Letter From Gailon Joy Options

[Ozzie]

are you also rationalizing the release of the Miller letter vs them asking him if his conditions had been met and then releasing it?

No. That was not my main point Clay. My point is that people are human and do what they think best, albeit at times that is not what others think. No more No less. And... we all make mistakes in our judgements at times.

I KNOW that there are times when I'm wearing one of my various 'hats', that there is stuff I can reveal and other stuff that can't be brought out - for various reasons. There is nothing malicious about my intent, but privacy and confidetiality dictate that I cannot share certain information with other people - at that particular time, or at any other time; whatever the case. I have had people get 'shirty' with me over this, but there are times when stuff is on a 'need to know basis'.

Just want to mention why I embolden everything I type, while I'm at it. Coz of my poor eyesight, I have difficulty seeing some things, so I embolden everything I type. Easier for me to see, when I need to edit anything! Drats!

[Rosyroi]

It will reveal for all to see? Hmmm... I wonder why Danny wanted it impounded then?

Wasen't there a second request for impoundment? Hmmm.... clarification, transparency, truthfullness comming out or closed and hidden?

JMHO

Rosyroi

[SoulEspresso]

Also the game of pretending to be "reporters" as a means to try and hide behind the same rights/privileges that a true credentialed reporter maintains is also disingenuous. By their logic anyone can send out mass emails and then claim to have the rights and privileges that true reporters carry.

I used to be a reporter. How would you define a "true credentialed reporter"? Who would issue such credentials? Are you aware of the 1st Amendment issues this brings up?

As for what you wrote about Gailon's embezzlement convictions, that's already been published by our friends at 3ABN, and they were free to do so even if it was deliberately misleading.

The law suit, like it or not, agree with it or not, should reveal for all to see the truth and then each will need to decide how they will have acquitted themselves during this experience.

You and I agree on this, then.

[SoulEspresso]

It is not our place to demand repentance, public confession and reformation. That is the job of the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit calls for this then we warn against grieving that Spirit and do believe it would be most cathartic if done properly.

The reason I brought up public confession in the other thread was that the church at large 1) needs to know what's been going on and 2) that everyone in question knows it was wrong. The church has a habit and a problem of sweeping things under an increasingly-bumpy rug.

Gailon is quite right to say that the reality of repentance and reformation is an inner thing. But it doesn't strike me that certain leaders of 3ABN are open to the Holy Spirit right now, so hopefully bringing it all to light will help with that.

[appletree]

[color="#ff8c00"][b]I write to Gailon often, upon discussing some things, he replied to my one of my emails with this response, and I decided I wanted to share it with my bsda family and friends, lurkers and anyone that reads here. Maybe it will help with some questions that others might wonder about, or others who would like a bigger insight in to some details of how things come to be. In any case, if you are interested, this is his comments on the "MicroEvolution" of the DS Shelton mess, and how when a man's journey begins by looking in to some things, it turns in to much more then was expected, and soon begins to uncover what has turned out to be not only deeply dissapointing, but also something that I feel christians, and maybe even SDA's especially, can learn something from. My prayer has always been that God wake up His people everywhere, and sometimes it takes something huge to get His children to open their eyes, learn and become prepared for even bigger things to come, God help us all.

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

It should be noted that all of the above from Gailon Joy's letter is why he is being sued. It seems he taken for a fool by some bitter people that have vowed revenge. The information that he either was supplied or that he made up is false. If all of this info was not false then why would Danny and 3ABN sue he and Pickle? Is anyone thinking?
If Gailon was telling the truth on his save3ABN page Danny and 3ABN would be stupid to sue them. Why? The last thing Danny and 3ABN would want is to have a court of law confirm all the allegations! Even self proclaimed investigators have to provide absolute proof of allegations. He/she told me this happened and others backed it up, does not qualify as proof in Federal court. Signed emails or letters by someone alleging that so and so did this or that does not qualify as proof in Federal court. Because Pickle or Joy testifies that "someone" close to the situation told them.....does not qualify as proof in Federal court. Because Linda told them that Danny did thus and so does not qualify as proof in a Federal Court. On the other hand, 3ABN can provide financial documents, tax records, receipts, cancelled checks, audit records and testimony from qualified church officials, board members and other credited personell that can and will refute the accusations that have been made against 3ABN.
Let us take just one accusation and examine it. How many times have we read rumor, innuendo and actual statements saying that Danny had Brandy waiting in the wings and got rid of Linda for that purpose. If that were true, that would be so easy to prove with phone records, travel records (for those secret meetings) credit card statements, and I'm sure more ways that I haven't thought of. Where is verafiable proof to back up this accusation? There has been nothing whatsoever brought forth from the Pickle Joy team. The good Lord knows if they had it, it would be out there. They don't have it because it doesn't exist. It is a lie. My list could go on and on but surely after what was done to Nick Miller and to how many others we haven't heard about yet, our eyes have to be opened.
The lies have indeed hurt the church. Yes, the entire church not just 3ABN.
This is also why the main, no name contributors of lies and allegations on bsda and the other forums will also be brought to justice. In my opinion they have not only sinned in the eyes of God but have even sinned against the laws of the land!
They have falsely felt secure surrounded by mob mentality where they can write anything they want without taking personal responsibility for their lies and inuendos. One of the advantages of Federal court is that all the "secret players" will be made known and be held accountable for what they have done. The bible says "Be sure your sins will find you out". They will no longer be able to hide, but will be facing 3ABN attorneys across a table having to answer tough questions under oath. This is a very serious situation to be in. Some have ignorantly proclaimed, "Well, they can't sue everyone". It is my understanding that 3ABN doesn't need to sue everyone. One suit can still bring all the offenders into accountability. And yes, people can still be held accountable even if they live in places like Iceland for intstance.
It seems the readers of bsda have already gotten a taste of how quickly they will be sold out by Gailon to save his own skin. He sees the handwriting on the wall and appears to be leaking sources like he tried to do with Nick Miller to clear himself of any wrong doing by printing what others have confidentially given him. It should also be noted that when the truth came out, Nick claims that Gailon took his statements out of context. In fact, from the way I read Nicks letter he seemed very favorable of 3ABN's governing body! Nick is certainly not the first that claims his words were twisted.
I believe that Gailon wants out, but he wants to save face. That's why I have the feeling he will be making more statements saying "if 3ABN does this or that" he will drop this case. There is only one problem. He cannot drop this case. He is the one being sued. I have the feeling 3ABN will not drop this case until he and Pickle and others confess the wrongs they have done publically or until judgement is set upon them by the Federal court for their wrong doing which could be very serious.
The bible is right when it states that pride goeth before the fall. It seems Gailon was so upset because Danny would not give in to his demands that he went on a war hunt to bring him and 3ABN down! Truth will indeed prevail but I believe that Gailon, Pickle and the other contributors of defamation and lies will not be seen by the courts as having represented truth! Just my humble opinion.

[awesumtenor]

It will reveal for all to see? Hmmm... I wonder why Danny wanted it impounded then?

Because YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We live in a world that has satellites and those satellites need to be broadcast by men with hair plugs and leased corporate jets. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg SoulEspresso? Danny has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Linda and curse 3ABN; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what Danny knows: that Linda's public humiliation, while tragic, probably saved souls and that Danny's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves souls.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at Bible Study you want Danny on that satellite, you need Danny on that satellite. We use words like cash, checks, major credit cards. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to get paid...which makes them a punchline. Danny has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a church who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very Christian programming Danny provides and then questions the manner in which Danny provides it. He would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, he suggests that you pick up a pen and stroke a check. Either way, he doesn't give a hoot about what you wonder....

Sorry... started channeling Jack Nicholson for a sec there... but I'm better now...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Seraphim7]

Because YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We live in a world that has satellites and those satellites need to be broadcast by men with hair plugs and leased corporate jets. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg SoulEspresso? Danny has a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Linda and curse 3ABN; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what Danny knows: that Linda's public humiliation, while tragic, probably saved souls and that Danny's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves souls.

You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at Bible Study you want Danny on that satellite, you need Danny on that satellite. We use words like cash, checks, major credit cards. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to get paid...which makes them a punchline. Danny has neither the time nor the inclination to explain himself to a church who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very Christian programming Danny provides and then questions the manner in which Danny provides it. He would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, he suggests that you pick up a pen and stroke a check. Either way, he doesn't give a hoot about what you wonder....

Sorry... started channeling Jack Nicholson for a sec there... but I'm better now...

In His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

Mr. J.,

Just got word back that lowender was, indeed, contagious while in here posting earlier, so be aware that your satiric episodes will likely reoccur. Turns out it is all good, however, for the same scenerio played out well in Independence Day, if you will recall.

PB

[beartrap]

BTW, Appletree, if you don't double space your paragraphs, indenting will make them easier to read.

Thanks, Back to Topic

[fallible humanbe...]

SE,

Please describe for me your situation as a reporter. What/who gave you the credibility necessary to get into press conferences and other news worthy situations? If you had told a potential interviewee that your intended audience was just a list of names in your email address book, what type of response would you have gotten? How many interviews would you have been able to secure?

Actually SE, John Ashcroft is the one who published it first, 2005 © in his book Law for Business. I am curious how you feel it is misleading. As he explains embezzlement he uses State v. Joy, 59A.2d 1033 (Vt.), that seems rather clear. I am familiar with the claims Joy makes in regards to the case, but regardless of his "take" on the interpretation of the law, the state was clear in its initial decision and in not reversing the decision on appeal.

But of course that wasn't the point. If you recall there was quite an indignant response from Joy when the facts were presented here initially. The message was clear, "What I do isn't important, so stop talking about it." (paraphrase of perceived intent) To my point, the double standard of demanding transparency, while feeling that such on the side of save/not is not necessary. If the first amendment is applicable in Joy's defense, then it is applicable in defense of any of us who have brought evidence here of questionable goings-on in the save/not camp.

Then there are the other issues I mentioned. For instance the process of asking questions as a means to make allegations. For instance, SE, what would your response and/or thoughts be if I posted something of this nature?

"Does anyone know if Dr. Arlid Abrahmsen, through another individual, offered free medical treatment to the spouse of a Board Member during the time that the Board was making decisions about Linda's place within the ministry?"

I am curious, would you find that acceptable or would the double standard of save/not come into play.

- FHB

I used to be a reporter. How would you define a "true credentialed reporter"? Who would issue such credentials? Are you aware of the 1st Amendment issues this brings up?

As for what you wrote about Gailon's embezzlement convictions, that's already been published by our friends at 3ABN, and they were free to do so even if it was deliberately misleading.

[Pickle]

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

It should be noted that all of the above from Gailon Joy's letter is why he is being sued. It seems he taken for a fool by some bitter people that have vowed revenge. The information that he either was supplied or that he made up is false. If all of this info was not false then why would Danny and 3ABN sue he and Pickle? Is anyone thinking?
If Gailon was telling the truth on his save3ABN page Danny and 3ABN would be stupid to sue them. Why? The last thing Danny and 3ABN would want is to have a court of law confirm all the allegations! Even self proclaimed investigators have to provide absolute proof of allegations. He/she told me this happened and others backed it up, does not qualify as proof in Federal court. Signed emails or letters by someone alleging that so and so did this or that does not qualify as proof in Federal court. Because Pickle or Joy testifies that "someone" close to the situation told them.....does not qualify as proof in Federal court. Because Linda told them that Danny did thus and so does not qualify as proof in a Federal Court. On the other hand, 3ABN can provide financial documents, tax records, receipts, cancelled checks, audit records and testimony from qualified church officials, board members and other credited personell that can and will refute the accusations that have been made against 3ABN.
Let us take just one accusation and examine it. How many times have we read rumor, innuendo and actual statements saying that Danny had Brandy waiting in the wings and got rid of Linda for that purpose. If that were true, that would be so easy to prove with phone records, travel records (for those secret meetings) credit card statements, and I'm sure more ways that I haven't thought of. Where is verafiable proof to back up this accusation? There has been nothing whatsoever brought forth from the Pickle Joy team. The good Lord knows if they had it, it would be out there. They don't have it because it doesn't exist. It is a lie. My list could go on and on but surely after what was done to Nick Miller and to how many others we haven't heard about yet, our eyes have to be opened.
The lies have indeed hurt the church. Yes, the entire church not just 3ABN.
This is also why the main, no name contributors of lies and allegations on bsda and the other forums will also be brought to justice. In my opinion they have not only sinned in the eyes of God but have even sinned against the laws of the land!
They have falsely felt secure surrounded by mob mentality where they can write anything they want without taking personal responsibility for their lies and inuendos. One of the advantages of Federal court is that all the "secret players" will be made known and be held accountable for what they have done. The bible says "Be sure your sins will find you out". They will no longer be able to hide, but will be facing 3ABN attorneys across a table having to answer tough questions under oath. This is a very serious situation to be in. Some have ignorantly proclaimed, "Well, they can't sue everyone". It is my understanding that 3ABN doesn't need to sue everyone. One suit can still bring all the offenders into accountability. And yes, people can still be held accountable even if they live in places like Iceland for intstance.
It seems the readers of bsda have already gotten a taste of how quickly they will be sold out by Gailon to save his own skin. He sees the handwriting on the wall and appears to be leaking sources like he tried to do with Nick Miller to clear himself of any wrong doing by printing what others have confidentially given him. It should also be noted that when the truth came out, Nick claims that Gailon took his statements out of context. In fact, from the way I read Nicks letter he seemed very favorable of 3ABN's governing body! Nick is certainly not the first that claims his words were twisted.
I believe that Gailon wants out, but he wants to save face. That's why I have the feeling he will be making more statements saying "if 3ABN does this or that" he will drop this case. There is only one problem. He cannot drop this case. He is the one being sued. I have the feeling 3ABN will not drop this case until he and Pickle and others confess the wrongs they have done publically or until judgement is set upon them by the Federal court for their wrong doing which could be very serious.
The bible is right when it states that pride goeth before the fall. It seems Gailon was so upset because Danny would not give in to his demands that he went on a war hunt to bring him and 3ABN down! Truth will indeed prevail but I believe that Gailon, Pickle and the other contributors of defamation and lies will not be seen by the courts as having represented truth! Just my humble opinion.

Interesting take, AppleTree.

Now suppose a reporter talks to 7 alleged victims of Tommy Shelton (and their family members and an alleged eye witness), and suppose their stories complement rather than contradict each other, and suppose Danny and the rest repeatedly decline to comment, can the reporter go ahead and print the story? And if he does and gets sued, what do you think the outcome of the suit might be?

Now when you say that folks using pseudonyms here will be held accountable, are you indicating that they are on Danny's "hit" list too? How are you going to find out their identities? Is that perhaps the real reason why Danny and 3ABN want our hard drives, so they can somehow figure out who is posting here? And if that be so, why didn't Attorney Hayes just come out and tell Judge Hillman that last Thursday?

[SoulEspresso]

Please describe for me your situation as a reporter. What/who gave you the credibility necessary to get into press conferences and other news worthy situations? If you had told a potential interviewee that your intended audience was just a list of names in your email address book, what type of response would you have gotten? How many interviews would you have been able to secure?

I've never seen any evidence that save3abn.com was Pickle & Joy's first idea. The evidence I've seen demonstrates they tried very hard to handle this behind the scenes, and got stonewalled. So they had to release the information to the public, some at a time.

The point I was making is this. Who determines who gets credentialed as a reporter? The government? Do you want the government controlling what we know and don't know? Or would you prefer the media outlets, so that only people from "recognized media outlets" get credentialed? Who recognizes the media outlets? The government? Or are the industry giants allowed to monopolize the information superhighways? The bottom line is that if you don't have room for independent reporters, you don't have a free society; you have a dictatorship or some kind of oligarchy.

Actually SE, John Ashcroft is the one who published it first, 2005 © in his book Law for Business. I am curious how you feel it is misleading. As he explains embezzlement he uses State v. Joy, 59A.2d 1033 (Vt.), that seems rather clear. I am familiar with the claims Joy makes in regards to the case, but regardless of his "take" on the interpretation of the law, the state was clear in its initial decision and in not reversing the decision on appeal.

What, again, does this have to do with the First Amendment and the "credentialing" of reporters?

Because it looks like a brazen attempt to change the subject.

If the first amendment is applicable in Joy's defense, then it is applicable in defense of any of us who have brought evidence here of questionable goings-on in the save/not camp.

What are you talking about? Oh right --- You did bring up a legal case that was 26 years old. Some of us are not pleased with some of their decisions in all this, but I for one find that their motives are honorable and their goals admirable.

Then there are the other issues I mentioned. For instance the process of asking questions as a means to make allegations. For instance, SE, what would your response and/or thoughts be if I posted something of this nature?

"Does anyone know if Dr. Arlid Abrahmsen, through another individual, offered free medical treatment to the spouse of a Board Member during the time that the Board was making decisions about Linda's place within the ministry?"

I am curious, would you find that acceptable or would the double standard of save/not come into play.

You'll have to unpack this, please, I'm not following ... and honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse.

This post has been edited by SoulEspresso: Aug 13 2007, 02:27 PM

[PeacefulBe]

I've never seen any evidence that save3abn.com was Pickle & Joy's first idea. The evidence I've seen demonstrates they tried very hard to handle this behind the scenes, and got stonewalled. So they had to release the information to the public, some at a time.

The point I was making is this. Who determines who gets credentialed as a reporter? The government? Do you want the government controlling what we know and don't know? Or would you prefer the media outlets, so that only people from "recognized media outlets" get credentialed? Who recognizes the media outlets? The government? Or are the industry giants allowed to monopolize the information superhighways? The bottom line is that if you don't have room for independent reporters, you don't have a free society; you have a dictatorship or some kind of oligarchy.
What, again, does this have to do with the First Amendment and the "credentialing" of reporters?

Because it looks like a brazen attempt to change the subject.
What are you talking about? Oh right --- You did bring up a legal case that was 26 years old. Some of us are not pleased with some of their decisions in all this, but I for one find that their motives are honorable and their goals admirable.
You'll have to unpack this, please, I'm not following ... and honestly, I'm not trying to be obtuse.

Soul,

Excellent points. There was a months-long effort to get these issues heard in a different venue, but that did not work out. So, we have save3abn.com. Now, we will wait and see if, as Appletree assures, the evidence that is on display there will be refutted in this lawsuit.

I believe FHB was completely justified in bringing up the 26-year-old case against Gailon. When one goes about searching for evidence against others, he must be prepared to face those things in his own past that may be called into question.

As one who has been disappointed by some of the decisions Gailon and Bob have made such as the recent release of Nick Miller's email without proper notificaiton or permission and the attempted unmasking of FHB here on the 3abn Forum, I also agree that their motives and their goals have appeared honorable.

PB

[fallible humanbe...]

SE,

If you are a reporter for the Washington Post, for instance, the Post issues you the necessary credentials so that you can gain access to a press conference, event, crime scene, etc. It gives you validity. I certainly, along with you I would assume, do not want the government deciding who gets this level of validation. However, if I am running a press conference I am probably not letting just any individual in to cover it - for a variety of reasons, not because I have something to hide. As far as I can ascertain neither Gailon, nor Robert, have anything other than their own self-aggrandized "credential" as reporters. Many reporters filing reports are independent, however, they receive their credentials for the AP, Reuters, etc.

As to their "attempts" to handle this behind the scenes, I am not perfectly clear on this, but wasn't Gailon writing his mass emails long before the save/not site. Robert, too, was posting his emails almost immediately after sending them. They took things public before establishing their site. Now, the "stonewalling" part, I am very curious as to why you feel someone can come along and demand to see things such as books, or evidence of infidelity? I, personally, detest the Exxon/Mobile Corporation, primarily for their arrogant handling of the Prince William Sound fiasco. Because I want to prove that they are out to scam the American (and world) population in an effort to extort money from all of us what right do I have to email the head honcho and demand to see their books, or read any and all memos in regards to the Prince William Sound incident?

Closer to home, what if tithe money is being used to pay a pastor I don't think is preaching the gospel according to the Bible, or how I read the Bible . . . do I have a right to go in and demand to see his tax returns? Should he subject himself to any and all questions I have? Should I continually inundate him with phone calls, and emails, and then send other people to do the same? Isn't that harassment?

Okay, so I strayed off of your initial question, I hope you will forgive.

- FHB

The point I was making is this. Who determines who gets credentialed as a reporter? The government? Do you want the government controlling what we know and don't know? Or would you prefer the media outlets, so that only people from "recognized media outlets" get credentialed? Who recognizes the media outlets? The government? Or are the industry giants allowed to monopolize the information superhighways? The bottom line is that if you don't have room for independent reporters, you don't have a free society; you have a dictatorship or some kind of oligarchy.
What, again, does this have to do with the First Amendment and the "credentialing" of reporters?

[fallible humanbe...]

SE,

Not at all. I realize the subject has been discussed - my intent was not to reopen the debate. In my initial post to you I laid out a few issues, as I see them. I didn't post separately or delineate between them, but posted including a number of issues.

The reason I mentioned the embezzlement conviction is because it was a way to evidence the double standard. The second mention was because you said that 3ABN published it, I merely pointed out that it was readily available on the internet long before 3ABN mentioned it.

Now, weren't the bsda members who brought it to this discussion exercising their First Amendment right to do so? Contrary to the tone of Gailon's response. (to avoid the appearance of double standard one would have to answer this question only one way)

- FHB

What, again, does this have to do with the First Amendment and the "credentialing" of reporters?

Because it looks like a brazen attempt to change the subject.

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Aug 13 2007, 03:15 PM