, a federal offense?

Nope - I'm not an attorney. But I did see "The Firm" - what an awesome movie!!

Snoopy, when I read the letter, I suspected that the idea came from the movie.

FHB, it may well be true that there is a certain amount of conjecture and imagination, misunderstandings and wrong conclusions about details of this sad saga. However, the basic information of the divorce, the re-marriage, the financial shenanigans, the tax problems, the protecting a sexual predator the threats and intimidation and the attempt to stonewall all of this is now known by a large number of people within and outside of the Seventh-day Adventist church. As they say, the information is "in the group." Or, "the information is out there." In other words, things will never be the same again for Danny and the inner circle at 3abn. Regardless of the details and outcome of the court proceedings, Danny's career as "the annointed one" and the hero to many is rapidly winding down.
He would do well to study carefully the recent messages to Walt Thompson from Jonathan Smith. I don't think I'm over stating it when I say that there may be souls at stake here as Danny and the others play this out to the bitter end.

This post has been edited by Skyhook: Aug 6 2007, 05:14 PM

[YogusBearus]

Snoop,

It is just this type of comment made here that, like PB's haybaling story in another thread as metaphor, that blow up into pseudo-fact. This activity proves a dis-service to anyone you direct here by telling them they can find "truth" here. This purely fabricated concept (mail fraud) creates perception, a continuing endeavor here by some designed to damage 3ABN financially and perceptually. I realize there are those here sincerely looking for the truth of the matters - but the muck they have to wade through to find even a smackeral (my apologies to A.A. Milne) grows deeper with these fanciful notions.

Fallible, even if you believe that to be true, I think you're honest enough to admit that had 3abn done a better job of crisis management with some modicum of integrity, this section of BSDA wouldn't exist.

The fact that some, who are convinced that 3abn needs a housecleaning, are willing to question methods and/or techniques of the Joy/Pickle combine means that integrity matters. It would be a mistake for 3abn leadership to view those questions as a affirmation of their leadership or methods.

I think we are all anxious for all the cards to be played and for this soap opera to be complete. There WILL be full transparency and all the facts will surface. It's just a shame that it couldn't have happened voluntarily.

In the meantime, the givers will vote with their pocketbooks.


-bear

P.S. Agree or not, I do appreciate your reasoned posts.

[Pickle]

In reply to FHB's questions, I say to all:

The email of Nick Miller consisted of two paragraphs. WordPerfect provides the following statistics:

Paragraph 1: 4 sentences, 95 words, 481 characters.

Paragraph 2: 18 sentences, 528 words, 2440 characters.

According to the lead-in of the second paragrpah, paragraph 1 must be about a totally different subject.

FHB, you can probably request a copy of the letter from Danny or his attorneys, since it is a part of discovery materials. That way you can read it in its entirety.

[Pickle]

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.

As far as I know, the email in question does not have to do with attorney-client privilege. If it contained something that had to do with his work as an attorney instead of his work as a board member, then maybe. But I don't see anything like that in it.

[SoulEspresso]

I was away from my computer for most of the day so I haven't been following until now, which is why I haven't posted until now.

But I've changed my mind, having thought about it. If it were me, I'd take the Miller letter down. "Avoid the appearance of evil" whenever you can. My opinion is still that Bob and Gailon have the right ends in mind, but ... guys ... even if you win in court, you may lose in the eyes of some Adventists if they believe you're not taking the high road. How many, I don't know. But it's pretty important not to burn any bridges you don't need to.

BTW, fhb ... appreciate the reasoned tone of your recent posts. It's nice to have someone posting from your point of view who isn't resorting to ad hominem attacks.

As for the removal of Attorney Miller's letter from the save/not site, I think it is clear what he wants to have happen. He has made a public statement and unless you think he is less than honest in his motives - meaning you believe he would lie about his desires in public while saying something else in private - then we must take him at his word.

I don't know him, but my opinion of him is fairly high considering that. I do take him at his word, because that's all I've got. But there are people in this world who will say things publicly for the sake of their work who wouldn't do so if they didn't have to. Whether Mr. Miller is that kind of person I have no idea, so I assume not.

Nobody doubts that save3abn.com is writing from a particular POV, so I'm sure there are things there that could stand some more context. But what you've said implies that 3ABN was planning to sue all along--when if they have better evidence, it could have come out before an ASI panel, or any other arrangement than what's happening now. They have, IMO, demonstrated spectacularly bad judgment from day one in not being completely open, and this lawsuit is simply another brick in the wall. When is this church going to learn that when you act like you have something to hide, people think you have something to hide?

Never hire a lawyer to do your PR work; it's like hiring a crossing guard to teach you how to skateboard.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 6 2007, 11:16 PM

[PeacefulBe]

When I read this particular page late this afternoon I was so excited by what I saw that I was squealing with delight. I had to walk away for several hours before I even dared to post a comment.

What I have seen here is truly amazing dialogue posted in a most well-reasoned, courteous manner. I am just plain proud of each of you. If only all who post here would aspire to do the same imagine what we could accomplish!

PB

SE,

Spectacular spirit! I'm am so proud of you, too!

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Aug 6 2007, 10:57 PM

[Panama_Pete]

As far as I know, the email in question does not have to do with attorney-client privilege. If it contained something that had to do with his work as an attorney instead of his work as a board member, then maybe. But I don't see anything like that in it.

I don't think working as a bouncer qualifies for client-attorney privileges, either.

I was re-reading parts of Dr. Arild Abrahamsen's letter:

"Johann and I decided to go to the camp meeting and talk to the Board members and tell them the truth about the situation. When we walked into the 3ABN building we were surrounded by about 10 people. One person stood directly behind me for the entire service. Walt Thompson and Nick Miller (3ABN's attorney) asked us to leave ."




This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: Aug 7 2007, 12:23 AM

[PeacefulBe]

I don't think working as a bouncer qualifies for client-attorney privileges, either.

I was re-reading parts of Dr. Arild Abrahamsen's letter:

"Johann and I decided to go to the camp meeting and talk to the Board members and tell them the truth about the situation. When we walked into the 3ABN building we were surrounded by about 10 people. One person stood directly behind me for the entire service. Walt Thompson and Nick Miller (3ABN's attorney) asked us to leave ."

I watched that 2004 3abn Campmeeting program again just a few months ago. Nick also stood on the platform and sang with many leaders. It looked like he struggled a bit with the song. This is a strong indication that he probably isn't a very talented singer on top of being a bouncer, so I suppose that might even add to making the case that the email might not qualify as a matter of attorney-client priviledge. Hmmm, wonder if he ever taught the Sabbath School lesson? Would it be helpful for me to go check that out?

[Artiste]

...
I don't know him, but my opinion of him is fairly high considering that. I do take him at his word, because that's all I've got. But there are people in this world who will say things publicly for the sake of their work who wouldn't do so if they didn't have to. Whether Mr. Miller is that kind of person I have no idea, so I assume not.
...
Never hire a lawyer to do your PR work; it's like hiring a crossing guard to teach you how to skateboard.

I don't think the question here is whether Nick Miller is "that kind of person" or not.

In the area of legal manuevering, taking a person at their word is just not a very practical thing to do. It doesn't mean that the person is not worthy of a good opinion. Nick Miller's first and second e-mails express some diametrically different viewpoints which was probably necessary in this situation.

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

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 7 2007, 10:30 AM

[Panama_Pete]

I watched that 2004 3abn Campmeeting program again just a few months ago. Nick also stood on the platform and sang with many leaders. It looked like he struggled a bit with the song. This is a strong indication that he probably isn't a very talented singer on top of being a bouncer, so I suppose that might even add to making the case that the email might not qualify as a matter of attorney-client priviledge. Hmmm, wonder if he ever taught the Sabbath School lesson? Would it be helpful for me to go check that out?

If there is anything in that Sabbath School lesson about threatening people with arrest if they do not leave the premises, then by all means, we should probably check it out to know for sure.

[Artiste]

If there is anything in that Sabbath School lesson about threatening people with arrest if they do not leave the premises, then by all means, we should probably check it out to know for sure.

Good point, Pete!



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

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 7 2007, 10:46 AM

[no_cults]

That's fine.

Although I have very limited understanding of the law.... it appears
to me that you may have done Nick a favor.

Could this be a favor that he asked for? Please don't answer.