Larry Romrell: Adventist Connections? Options

[Johann]

And what kind of a witness is DS giving to the world? That's it's OK to put aside one's wife for a younger filly and get a 'quickie divorce'? That's a good witness to the world is it? It's OK to toss one's wife out her position in the Ministry and employ a brother who has a heap of allegations of inappropriate sexual behaviour against him? Not the way I read my Bible!

Are there any news developing in Australia, Ozzie? Good to have contacts around the globe.

[Ozzie]

Are there any news developing in Australia, Ozzie? Good to have contacts around the globe.

I'll be at a Regional Meeting this coming weekend and the 'Session Meeting' the following weekend, so sure to hear more then. Will let you know when I do... and am able to reveal anything.

[Snoopy]

I'll be at a Regional Meeting this coming weekend and the 'Session Meeting' the following weekend, so sure to hear more then. Will let you know when I do... and am able to reveal anything.

Bless you, Ozzie!!!

[Noahswife]

I thought I would post a few links regarding what is typically involved in proving and defending a defamation claim.

A simple discussion of defamation law......

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...ade-simple.html

There are specific things the plaintiff must prove to recover.......

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...nd-slander.html

There are a number of defenses the defendant can raise:

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...nd-slander.html

Another question would be whether it can be established that DS is a public figure "or where the communication is about a matter of public concern."

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...background.html

And last for those interested, A Brief History of Our Rights to Freedom of Speech and the Press

http://public.findlaw.com/life_events/le7_fbrief.html

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Aug 30 2007, 04:34 PM

[RBF]

Seems like you don't understand the financial workings of the CHurch too well! The example was previously given about donations given to a Church Building Fund. If those donations are not used for that purpose or the Church changes its mind about the 'building', EACH person who donated any amount, MUST be asked what they wish to do, and... yes. They may have those donations refunded.

As this is my first post, I may not do it all correctly I wanted to add my support to what Ozzie has said.

Recently our church treasure had to call me because we had donated funds to a young lady who was planning on serving with AFM. Circumstances changed and she was unable to go. Because we had donated some small amount, he wanted to know if we wanted a reimbursement or to reallocate our donation. We, as Christians, donate our money fully expecting it to be used as requested. Secondly, I also found this quote from the 17th Edition of the Church Manual page sixty-two.

[indent][/indent]"Safeguarding the Purpose of Funds—When an offering is taken for worldwide missions or for any general or local enterprise, all money placed in the offering plate (unless otherwise indicated by the donor) shall be counted as part of that particular offering. It is of the utmost importance that all offerings and gifts contributed by individuals to the church for a specific fund or purpose be used for that purpose. Neither the church treasurer nor the church board has the authority to divert any funds from the objective for which they were given.
The funds of auxiliary organizations, a considerable proportion of which often represents donations given for specific purposes, are raised for that special part of the church’s work for which the auxiliary organization is established. Such funds are held in trust by the church treasurer, and they too may not be borrowed or in any way diverted by the treasurer or the church board from the objective for which they were raised.When an auxiliary organization is discontinued, the church in regular business session may take action indicating the disposition of any remaining balance of funds in the account of such auxiliary organization.

Accountability is a must especially when bestowed with money for the support and promulgation of the Gospel. May God safe guard His people and His money.

RBF

[Snoopy]

As this is my first post, I may not do it all correctly I wanted to add my support to what Ozzie has said.

Recently our church treasure had to call me because we had donated funds to a young lady who was planning on serving with AFM. Circumstances changed and she was unable to go. Because we had donated some small amount, he wanted to know if we wanted a reimbursement or to reallocate our donation. We, as Christians, donate our money fully expecting it to be used as requested. Secondly, I also found this quote from the 17th Edition of the Church Manual page sixty-two.

[indent][/indent]"Safeguarding the Purpose of Funds—When an offering is taken for worldwide missions or for any general or local enterprise, all money placed in the offering plate (unless otherwise indicated by the donor) shall be counted as part of that particular offering. It is of the utmost importance that all offerings and gifts contributed by individuals to the church for a specific fund or purpose be used for that purpose. Neither the church treasurer nor the church board has the authority to divert any funds from the objective for which they were given.
The funds of auxiliary organizations, a considerable proportion of which often represents donations given for specific purposes, are raised for that special part of the church’s work for which the auxiliary organization is established. Such funds are held in trust by the church treasurer, and they too may not be borrowed or in any way diverted by the treasurer or the church board from the objective for which they were raised.When an auxiliary organization is discontinued, the church in regular business session may take action indicating the disposition of any remaining balance of funds in the account of such auxiliary organization.

Accountability is a must especially when bestowed with money for the support and promulgation of the Gospel. May God safe guard His people and His money.

RBF

Thank you for that, RBF, and you did it perfectly!! Oh, and by the way,





~~Snoopy~~

[PeacefulBe]

I thought I would post a few links regarding what is typically involved in proving and defending a defamation claim.

A simple discussion of defamation law......

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...ade-simple.html

There are specific things the plaintiff must prove to recover.......

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...nd-slander.html

There are a number of defenses the defendant can raise:

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...nd-slander.html

Another question would be whether it can be established that DS is a public figure or "or where the communication is about a matter of public concern."

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...background.html

And last for those interested, A Brief History of Our Rights to Freedom of Speech and the Press

http://public.findlaw.com/life_events/le7_fbrief.html

Wow!

After reading these articles, I have a feeling that the 3abn attorneys are going to have a rough time winning this lawsuit. Interesting that these all seem to say that it is the plaintiffs that must prove the claims false. In the "Defenses" article, I particularly liked one section on Truth:

http://injury.findlaw.com/defamation-libel...nd-slander.html

Truth
The common law traditionally presumed that a statement was false once a plaintiff proved that the statement was defamatory. Under modern law, a plaintiff who is a public official or public figure must prove falsity as a prerequisite for recovery. Some states have likewise now provided that falsity is an element of defamation that any plaintiff must prove in order to recover. Where this is not a requirement, truth serves as an affirmative defense to an action for libel or slander.

A statement does not need to be literally true in order for this defense to be effective. Courts require that the statement is substantially true in order for the defense to apply. This means that even if the defendant states some facts that are false, if the "gist" or "sting" of the communication is substantially true, then the defendant can rely on the defense.

Thanks, NW, for posting these links! Truly informative!

PB

[Johann]

Wow!

After reading these articles, I have a feeling that the 3abn attorneys are going to have a rough time winning this lawsuit. Interesting that these all seem to say that it is the plaintiffs that must prove the claims false. In the "Defenses" article, I particularly liked one section on Truth:
Thanks, NW, for posting these links! Truly informative!

PB

Lawyers from Minnesota should know these rules, or do they not apply there?

This post has been edited by Johann: Aug 30 2007, 04:17 PM

[Snoopy]

Wow!

After reading these articles, I have a feeling that the 3abn attorneys are going to have a rough time winning this lawsuit. Interesting that these all seem to say that it is the plaintiffs that must prove the claims false. In the "Defenses" article, I particularly liked one section on Truth:
Thanks, NW, for posting these links! Truly informative!

PB

Wouldn't the plaintiffs have to prove the claims to be true???

[princessdi]

Hmmm. I would think the burden of proof would be on the Plaintiff, but then I don't know little or no law. Only enough to keep me out of jail. LOL!!

Wouldn't the plaintiffs have to prove the claims to be true???

[beartrap]

So, apparently the plaintiffs have to prove that the defendants were lying, among other things. That could be an interesting challenge when the plaintiffs started off their suit by lying to the court.

[princessdi]

I am with you on that one, Bear. I wonder if the defendents are actually bringing this to the courts attention? I would. At this point, Danny cant' even take it back, it all out there, and nicely put together in Aletheia's post, too. What the site says, and what the court papers say..............

So, apparently the plaintiffs have to prove that the defendants were lying, among other things. That could be an interesting challenge when the plaintiffs started off their suit by lying to the court.

[Richard Sherwin]

Win or lose, I get a sneaking feeling the lawyers personally will win and be giggling all the way to the bank.

Lawyers from Minnesota should know these rules, or do they not apply there?

[awesumtenor]

Lawyers from Minnesota should know these rules, or do they not apply there?

Even if they didn't apply in Minnesota, the suit was filed in Massachusetts...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Fran]

Even if they didn't apply in Minnesota, the suit was filed in Massachusetts...

In His service,
Mr. J

Boy;

Now here I have been thinking this case was to be tried with "3ABN/DANNY SHELTON" laws! Dannyites seem to understand the ins and outs of 3ABN law very well!

Well, now that I get it, and it is the real court, real lawyers, in an actual State of the United States of America, and NOT the Captain Kangaroo Court, I am resting much easier!

Don't they have a special place in Law Books for the stupidest lawsuits ever filed? Surely they have awards like the Darwin awards! If not, they really should create one.

I wonder if Lawyers have a club for the lawyer who makes the most money from the stupid lawsuits that have been filed each year. Surely they compete along these lines, don't they?

IMO, This one should go down in history! It should be read for years to come. My grand kids may even be reading this in college! I will probably be able to laugh and say. "I remember that fiasco! What a joke it was!"