Larry Romrell: Adventist Connections? Options

[PeacefulBe]

Observer,
You have all from the beginning had a problem understanding the separation of roles in different issues.

And nobody here is stupid.
~ Aletheia

A bit broadly stated, IMO.

[Aletheia]

Do you have documentation for all this?

Duane you are all the ones asserting and claiming things and making the accusations, We are the ones saying it isn't true.

The burden of proof is on you.

Why can't you all understand this?

From wiki "burden of proof"

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.

The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires...

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 27 2007, 10:31 AM

[Aletheia]

Yes. In as much as that would not be happening, had it not been for DS and his mob, setting up this charade for a start off.

As Pickle & Joy have been prosecuted by their so-called brethren, friends who are able, are doing what many do to help people who are in 'tight situations', and that is 'lending them a helping hand'. Would we desert them in their time of trouble? Not likely. I'm sure that those who can't afford money, are still praying for those who are prepared to stand for truth; no matter the personal cost to themselves.

Have you ever helped out a friend who is in some kind of trouble? I see many Biblical situations that could be applied to how we deal with people in our lives today. None of those indicate that we should prosecute our brethren though.

Let's keep the issues clear ok?

Pickle and Joy have been prosecuting 3ABN- it's President, Danny Shelton, it's board of directors and any and all associated with them, or supportive, or even related to them, in as they and many here keep calling "the court of public opinion" They are the accusers of the brethren.

Character defamation whether it be slander of libel is against our civil laws, and MOST DEFINATLY against God's law.

3ABN are the victims, not Pickle and Joy. 3ABN is seeking to protect their witness and ministry and "avoid the appearance of evil" that has been thrust upon them, by the accusers.

Pickle and Joy are dealing with the consequences of their own choices and actions. If they are righteous as they claim, they will be able to prove that in a court of law.

Paul called it a shame, and so it is.

No one among you or the Church able to judge these things for yourselves.

Even Paul had to appeal to Ceasar when those within the church accused him unjustly and could not prove the things they claimed against him.

I bet none of you quoting these verses to attack 3ABN would attack Paul for doing so, or for one second believe Pickle and Joy should allow themselves to be defrauded and turn the other cheek?



~ Aletheia

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 27 2007, 10:33 AM

[Aletheia]

Observer :
NOTE: Mr. Joy has been pointed out to be a convicted felon. What most people do not know is that Mr. Joy was awarded a five-figure sum against the agency that prosecuted him for misuse of process. His conviction resulted in his payment of a sum of less than $2,000. His award of damages was far more than that amount.

Do you expect Danny's friends to read this and consider such details? It might save them lots of trouble if they were inclined to read it.

Read what? His claims?

I never saw anyone post any documentation about Joy getting a settlement in the case which was cited here and even quoted by me. I didn't and still don't understand how someone could keep losing even his appeals and then get a settlement.

I looked, and couldn't find it???

Is it maybe another case?

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 27 2007, 10:22 AM

[PeacefulBe]

Duane you are all the ones asserting and claiming things and making the accusations, We are the ones saying it isn't true.

The burden of proof is on you.

Why can't you all understand this?

From wiki "burden of proof"

In a defamation suit the burden of proof is, indeed, on the defendants. In the court or public opinion, however, the decision will always go to the one who presents the best case - and that includes documentation. Everyone making a claim, other than stating an opinion, should be expected to show proof of those claims and not expect others to accept their word as bond.

The 3abn Forum is not a Federal court. It is, however, most definitely "The Court of Public Opinion" and a most valuable, powerful and persuasive one at that.

If you are here to make a case, make it believable with proof and you just might sway some minds. If you are here to state your opinions, make it clear that is what you are doing and readers will gladly accept and weigh your points as such.

Aletheia, I speak not only to you but to all who broadly make serious claims from both sides without documentation.

John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

[LaurenceD]

Danny Shelton as a private citizen is not suing Joy and Pickle, so a judgment can never be issued against the private individual in question.

It is the ministry of 3ABN and Danny Shelton as it's President and founder who are suing Pickle and Joy for their slander and character defamation.

and yet the header of the suit states:

In the matter of 3ABN & Danny Lee Shelton, Individually -vs- Gailon Arthur Joy
and Robert Pickle

They are not putting anything at risk for the truth is on their side, and so Pickle and Joy will never be able to defend themselves by proving the things they have claimed and accused 3ABN of. .

And this best illustrates the mentality of the 3abners (the double mind), for earlier one supporter asked if Joy had been granted the gift of prophecy. You see, they know all the answers..in advance and question how dare anyone else.

Back here on earth, we call it predestined, or twitching like the finger on the trigger of a gun and going off half-cocked.

[sonshineonme]

Have you heard the story of the sleeping virgins? You might want to branch out a bit and get more information. Your thinking may be the result of the bubble you are living in. You are the only one that can help yourself.

[awesumtenor]

In a defamation suit the burden of proof is, indeed, on the defendants.

In American jurisprudence the burden of proof is NEVER on the defendant... whether a case be civil or criminal. The distinction between civil and criminal cases is that civil cases have a lower burden of proof, needing only to show by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no confession or plea from the defendant in a case... or, in a civil suit, a settlement out of court, then it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove his case... not upon the accused.

In His service,
Mr. J

[sonshineonme]

In American jurisprudence the burden of proof is NEVER on the defendant... whether a case be civil or criminal. The distinction between civil and criminal cases is that civil cases have a lower burden of proof, needing only to show by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no confession or plea from the defendant in a case... or, in a civil suit, a settlement out of court, then it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove his case... not upon the accused.

In His service,
Mr. J

Thank you Kevin, that is what I understood as well.

[Aletheia]

In a defamation suit the burden of proof is, indeed, on the defendants. In the court or public opinion, however, the decision will always go to the one who presents the best case - and that includes documentation. Everyone making a claim, other than stating an opinion, should be expected to show proof of those claims and not expect others to accept their word as bond.

The 3abn Forum is not a Federal court. It is, however, most definitely "The Court of Public Opinion" and a most valuable, powerful and persuasive one at that.

If you are here to make a case, make it believable with proof and you just might sway some minds. If you are here to state your opinions, make it clear that is what you are doing and readers will gladly accept and weigh your points as such.

Aletheia, I speak not only to you but to all who broadly make serious claims from both sides without documentation.

John 8:32 "Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

PB,

I'm not sure what your point is in replying here?

Did you notice my quote was talking about the burden of proof "outside a legal context"? precisely because I was applying it to the discussions here?

Do you know how many times I have been asked to prove someones claim or accusation is wrong? The burden of proof is not on me. I am here replying to the claims and accusations of others. That's what most here who have so lovingly been called dannyclones and dannyfingers etc are doing.

If I start my own subject, and make my own claims, I provide evidence of what I am talking about with the quotes or references, for that's a differennt situation.

Outside a legal context, "burden of proof" means
that someone suggesting a new theory or stating a claim must provide evidence to support it: it is not sufficient to say "you can't disprove this." Specifically, when anyone is making a bold claim, it is not someone else's responsibility to disprove the claim, but is rather the responsibility of the person who is making the bold claim to prove it. In short, X is not proven simply because "not X" cannot be proven (see negative proof).

Taken more generally, the standard of proof demanded to establish any particular conclusion varies with the subject under discussion. Just as there is a difference between the standard required for a criminal conviction and in a civil case, so there are different standards of proof applied in many other areas of life.

The less reasonable a statement seems, the more proof it requires...

Aletheia

[ex3ABNemployee]

I never saw anyone post any documentation about Joy getting a settlement in the case which was cited here and even quoted by me. I didn't and still don't understand how someone could keep losing even his appeals and then get a settlement.

Cindy,

Don't ask for documentation from anyone else when you're not able to document your claims. That's a double standard.

[Aletheia]

In American jurisprudence the burden of proof is NEVER on the defendant... whether a case be civil or criminal. The distinction between civil and criminal cases is that civil cases have a lower burden of proof, needing only to show by a preponderance of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no confession or plea from the defendant in a case... or, in a civil suit, a settlement out of court, then it is incumbent upon the accuser to prove his case... not upon the accused.

In His service,
Mr. J

Thank you Kevin, that is what I understood as well.

Then you understood wrong.

The main difference in a criminal and civil case is illustrated by a set of scales. In a criminal case the scale is tipped all the way in the favor of the defendant, and the prosecuter has to make a case where the scales shift completley to the other side.

In a civil case the scales start out balanced, the defendant has no advantage, and the scales do not have to shift entirely either way.

Also because of the nature of the slander made about 3ABN and it's employees, the burden of proof is most definatly on Pickle and Joy.

See:

[

"Typically, where the statements made by the defendant constitute defamation per se, the defendant has the burden of proving that the allegations are true.

Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:

Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
Additionally, some states consider allegations that a married person was unfaithful to constitute defamation per se."
http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html

In addition, the main defense in any defamation case is proving you were telling the truth, so again that burden of proof rest on the slanderer. Actually I can't see how any of the other defenses even apply to this case.

see:

"Defenses To Accusations of Defamation


Truth: Truth is considered to be an "absolute defense" to a defamation action. If the statements made by the defendant are true, a defamation action cannot succeed.

Privilege: Sometimes the defendant will be legally shielded from a defamation action. For example, statements made by witnesses and lawyers in court, by judges from the bench, and by legislators on the floor of the legislature during legislative proceedings, are considered to be "privileged", and will not support a cause of action for defamation no matter how false, reckless or outrageous the statements may be.

Opinion: It is said that a person's mere opinion, as opposed to an allegation of fact, cannot give rise to an action for defamation. It is important to note, though, that a statement which superficially appears to be an opinion may nonetheless contain a sufficient factual element to support a defamation action. The content and context of the statement will typically be considered in determining if the statement is actionable. A statement by an employer to the effect of, "Joe Smith is a pathological liar" is far less likely to be regarded as a mere opinion than a statement by a casual acquaintance. A statement by Joe Smith's psychotherapist to that effect, while possibly also violating duties of confidentiality, appears to be a medical diagnosis and thus, if false, may also support an action for defamation. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation actions, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.

Fair Comment: Where a statement is found to be a "fair comment on a matter of public interest", the statement will not ordinarily support an action for defamation. For example, if the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, the expression of an opinion that you believe the allegations are credible is not likely to support a defamation action against you.

Innocent Dissemination: Where the defendant transmits a message without awareness of its content, the defendant may be able to raise the defense of innocent dissemination. For example, the post office cannot be held liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is unaware of the content of the letters it delivers.

Consent: Although unusual, in some circumstances a defendant may attempt to argue that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the allegedly defamatory statement.

A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements."

http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 27 2007, 11:40 AM

[Aletheia]

I never saw anyone post any documentation about Joy getting a settlement in the case which was cited here and even quoted by me. I didn't and still don't understand how someone could keep losing even his appeals and then get a settlement.

I looked, and couldn't find it???

Is it maybe another case?

Cindy,

Don't ask for documentation from anyone else when you're not able to document your claims. That's a double standard.

Duane, why don't you just stop?

We are talking about the Gailon Joy case..

and I just posted the following at the end of July in a thread you were participating in:

Since it is necessary to prove what is claimed; Go here:
http://references4links.blogspot.com/2007/...sentatives.html

And if you want to read it all (it does cost money) go here.

https://www.fastcase.com/Google/Start.aspx?...3feed3f1dbd75a4

(edited to add -- You can read a portion without paying at the link above)

But don't take my word for it, to read the entire post, go here:
http://www.maritime-sda-online.org/forums/...e=1&fpart=3

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Aug 27 2007, 11:48 AM

[awesumtenor]

Thank you Kevin, that is what I understood as well.
Then you understood wrong.

See:
Many of the accusations here against 3 abn fall into this legal definition.

In addition, the main defense in any defamation case is proving you were telling the truth, so again that burden of proof rest on the slanderer.

see:

Rupp's Insurance & Risk Management Glossary disagrees with you:

The responsibility of a plaintiff in a lawsuit to provide evidence supporting the claim against a defendant; the burden of persuasion, which always begins with the plaintiff but may shift to the defendant for particular issues as the case proceeds. The term often means the standard of proof, or the quantity of evidence required to win the case. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each element of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" to establish the defendant's guilt. To prevail in a civil case, a party must demonstrate its claim by a "preponderance" of evidence, meaning that offered proof must have more credibility or weight or be more likely than the other party's.

While there are situations and circumstances where the burden of proof can be either lessened or shifted on a point from the plaintiff to the defendant, until such time as the judge hearing the case calls for such a shift, the burden of proof remains the plaintiff's. While you are within your right to presume or believe that statements made by the defendants may constitute defamation per se, in many jurisdictions, defamation and defamation per se are distinct charges and to be covered by the rules of the defamation per se law where, as you noted above, the defendant would have the burden of proof.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts makes a distinction between defamation and defamation per se... and the ongoing lawsuit alleges defamation... NOT defamation per se... so the burden of proof remains with Danny and 3ABN... not with Pickle and Joy.

But thanks for playing.

In His service,
Mr. J

[awesumtenor]

Cindy,

Don't ask for documentation from anyone else when you're not able to document your claims. That's a double standard.

Not to mention hypocrisy...

In His service,
Mr. J