The Beginning Of The End For Danny Shelton?, From AT - Options

[PeacefulBe]

The problem is, the pornography in question was not suggested to be DirectTV programming... companies such as Lodgenet Entertainment make their money on the internet and in the direct to DVD market... so his standing with Liberty Media, Fox Entertainment or News Corporation does not preclude his having an interest in a company that markets fare to those seeking "adult entertainment"... and given the pattern of behavior seen to date in the overall, it would not surprise me if he were in fact the Larry Romnell in question and his other entanglements would be glossed over in a New York minute because all they can see is the possible end of 3ABN on DirectTV... and we all know the end justifies the means, n'est-ce pas?In His service,
Mr. J

Oui. C'est vrais...

[Snoopy]

Why Snoopy, sounds like you have been doing your research! I think you may be wise beyond your years.

Oh yes, wise PB!! Much research. I am a huge proponent of transparency. Shouldn't all of this just be laid bare for all to see???

~~Snoopy~~

[Snoopy]

I talked with Doug personally at ASI. The statement you have made above contains no truth. It must be your opinion. I also talked with several high ranking members of ASI. Again what you say is wrong. They told me they support Danny Shelton and 3abn 100% and proved it by their financial contributions. I pointed out in another post the Conference officials that have been on 3abn programs and were having fellowship at ASI with several of the 3abn team including Danny. The information I share here came directly (from the horse's mouth) as they say. I am sorry for those who would rather believe rumor and 2nd and 3rd hand information instead of what I was told directly and saw with my own eyes.

....hopefully they got a receipt...

[SoulEspresso]

The things that I shared are facts as things stand presently. All the things that you said, are opinion and speculation.

Sister's posts were provocative but unfortunately she couldn't provide direct documentation because she needed to remain anonymous. That's her choice, as it is yours. Her POV, however, gained credibility when other people posted original documents and named, eyewitness accounts. The strength or weakness of your POV, appletree, depends on whether you or someone you know are able to supply these. You, too, are free to remain anonymous, but until we see documentation, or at least see some of your predictions fulfilled, forgive us for our skepticism.

One thing I would like to point out. AF did NOT turn down the merger. You don't have to take my word for it. Doug will be making a public statement concerning those "wrong" allegations. As far as the conference not getting "near" them, from what I see on 3abn programming with many conference officials and from what I saw personally at ASI there are plenty of conference members getting up close and personal with those at 3abn.

See above. We'll look forward to Doug's public statement.

I believe if Danny wanted a new CEO for 3abn's financial situation he would have put that into action some time ago. I will explain why I say this. At the present time 3 board members have been and will be added to the board. All 3 of the new people could take care of 3abn financially for an indefinite period of time without making a dent in their own finances. In other words, things are shaping up well with financial support for 3abn so why hire someone now for that purpose?

Fair enough. Does this mean 3ABN won't have to do any more fundraising rallies? That would be really great, they could concentrate on spreading the gospel.

Pickle & Joy (Maybe I should just say Joy as Pickle didn't add to the conversation) already offered to close their site if 3abn merged with AF. Now that the dynamics could not be worked out I would guess that the same offer would go if there is a new CEO. I believe they would take whatever "out" they could and still save face.

Bob? Care to comment further?

Every court date just confirms that they are ill equipped to deal with a suit of this magnitude.

Would you characterize it as "bumbling and fumbling"? Again, see above on documentation.

I wasn't aware that there was verified documentation of child molestation, other than the statement by Brad Dunning that, if corroborated, would certainly qualify since the state of IL considers one 17 or under a child. That being said, what will Mr. Romrell's position be to verify or refute allegations against TS for instances of pastoral sexual abuse, like that verified by his confession to Duane Clem. Doesn't it make sense to verify or refute these, as well as any of the allegations that Danny Shelton used his position of power to intimidate alleged victims, so ALL can move on with their lives?

Seems like this would be a good subject to either verify or refute once and for all.

For the love of heaven, yes!

There are child molestation allegations arising out of the documentation of Brad Dunning and Roger Clem. Plus, I've talked to four other alleged victims whom I believe were all under 18 at the time. One claims to have been 8.

What a tragedy. We look forward to documentation at the proper time.

I've found you to be truthful so far, good sir.

Moses struck the rock in anger. In comparison, what has Danny done? More? Less?

One thing we can all agree on is that Danny is suing Bob and Gailon. This is a fact.

The issues could have been kept out of court if all parties could have agreed to a hearing by an ASI panel. Bob and Gailon have asserted that the negotiations broke down because Danny and 3ABN wanted to limit the discussion to Danny's divorce and remarriage, and because they wanted a closed hearing with no records produced for the public. Appletree, would you characterize this as correct or incorrect, and if incorrect, could you supply us with a correct interpretation? More importantly, would you care to comment on the lawsuit in light of scripture (1 Cor 1:1-6) and other inspired counsel (3SM 299-304 by E.G. White)?

I think I can speak for most of the world when I say "There is none, no not one that that stands sinless before God at this present time." Everyone IMO has committed wrongs at some time in their lives.

Christ came that we may "recover" from our sins and mistakes and move forward. None of us deserve that mercy, but, he freely gives it. He expects us to do the same. That means we do not hold anyone's sins or mistakes over their heads and bring in our verdicts as to whether they have or have not confessed it before God.

So to answer your question simply, everyone is guilty of something. By God's grace and mercy we do not have to remain that way.

But here's the trouble, appletree. Most of us believe that public sin needs to be publicly repented of. You didn't answer the question.

Appletree, Could you please answer the following question for me I am very very interested to hear what you say. Do you think Danny is guilty of any wrong? Do you think that all the allegations against Tommy are false? Do you think all said here on this forum is all a lie?

We respectfully await a reply to mystery-man's most pertinent questions. I would add, is all the documented evidence on save3abn.com a lie?

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

[Pickle]

Bob? Care to comment further?

Probably I need to wait until they make their offer to settle, and we then respond and make our offer. Deadline August 31, 2007.

But think carefully through everything, and you might be able to guess what sort of settlement I might feel comfortable with in order to "save face."

Bob and Gailon have asserted that the negotiations broke down because Danny and 3ABN wanted to limit the discussion to Danny's divorce and remarriage, and because they wanted a closed hearing with no records produced for the public.

Not quite. While limiting the discussion was extremely objectionable in my mind, given Danny's stated agenda and the underhanded way the limiting was done, Gailon was willing to live with it. The sticking point was that Gailon then wanted to deal with the other issues in other ways since ASI had declined to do so, and Harold would have none of that.

But while that was Harold's sticking point, ours were mainly two: a) Total secrecy regarding the evidence, and b ) Only the "judges" would be allowed to ask questions of the witnesses.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Aug 10 2007, 12:21 PM

[SoulEspresso]

Thanks for clarifying, Bob.

Appletree?

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 10 2007, 12:18 PM

[justice4jesus]

Did I give that impression? If so, I apologize. I think I can speak for most of the world when I say "There is none, no not one that that stands sinless before God at this present time." Everyone IMO has committed wrongs at some time in their lives. Everyone has things they wish they had not done or they would have liked to have handled differently. Everyone has "skeletons" in their closet. Does this mean that we to this day we are not christians? That we will be absent from God's kingdom? Absolutely not. Christ asks us for repentance when we have done wrong. When we confess it, he is faithful and just to forgive. He tells us to then go forward with a clean heart. The whole concept of christianity is based on forgiveness & love. Where we get confused is when we try to judge whether someone is repentant or not. We try to decide if they have met our "criteria" for what we deem acceptable justice and repentance. We cannot put ourselves in that position. Next time you are at church, look to your right and left. You will be looking at people who have sin in their past. If you knew what those sins were, some may trivial to you while others may seem catastrophic. But, here they sit, listening to the sermon, singing the hymns and appearing to lead christian lives. That's because they are. Christ came that we may "recover" from our sins and mistakes and move forward. None of us deserve that mercy, but, he freely gives it. He expects us to do the same. That means we do not hold anyone's sins or mistakes over their heads and bring in our verdicts as to whether they have or have not confessed it before God.
So to answer your question simply, everyone is guilty of something. By God's grace and mercy we do not have to remain that way.



Which could be interpreted, "Well, yeah....but....but..he/she did it, too!"

[appletree]

Probably I need to wait until they make their offer to settle, and we then respond and make our offer. Deadline August 31, 2007.

But think carefully through everything, and you might be able to guess what sort of settlement I might feel comfortable with in order to "save face."

Dear Friend,
Am I reading your post correctly? You need to wait until they make their offer to settle??? I just want to see if I understand the situation as you are presenting it.
3abn has filed a lawsuit against you and Mr. Joy for slander, copyright infringment and several other things. It is the job of their attorney's to prove that what you have put on your internet site has damaged the ministry and the characters of those that work there. It is the job of you Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy to defend yourselves by showing reasons as well as proof to justify your actions. In doing so, both sides get all tangled up with discovery and depositions but let's go straight to the bottom line. If 3abn wins your side will be forced to make restitutions in one way or another. If 3abn loses, you can keep your site going.
So, how and why would 3abn offer you a settlement when they are the one's sueing. I believe you have it backwards. If anyone makes an offer to settle it would be your side. Why would 3abn go to the time, trouble and expense to sue someone and then offer to give THEM cash or some other kind of settlement? If they were going to offer you money or anything else to leave them alone, they would have tried that before filing a suit. Not afterwards.
This is not an insurance case where they make an offer and you make a counter offer. You are being called into accountability for your actions. The concessions do not come from the 3abn side.

[Observer]

Bob and Gailon have asserted that the negotiations broke down because Danny and 3ABN wanted to limit the discussion to Danny's divorce and remarriage, and because they wanted a closed hearing with no records produced for the public.

Not quite. While limiting the discussion was extremely objectionable in my mind, given Danny's stated agenda and the underhanded way the limiting was done, Gailon was willing to live with it. The sticking point was that Gailon then wanted to deal with the other issues in other ways since ASI had declined to do so, and Harold would have none of that.

But while that was Harold's sticking point, ours were mainly two: a) Total secrecy regarding the evidence, and b ) Only the "judges" would be allowed to ask questions of the witnesses.

I was one of the three that negotiated with Harold Lance of ASI. The reasons for the breakdown, in my opinion are complex, and multi-faceted. Anything that I might say, or anyone else, is only part of the picture.

I have some experience in "mediation" and "arbitration" as practiced on the Federal level. Some of that I have gained following the breakdown in the discussions with ASI. So, I am not in exactly the same place today as I was when those discussions were going on in which I participated.

1) One example of an issue is the unilateral decision of ASI to pull out of the discussions. It is not appropriate for a party who is attempting to mediate to break off the discussions. The function of the mediator is to bring people to a point of common agreement. If that cannot be reached, then one of the involved parties will break off the discussions. I have participated in mediation agreements on the Federal level where that happened. But, the mediator does not unilaterally break off the discussions. You see, functionally, the mediator is not associated with either party. The mediator does not have an investment in either side. The mediator attempts bring the opposing parties to a common agreement, whatever that may be, on whatever points may be agreed upon.

2) There is an exception to the above. Professional mediators and arbitrators have certain minimumn standards. Those standards are published on the Internet If a party refuses to abide by those standards, the mediation never begins. In those cases, the mediator simply pulls out.

3) The Federal standards for mediation and for arbitration differ. There is a proceedure where total secrecy exists, and nothing in the process may be used in litgation. Under that standard, secrecy and the inability to use in litigation may be enforced by the courts. There is also other standards which do not require secrecy, and may have greater access to the courts.

As I personallly evaulate what Harold Lance presented to us, I do not see that fitting nicely into either catagory. In other words, I do not see his proposed plan fitting nicely into the proceedure that provided for total secrecy. The consequence of that perception of mine is that the mediators job should have been to bring the two sides to a common agreement on secrecy, and not to attempt to impose secrecy upon the parties. Perhaps the mediator could not have done so. In that case, it would have been one of the parties who pulled out of the discussions, and not the party (ASI) who wanted to mediate.

4) Harold Lance and I agreed that a number of the issues could not be resolved by the ASI panel. He and I agreed that the ASI panel could only resolve a very limited number of issues. I was willing to go forward on those issues. In return for my agreement, I wanted a public statement that other issues could only be resolved outside of the ASI panel, and that therefore no criticism should be made of people who might seek to resolve those issues by other means, namely litigation. I never recieved any kind of a response from Harold Lance as to whether or not he would agree to such.

Folks, there is much more that I could say in regard to the failure to mediate by ASI. Harold Lance failed to recognize the way Bob, Gailon, and I were relating to each other, and on behalf of Linda. We (to include me) raised valid, important issues that Mr. Lance never responded to. The reality, in my mind, is that ASI pulled out without really discussing important issues. One very important issue is "conflict of interest." This is an issue in every ethical mediation/arbitration. Such questions must be answered before mediation/arbitration can go forward. Such questions are typical. Questions on this issue were raised, and in my opinon, summarily dismissed. NOTE: I am not saying that conflict of interest existed. I am saying that such questions were summarily dismissed. I will suggest that any such valid issues could have been resolved if ASI had been willing to deal with them. But, as they were summarily dismissed, in my opinon, we will never know.

Well, enough for now, and just a brief comment.

This post has been edited by Observer: Aug 10 2007, 01:20 PM

[mikell]

Dear Friend,
Am I reading your post correctly? You need to wait until they make their offer to settle??? I just want to see if I understand the situation as you are presenting it.
3abn has filed a lawsuit against you and Mr. Joy for slander, copyright infringment and several other things. It is the job of their attorney's to prove that what you have put on your internet site has damaged the ministry and the characters of those that work there. It is the job of you Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy to defend yourselves by showing reasons as well as proof to justify your actions. In doing so, both sides get all tangled up with discovery and depositions but let's go straight to the bottom line. If 3abn wins your side will be forced to make restitutions in one way or another. If 3abn loses, you can keep your site going.
So, how and why would 3abn offer you a settlement when they are the one's sueing. I believe you have it backwards. If anyone makes an offer to settle it would be your side. Why would 3abn go to the time, trouble and expense to sue someone and then offer to give THEM cash or some other kind of settlement? If they were going to offer you money or anything else to leave them alone, they would have tried that before filing a suit. Not afterwards.
This is not an insurance case where they make an offer and you make a counter offer. You are being called into accountability for your actions. The concessions do not come from the 3abn side.

Why should 3ABN sue n the first place, ever heard of what Jesus said, "To forgive?" "Turn the other cheek?" Is not that how a real Christian should re-act?
Oh, maybe it is good to be like a Ghengis Kahn is the way a Christian should handle being “wronged!” That is to kill, kill and kill! Ha, even the ACLU has not SUED, those responsible for the web site, of http://www.savetheaclu.com site. What, the ungodly ACLU is more compassionate then the “Godly” Danny Shelton? If I understand how the ACLU works, they love to sue everyone!

This post has been edited by mikell: Aug 10 2007, 01:43 PM

[Observer]

Dear Friend,
Am I reading your post correctly? You need to wait until they make their offer to settle??? I just want to see if I understand the situation as you are presenting it.
3abn has filed a lawsuit against you and Mr. Joy for slander, copyright infringment and several other things. It is the job of their attorney's to prove that what you have put on your internet site has damaged the ministry and the characters of those that work there. It is the job of you Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy to defend yourselves by showing reasons as well as proof to justify your actions. In doing so, both sides get all tangled up with discovery and depositions but let's go straight to the bottom line. If 3abn wins your side will be forced to make restitutions in one way or another. If 3abn loses, you can keep your site going.
So, how and why would 3abn offer you a settlement when they are the one's sueing. I believe you have it backwards. If anyone makes an offer to settle it would be your side. Why would 3abn go to the time, trouble and expense to sue someone and then offer to give THEM cash or some other kind of settlement? If they were going to offer you money or anything else to leave them alone, they would have tried that before filing a suit. Not afterwards.
This is not an insurance case where they make an offer and you make a counter offer. You are being called into accountability for your actions. The concessions do not come from the 3abn side.

Why should 3-ABN make an offer to settle? That reason is very simple, and happens often by parties who instigate litigation. Competent lawyers know that no matter how good thier case is, they cannot predict either the ruling of a judge, or a decision of a jury, in all of its aspects. They seek for a negotiated settlement by which they will gain some relief/satisfaction, and stop the hemmorage of funds spent on billable lawyer fees.

No, this does not have to be an insurance case. It is in the interests of 3-ABN to reach an out-of-court settlement, if that can be done. So, why should not they propose a common basis for settlement that will give them some sort of relief, and be acceptable to the other side.

This post has been edited by Observer: Aug 10 2007, 01:27 PM

[appletree]

....hopefully they got a receipt...

I thought that by coming here and sharing some facts it would help all around squelch rumors and speculation. I assumed that the members here would like to know some first hand information. Whether you like that information or not, should have no bearing on the facts being told. I was wrong in my assumptions. You not only do not appreciate it, you insinuate I came here to feed you false information. I am wondering what would be the point in that? How would it help me to tell you Shelley Quinn is not in the running for president if she was? Why would I tell you lies about the conversations I had at ASI and what I saw with my own eyes? How would it benefit me or 3abn when we all know the truth comes out eventually. You want first hand information, I have given you some. You have wanted facts, I have given you some of those also. All have been rebuffed because it is not what you want to hear. Had I come here and said that I talked with Doug at ASI and he wanted nothing to do with 3abn, my post would have been accepted without question. Had I said that Danny was being forced to find a new CEO, no validation of my statement would have been required. Had I said that Danny was ignored by conference officials instead of just the opposite, I would not have been ask for some kind of verification. You have made it very plain. You do not want any facts here that uphold 3abn or puts them in a different light than what you have read here.

[SoulEspresso]

I thought that by coming here and sharing some facts it would help all around squelch rumors and speculation. I assumed that the members here would like to know some first hand information. Whether you like that information or not, should have no bearing on the facts being told. I was wrong in my assumptions. You not only do not appreciate it, you insinuate I came here to feed you false information. I am wondering what would be the point in that? How would it help me to tell you Shelley Quinn is not in the running for president if she was? Why would I tell you lies about the conversations I had at ASI and what I saw with my own eyes? How would it benefit me or 3abn when we all know the truth comes out eventually. You want first hand information, I have given you some. You have wanted facts, I have given you some of those also.

Appletree, please ... ... Are you trying to willfully misunderstand? It's not that we don't believe you, it's that there's no way for you to document these things without identifying yourself. We're not asking you to do that! The bottom line is that Pickle & Joy have offered evidence of their charges, and 3ABN has not responded in kind. They sued instead and have been demanding total secrecy.

We would love to see Danny & Co. exonerated, but right now none of us have seen evidence that they can be. Simply for you to come on here and say these things, doesn't mean you've offered evidence any more than sister has. You're one more anonymous account.

All have been rebuffed because it is not what you want to hear. Had I come here and said that I talked with Doug at ASI and he wanted nothing to do with 3abn, my post would have been accepted without question. Had I said that Danny was being forced to find a new CEO, no validation of my statement would have been required. Had I said that Danny was ignored by conference officials instead of just the opposite, I would not have been ask for some kind of verification. You have made it very plain. You do not want any facts here that uphold 3abn or puts them in a different light than what you have read here.

Incorrect. If you have read widely on these threads, you know that without names and dates and documentation, nobody here believes anything.

We want our church to come out strong and growing in faith and in numbers. We want the cause of Christ's reputation protected. We want people to know the Lord, whether that's through personal evangelism or public media like 3ABN or Hope or AF . In other words, if all this is one big fat misunderstanding, we'd want to know about it.

But it needs documentation. It won't happen with mere assertions and counterclaims. So far, that's all you've had to offer.

We need evidence. You don't have to provide it, but then don't feel sad if we ignore what you have to say.



This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 10 2007, 02:00 PM

[awesumtenor]

3abn has filed a lawsuit against you and Mr. Joy for slander, copyright infringment and several other things.

This, being common knowledge and a matter of public record, is not in dispute.

It is the job of their attorney's to prove that what you have put on your internet site has damaged the ministry and the characters of those that work there.

Not quite. The have to prove what is on the website is first untrue. Telling an ugly truth of a public figure is not slander... nor is it actionable... it is commonly called journalism. The crux of their burden of proof is to prove it false... then they can prove any damage done.

It is the job of you Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy to defend yourselves by showing reasons as well as proof to justify your actions.

Are you only recently come to America, Bro. Tree? ( As an aside, your last name wouldnt be Applebaum by chance would it? A rhetorical question; I neither desire nor require an answer but knowing would give another glimpse into your thinking... but I digress) In America, one is innocent until proven guilty... as such, Pickle and Joy need not defend themselves at all and if, after DS et al have presented their case, the judge, if his estimation such a decision is warranted, could still find their allegation without merit without Pickle and Joy's having presented a word in their own defense. They have no burden of proof... but I am sure the ends the seek are better served if they do offer a defense and if they do cross examine DS' witnesses and depose them during discovery etc... but you cannot confuse their choosing to do so with their being obligated to do so.

In doing so, both sides get all tangled up with discovery and depositions but let's go straight to the bottom line. If 3abn wins your side will be forced to make restitutions in one way or another. If 3abn loses, you can keep your site going.

This suit is not about keeping a website going. It is about putting the actions of Danny and the Dannyclones on public display and on the public record, no matter how sordid. If the stakes were as petty as you attempt to paint them, Pickle and Joy would not have taken up the gauntlet as they have.

So, how and why would 3abn offer you a settlement when they are the one's sueing. I believe you have it backwards. If anyone makes an offer to settle it would be your side. Why would 3abn go to the time, trouble and expense to sue someone and then offer to give THEM cash or some other kind of settlement? If they were going to offer you money or anything else to leave them alone, they would have tried that before filing a suit. Not afterwards.
This is not an insurance case where they make an offer and you make a counter offer. You are being called into accountability for your actions. The concessions do not come from the 3abn side.

That door swings both ways... and if, after seeing that something so scandalous and/or possibly criminal would become part of the record through the discovery process or through direct testimony or on cross examination, Danny would be desperate to settle the issue without any overt acknowledgement of guilt or wrongdoing on his part. Because Pickle and Joy are all in, they have little or nothing left to lose... Danny, OTOH, is not yet "all in"; as such in an effort to keep the rest of his chips, it is very feasible that an offer could be made to try to convince Pickle and Joy to not let the case take the course it will take because Danny still has much much more to lose. the irony is, Danny being called into accountability for his actions it is that accountability and the public divulgence and admission of the things for which he should be held accountable that brought on the suit in the first place.

Maybe you should ruminate on this thing a bit more, Bro. Tree; you are missing the forest for the trees...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

That door swings both ways... and if, after seeing that something so scandalous and/or possibly criminal would become part of the record through the discovery process or through direct testimony or on cross examination, Danny would be desperate to settle the issue without any overt acknowledgement of guilt or wrongdoing on his part.

What should I say if that comes up? What would you say? What do you think I would say? Should we take a poll?