Hospitalization Of Danny Shelton, Forwarded Announcement from Club Adventist Options

[awesumtenor]

This makes no sense for a defender of Danny/3abn to say. It's like you've switched sides. Cool

He has no more switched sides than the RCC has actually embraced justification by faith... like the RCC he has become adept at using the same words with an altogether different meaning... not to mention the underlying "do as I say, not as I do" that comes with it.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

As Danny is trying to contol people's right to free speech?

In what way? be specific please, that's like a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question, it assumes guilt.

By DS and 3ABN appealing to Caesar for justice, and allowing Pickle and Joy to speak right up and prove all they've said and establish the truth in a unbiased form, their freedoms have been violated?

Nope.

As I said slander and libel is against the law, it isn't free speech,

[awesumtenor]

At what point do people living in a free country with protected and inalienable God given rights, realize that they can't control others, nor dictate to them, or be their conscience, and that they can only control themselves and follow their own conscience?

I don't know... but it's probably somewhere around the point where public figures can be criticized without being sued... no matter how you try to spin it, the ultimate end sought in the lawsuit against Pickle and Joy is to shut them up, to control them and dictate to them, regardless of what their conscience says...which puts them on the wrong side of the statement you make here.

At what point do they realize if those that they disagree with aren't free to speak, act, opperate and assemble as they choose,, then neither can they themselves be truly free to do so?

As one who has made so much hay in this forum saying those you disagree with aren't free to speak , act, operate and assemble as they choose, perhaps you have the answer to your own question...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Richard Sherwin]

Let's see now, Pickle and Joy write something that Danny does not like, so Danny sues them to shut them up, yup Danny is promoting free speech. Oh ya I knew that.

Also funny how DS wanted Pickle and Joy to speak right up, but didn't want anyone to hear them, thus the impoundment attempt. Another fine example of free speech.

Oh and Linda not being able to speak for several years, yet another proof that Danny was for free speech.

What it appears Danny is promoting is free speech for himself and his supporters but not others.

Same old same old.

Richard

In what way? be specific please, that's like a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question, it assumes guilt.

By DS and 3ABN appealing to Caesar for justice, and allowing Pickle and Joy to speak right up and prove all they've said and establish the truth in a unbiased form, their freedoms have been violated?

Nope.

As I said slander and libel is against the law, it isn't free speech,

[Richard Sherwin]

Thus my sarcasm. I was simply pointing out that Danny's supporters are so blind as to say things that are against their own man.

In any case his supporters are still not dealing with the issues, they rarely or never have, they just attack the messengers, never the message. We've come to expect this but it's still sad.

He has no more switched sides than the RCC has actually embraced justification by faith... like the RCC he has become adept at using the same words with an altogether different meaning... not to mention the underlying "do as I say, not as I do" that comes with it.

In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by Richard Sherwin: Dec 20 2007, 11:22 AM

[LaurenceD]

You are being sued, not because your rights are being violated, but again, you violated the rights of others. You are not being sued for personal gain, you are being sued so justice can be served, and so the truth can be made known and established in a unbiased forum.

Slander and libel are not God given rights, nor does freedom of the press and of speach guarantee you the right to malign any other, It's against the law. It violates their rights.

In what way? be specific please, that's like a "have you stopped beating your wife yet" question, it assumes guilt.

Folks, the above is an example of the point awesumtenor was making, referring to Matt 7:5.

Ian, and only Ian, is calling it slander and libel here and now, but that kind of labeling holds no weight until the highest court (speaking of this side of heaven) determines what was said is such. So, if Ian will, in his own words, "be specific please" and explain to us what was alledged as slander and libel and which court agrees with him. IOW Ian, what specifically has been said, and how has it been determined (other than by Ian and gang) that it was against any law?

Please be specific...if you're able and willing.

[PeacefulBe]

??

You have it backwards.

It is you all trying to force your will and ways on others. That is not your right, that is a violation of their rights

You are being sued, not because your rights are being violated, but again, you violated the rights of others. You are not being sued for personal gain, you are being sued so justice can be served, and so the truth can be made known and established in a unbiased forum.
Slander and libel are not God given rights, nor does freedom of the press and of speach guarantee you the right to malign any other, It's against the law. It violates their rights.

People here think they are sounding an alarm, I know, and you think that makes it ok.

But the supreme court has ruled that freedom of speech does not entitle one to yell Fire" in a crowd, when there is NO FIRE.

Again, it violates the rights of others.

I'm quite sure if you don't know this already, you'll learn it.

Ian, where is the potential for truth to "be made known" in this law suit if each piece of evidence that proves the truth is put under wraps should the protective order the 3abn attorneys are seeking to get be granted? What does a move like this communicate to those watching the case?

You may wish to characterize all that Bob and Gailon have brought forward and documented here and on save3abn as rising to the charge of slander and libel, and in this suit they must prove their claims true, but the moves of the 3abn legal team are further creating the appearance that 3abn has a lot to hide. Hiding the truth under a bushel is a bad move when claiming that the purpose of the suit is so that "the truth can me made known".

[Snoopy]

Oh my, Snoopy.... I thought your post was such a clear and reflective statement about your take on all of this. Unfortunately I didn't get the chance to reply. Can you put it back?

PB

naawww, friend - it isn't worth it. I'm done.

There is no point in putting one's thoughts and feelings out here only to be beat down by an admin with an attitude. I know we are supposed to "respect the admins" - does that work both ways? I wonder if anybody keeps track of how many people Clay has driven off?

I'll catch you in email, PB!!

[calvin]

naawww, friend - it isn't worth it. I'm done.

There is no point in putting one's thoughts and feelings out here only to be beat down by an admin with an attitude. I know we are supposed to "respect the admins" - does that work both ways? I wonder if anybody keeps track of how many people Clay has driven off?

I'll catch you in email, PB!!

See ya in 60 days...and you better bring an attitude change with you.

[Pickle]

Ian, where is the potential for truth to "be made known" in this law suit if each piece of evidence that proves the truth is put under wraps should the protective order the 3abn attorneys are seeking to get be granted? What does a move like this communicate to those watching the case?

You may wish to characterize all that Bob and Gailon have brought forward and documented here and on save3abn as rising to the charge of slander and libel, and in this suit they must prove their claims true, but the moves of the 3abn legal team are further creating the appearance that 3abn has a lot to hide. Hiding the truth under a bushel is a bad move when claiming that the purpose of the suit is so that "the truth can me made known".

Excellent thoughts, PB, and if you give it some good thought, you might think of some other serious conclusions too.

Just to clarify, in a defamation suit the plaintiff must prove that what was said by the defendant was false. But in areas of defemation per se, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to prove that what he said was true.

Parts of the suit deal with defamation, and part with defamation per se.

[appletree]

Ian, where is the potential for truth to "be made known" in this law suit if each piece of evidence that proves the truth is put under wraps should the protective order the 3abn attorneys are seeking to get be granted? What does a move like this communicate to those watching the case?

You may wish to characterize all that Bob and Gailon have brought forward and documented here and on save3abn as rising to the charge of slander and libel, and in this suit they must prove their claims true, but the moves of the 3abn legal team are further creating the appearance that 3abn has a lot to hide. Hiding the truth under a bushel is a bad move when claiming that the purpose of the suit is so that "the truth can me made known".

The truth will be made known when this is all over with. Surely you know PB that in a suit over slander and defamation, that it is standard practice to file for a protection of the information. To put it simply if someone has defamed and slandered you enough to file a lawsuit the first thought of your attorney's is to limit what information the defamers and slanderers and the public, have access to. Why? Because otherwise, they will do what they were sued for....twist and turn the truth to make it fit their accusations, defame the people involved on nothing but speculation and word of mouth and basically make a mockery out what "really is" the truth. They will also, even slant the court proceedings to make it appear that things are going their way when in reality they are not. Just something like that, influences the public, as this forum is a perfect example of.

[appletree]

Folks, the above is an example of the point awesumtenor was making, referring to Matt 7:5.

Ian, and only Ian, is calling it slander and libel here and now, but that kind of labeling holds no weight until the highest court (speaking of this side of heaven) determines what was said is such. So, if Ian will, in his own words, "be specific please" and explain to us what was alledged as slander and libel and which court agrees with him. IOW Ian, what specifically has been said, and how has it been determined (other than by Ian and gang) that it was against any law?

Please be specific...if you're able and willing.

Well, then your criteria should carry over across the board shouldn't it? Danny Shelton nor 3abn should not be accused of anything unless and until the Pickle Joy team prove it in the highest courts of the land. The 3abn team accuses Pickle and Joy of the above. Pickle & Joy will have to prove their accusations to be true. So..according to you everyone here needs to back off all the way around until months or years down the road, a verdict is handed down. Any other way of looking at it is double standards in the worst degree.

[appletree]

"Since 3abn is continuing to broadcast someone is giving.... so what then do [I] make of that?" That people are varied in their reaction to "life, the universe, and everything" and .... see above for my comments on power and control and those who have the money to buy them.
Yes they are.... but that doesn't mean they are powerful enough to effect the change.

Complete overhaul with all management/owners who have instigated, aided, or abetted by their lack of action the rottenness that has been swept under the rug... and out into the cess pool... through the years.... removed and a completely new governance model and new management personell installed. This should include appropriate fines and "disciplinary" strictures put upon those who have been most involved.... and reparations made to those who have been most severely injured by the practices and policies of the past.

Since even as a cooperative whole, those who want real changes made do not have the power to affect this, we must

Yes, thank God, people are still giving. Despite yours and other's vile attempts to destroy 3abn. How can you let people "know" the issues when you yourself aren't in any better position to prove anything than Pickle and Joy. Unless of course you are Linda or a good friend of Linda's. If that is the case you certainly would lose all credibility to look at this objectively and you lose the validity of any information you might share since the ex VP has been known by many not to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Her friends know only what she has told them, not what they have been privy to.

WB. You really need to look at your accountability in this matter. If you were not an eyewitness to anything immoral or crimnal you have no right to inform others about any of it. It is merely gossip and slander and every idol word will have to be accounted for.

[appletree]

What will closure look like to me? What Snoopy said plus a very public, heartfelt confession and apology from Danny Shelton that he had no biblical grounds to divorce Linda and remarry.

He can't do that. He would be lying. Trust me, I know. Do you?

[appletree]

As Danny is trying to contol people's right to free speech?

Really? I happen to know of several instances where people were gossiping and badmouthing 3abn and Danny because of the trash they read on the internet. He was very well aware of it and who had said what and never said a word to them about it. As much as he has troubled and as many people he has been in contact with over the years, believe me, he hears everything under the sun. God knows, and so does Danny, that trying to control people's mouths is an impossibility. It would be a precious waste of time and energy. There have been a few at 3abn that have told outright lies to others about Danny or the administration and yet they still retain their jobs even though it became public knowledge. I would have fired them in a heartbeat. How many of you that has had your own business or ministry would stand for your employees to badmouth you or your company behind your back? Not too many I can promise you. Yet, Danny has. Maybe to his own detriment. Let's hope Jim Gilley has a more stringent policy on backstabbing employees.