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

[runner4him]

Nope. Not true. We already knew something like this had happened to him, we just didn't know his side. He's a smart lawyer, he'd never have written something that could jeopardize his license. The only thing that was jeopardized was his "gentlemen's agreement" with 3ABN after Danny ran him off, and I agree it's too bad it's still available.
Nobody's offended, but just because the guys make a mistake doesn't mean they're completely untrustworthy. Of course, I wouldn't send them anything I wouldn't want posted on the Internet, but then I wouldn't send something like that to you. Or anyone on these boards. Or members of my own family. Are they over the top sometimes? Yes. I don't agree with everything they do, but I trust their ultimate motives.

Anyway, the e-mail was a matter of public record. That doesn't mean it should be on save3abn.com anymore than ... other things should be on the Internet. But they are. I believe there's some reasoning behind the posting of Miller's letter that hasn't been revealed yet, and while I think they should take it off their site for the sake of goodwill and avoiding bad appearances, I think we'll eventually see another POV on this.

Good points.....I agree....I would not send anyone anything I did not want posted on the internet and especially with the plaintiffs asking for Pickle and Joy's hard drives. That is the whole point of asking for the hard drives to uncover the identities of those who have sent info to them. It is all about harrassment, suing, threats, silencing people, and on and on. I trust their motives too and believe that they will try to protect all of us as much as is possible. I do not think they are over the top but some who have written to them are a little over the top. They have published some strong letters but they did not write them.

[Clay]

the fact remains.... they didn't get permission, they just posted it.... that action is quite telling for folks who would consider themselves to be on a righteous mission.....

I am done with it...... moving on.....

[Fstpicker]

Clay, I feel that you have raised some valid questions here...questions that have bothered me as well. I'm not sure I know what to make of it all, either.

Jeff

This post has been edited by Fstpicker: Aug 11 2007, 05:53 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

You'd think that at a good SDA site like this one there would be some Millerites.

[beartrap]

You'd think that at a good SDA site like this one there would be some Millerites.

-edited to exclude humor regarding something that not many good SDAs drink.-

This post has been edited by beartrap: Aug 13 2007, 01:17 AM

[Rosyroi]

-edited to exclude humor regarding something that not many good SDAs drink.-

----------edited for content---- some silliness get's too far off topic----

Rosyroi

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Aug 13 2007, 01:07 PM

[Panama_Pete]

Clay, I feel that you have raised some valid questions here...questions that have bothered me as well. I'm not sure I know what to make of it all, either.

Jeff

Nick Miller was Danny Shelton's attorney in 2004, not a naïve witness on the sidelines who just happened to write an e-mail. Metaphorically speaking, that Nick Miller email is a smoking gun. Why try to hide the gun? And for whom?


Let's retrace this a bit.

Walt Thompson, 3ABN Board Chair said in one of his letters:

"….In order to make a thorough, fair and independent review of the
matter, I convened a fact-finding committee of well-known Adventists
who are not employees of 3ABN. The committee consisted of myself;
William Hulsey, a businessman and mayor of Collegedale, Tennessee;
and Kay Kuzma, author and family issues expert. We were counseled in
our deliberations and review by Nicholas Miller, an Adventist
attorney associated with a major national law firm…."

That was 2004 and Nicholas Miller was a central figure.

Move forward to 2005 to the purported Nicholas Miller email:


"Well, I'm not that kind of lawyer, so I didn't back off, and his brother-in-law took my billing records, modified them without my knowledge, and sent them with a report to the board members claiming that I had billed for services that had not been requested by management. It was an odd charge, as I submitted detailed bills every month, and management signed off on the bills, and knew exactly what I was doing. This related to bills that had been happily paid more than a year earlier. But in any event, Danny beat me to the punch with the larger board, and of course I needed to raise the other financial and operational concerns to explain why Danny was accusing me of this. The board was not interested in the details of either of our accusations, they did not ask to see the billing records, they did not ask to view the evidence underlying my accusations."

In retrospect, I think the board was equally "not interested" in both the Nick Miller evidence and the Linda Shelton evidence.

So, in good conscience, how can you choose to hide something like that from the general public? Would you leave a woman under the shadow of suspicion simply because you wanted to spare the plaintiff's attorney the printing of their email? In the minds of many, Linda Shelton is still considered an adulteress due to evidence that may likely have come from the same people as those modified billing statements.

Why should Gailon Joy give Nicholas Miller some form of diplomatic immunity -- hiding Nick's email in the diplomat's pouch-- especially after Nick has served as one of the active attorneys and board members of the plaintiff who is now suing Joy? That's nuts.

[Artiste]

In retrospect, I think the board was equally "not interested" in both the Nick Miller evidence and the Linda Shelton evidence.

So, in good conscience, how can you choose to hide something like that from the general public? Would you leave a woman under the shadow of suspicion simply because you wanted to spare the plaintiff's attorney the printing of their email? In the minds of many, Linda Shelton is still considered an adulteress due to evidence that may likely have come from the same people as those modified billing statements.

Why should Gailon Joy give Nicholas Miller some form of diplomatic immunity -- hiding Nick's email in the diplomat's pouch--especially after Nick has served as one of the active attorneys and board members of the plaintiff who is now suing Joy?

Very good point, Panama Pete!

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

This post has been edited by Artiste: Aug 13 2007, 03:03 PM

[Clay]

Why should Gailon Joy give Nicholas Miller some form of diplomatic immunity -- hiding Nick's email in the diplomat's pouch-- especially after Nick has served as one of the active attorneys and board members of the plaintiff who is now suing Joy? That's nuts.

Because Joy and Pickle supposedly have truth on their side, so they need not resort to these kinds of tactics to "win" a case....

[ex3ABNemployee]

Because Joy and Pickle supposedly have truth on their side, so they need not resort to these kinds of tactics to "win" a case....

I understand your point, Clay, but how do you feel about me posting the email from Tommy. I didn't have his permission, either. I felt it was necessary and relevant to the current discussion.

I don't think Bob or Gailon posted that email maliciously.

[Clay]

I understand your point, Clay, but how do you feel about me posting the email from Tommy. I didn't have his permission, either. I felt it was necessary and relevant to the current discussion.

I don't think Bob or Gailon posted that email maliciously.

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.
-- Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil.

[watchbird]

I understand your point, Clay, but how do you feel about me posting the email from Tommy. I didn't have his permission, either. I felt it was necessary and relevant to the current discussion.

I don't think Bob or Gailon posted that email maliciously.

I think it was right for you to post supporting evidence for your story, ex.....

It wsn't Bob who posted the email... and as for Gailon.... there's a whole bunch that hasn't been told on that story.... I think we would all do better to be content to wait until we learn "the rest of the story" before we pass judgement on what should or shouldn't have been done in that case.

[PeacefulBe]

I understand your point, Clay, but how do you feel about me posting the email from Tommy. I didn't have his permission, either. I felt it was necessary and relevant to the current discussion.

I don't think Bob or Gailon posted that email maliciously.

Duane,

First, there was nothing in the email from Tommy that asked you to keep the communication confidential. Second, the subject of Tommy's email directly pertained to his manipulation and abuse of you those years before. Had it been, instead, an email about someone mistreating him in some way, it would not have been appropriate for you have it posted for public display without his express permission. His email confession to you was most certainly necessary and relevant to what was being discussed. As I have said numerous times, I am so thankful that you did take the bold step to allow that email to be posted. Look at the strength you have gained because of it!

I don't know that anyone has characterized Bob and Gailon's posting of Nick Miller's email as malicious. Certainly I and others feel that it was unethical to do so without his express permission, due to Nick's request for the email not to be widely distributed as well as the nature of the content of the letter. Was it truly so necessary to the current discussion to post it without permission rather than wait for a little while until it became a matter of public record? Did the ends justify the means?

PB

[justice4jesus]

Just a thought on the issue of Pickle and Joy posting information without permission. In fact, let's look at a (sort of) different situation and make comparisons. Suppose a person shares with you concrete evidence of an individual who repeatedly drives drunk, beats his wife, sells drugs or what have you. This person has photos, documents and all sorts of things to back up the allegations. Being one who desires order in society, you take this matter to the local police. One small "problem"....the person who shared the evidence with you did not give you permission to share it with the police. Now, you did what you did out of your desire for justice and general order, but are you still in the wrong for sharing the evidence without permission? Is that really relevant in such a situation? If no one says anything, then this guy continues to drive drunk and other drivers remain in danger, he continues to beat his wife and she remains in fear for her life, he continues to sell drugs and new and experienced addicts, and society in general, continue their downward spiral, or whatever the situation. Is it acceptable for injustice and societal decay to continue until you get "permission" to share the evidence? I don't buy that! The aforementioned situation is, of course, totally hypothetical, but the message is there, and it would be extremely difficult to miss it.

[Clay]

Just a thought on the issue of Pickle and Joy posting information without permission. In fact, let's look at a (sort of) different situation and make comparisons. Suppose a person shares with you concrete evidence of an individual who repeatedly drives drunk, beats his wife, sells drugs or what have you. This person has photos, documents and all sorts of things to back up the allegations. Being one who desires order in society, you take this matter to the local police. One small "problem"....the person who shared the evidence with you did not give you permission to share it with the police. Now, you did what you did out of your desire for justice and general order, but are you still in the wrong for sharing the evidence without permission? Is that really relevant in such a situation? If no one says anything, then this guy continues to drive drunk and other drivers remain in danger, he continues to beat his wife and she remains in fear for her life, he continues to sell drugs and new and experienced addicts, and society in general, continue their downward spiral, or whatever the situation. Is it acceptable for injustice and societal decay to continue until you get "permission" to share the evidence? I don't buy that! The aforementioned situation is, of course, totally hypothetical, but the message is there, and it would be extremely difficult to miss it.

Then have the decency to tell the person who shared with you the information that you cannot and will not keep it to yourself that you must report it. In fact in some cases it would be good to let the person know that there are some things that they might want to share with you that you will report, and you tell them that before they tell you so that they can decide if they want to share anything with you......

That would be the ethical thing to do......