Hospitalization Of Danny Shelton, Forwarded Announcement from Club Adventist Options

[watchbird]

Thanks, Peaceful. May this season fill your life with pleasant surprises...although the number 49 may not set well with thee these days as we prepare for the SB.

I echo Peaceful's greetings and welcome you back to our cyberworld.

Now.... translation please? "Pleasant surprises" seems generic enough to give no problem... but "49"? "SB"? and why would the one not set well as we "prepare for" the other?

HELP!!!!

[LaurenceD]

Hey WB, thanks for the greetings. HH to you too, and...about the numbers and acronym, it's an old joke between PB and myself...and our locale. She'll understand completely as we rest assured it's nothing you'd ever be interested in...although you do seems like a team player in other matters.

This post has been edited by LaurenceD: Dec 23 2007, 10:23 AM

[Pickle]

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.

Remember, AppleTree, how Danny got Linda to sign an agreement with 3ABN which prevented her from saying anything critical about her ex-husband, but didn't include any language in that agreement that would prevent himself from saying anything critical about her?

Remember how Danny on September 6, 2007, told the whole world something like folks were of Satan who said that there was an IRS investigation going on? And yet the proposed protective order refers to the Justice Department.

Remember my habit and practice of not saying anything I can't back up with some sort of documentation or evidence?

If I am to be prevented from saying certain things that can be backed up with documentation I received from others before the lawsuit was ever filed, will Danny voluntarily refrain from making such impossible-to-document statements over the 3ABN microphones?

Or is the strategy simply to prevent documented truths from being given to the public, not undocumented accusations of people being from Satan and the IRS never investigating people behind the scenes because they don't operate that way?

[justice4jesus]

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.

Let me just make two quick points here:

(1) Truth has no reason to hide, regardless of who or what may come against it. Truth is of God, and therefore, it ALWAYS prevails. If the information is truth, then let it out there. You have nothing to fear.

(2) If I understand correctly, the order is to protect information to which Joy, Pickle and others have had no access thus far. Danny/3ABN, then, are apparently pulling the cover over something that has not yet even come to the fore. Why are they running? Why are they hiding? Guilty conscience if you ask me. Well, the Bible does tell us that "the wicked flee when no man pursueth".

Once again, Appletree....

[PeacefulBe]

Hey WB, thanks for the greetings. HH to you too, and...about the numbers and acronym, it's an old joke between PB and myself...and our locale. She'll understand completely as we rest assured it's nothing you'd ever be interested in...although you do seems like a team player in other matters.

A joke, indeed! Your gently phrased,
Yet to-the-point reminder,
That better far, your Seahawks fare
Than do my 49ers.

There is no doubt my golden team
Has had a stinky season.
But ocean birds of yours up North
Can celebrate with reason.

Yet, time will tell if Northern might
Prevails for team Seattle
Enough to lead them to the goal
Of yearly SB battle!

My wish for you and team of yours
Is diamond rings for sure.
Now I shall place my quill in well
Lest hijacked thread occur!

[LaurenceD]

Ah...so good natured, PB. Thanks for the poetry. Now WB is an insider to our codes. :smile:

[Pickle]

(2) If I understand correctly, the order is to protect information to which Joy, Pickle and others have had no access thus far.

I think they are trying to also protect information anyone turns over to us that they want to call confidential.

[Panama_Pete]

I think they are trying to also protect information anyone turns over to us that they want to call confidential.

Generally speaking, if a defendant needed to show that a failed lawsuit was totally frivolous and without merit from its inception (in order to have the defendant's legal fees paid by the plaintiff) would such a defendant need that information and those documents at a future time in a different courtroom?

[watchbird]

Ah...so good natured, PB. Thanks for the poetry. Now WB is an insider to our codes. :smile:

.......

[Ian]

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.

I personally am tired of people pretending they're stupid.

You aren't. I say that for I give you and others here credit for being intelligent and having some common sense.

I am NOT
the only one calling it slander and libel (defamation of character). That is both ridiculous and false. I say that as a fact and NOT apologetically.


"Defamation per se" is a charge where damages are assumed by a civil court according to U.S laws and statutes, because of the specific types of accusations and allegations made against the plaintiffs by the defendants. It is not like criminal law where the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty such as in the accusations of child molestation made against Tommy Shelton here and on the save3abn website as published in AToday, or the embezzling accusations against Danny Shelton, or even the accusation that he and the 3ABN board covered up child molestion, etc...

Maybe picturing it this way may help in understanding.

Picture a set of scales...

In a U.S. criminal case the scales are tipped all the way in the favor of the defendant and must be tipped all the way to the other side, and guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt before the defendant can be found guilty and sentenced.

In a typical civil case the scale are equally balanced to start, and do not have to tip all the way on either side.. They only have to tip slightly, one way or the other for a verdict to be rendered.

In a civil case involving "defamation per se" the scales start out tipped in favor of the plaintiff(s) and tipped against the defendant(s), but as in the typical civil cases referred to above, reasonable doubt is allowed, and the scales only have to be tipped slightly for a verdict and judgment to be rendered.


What does this mean?
Those accused of defamation per se (Joy and Pickle) are presumed guilty unless they can prove themselves innocent. The burden of proof rests on them.

All that is required by the plaintiffs is to provide documentation that those kind of accusations and allegations have been made by the defendants to others, by quoting them if they wrote/published/posted it


That has already been done by 3ABN. How can we know that? Well we can be certain that if it hadn't, there would be no lawsuit, and Pickle and Joy would not be having to defend themselves.
as even Robert (Bob) Pickle admitted to here:

Ian:
Actually all but 4 or 5 states acknowledge that certain categories of statements are considered defamation per se, (which is the category of statements which Pickle and Joy have repeatedly made and which they are are being sued for) That means that people making a defamation claim for these statements do not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to be proven.

Pickle:
Excellent point, Ian. Excellent point...

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=229170
Pickle:
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.

What kind of allegations and accusations (slander and libel) are considered defamation per se, and is there a source supporting what I am saying? Yes.

Defamation Per Se

Most jurisdictions recognize "per se" defamation, in which the allegations made by the defendant are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Normally in personal injury litigation, including actions for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Within the context of defamation, that means that the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's statements were false, and that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known them to be false at the time the statements were made. Defamation per se provides a significant exception to that rule: 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:

...
* 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.

I know alot here won't like what I am saying here, but this is all just basic U.S. Law 101. I would hope if others disagree they will at least post a statute or precident to back up their opinion or view.


If you really need a itemized and documented list to understand what defamation per se(slander and libel) has been committed against Danny Shelton and 3ABN by Joy, Pickle and others; then you should read the cease and desist letter sent to them and then the complaint filed by the attorneys for Danny Shelton and 3ABN when Pickle and Joy did not cease and desist, but proceeded to defame 3ABN all the more.

here you go:


http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-corr...ld-duffy-01.htm

http://www.save3abn.com/3abn-and-danny-v-j...e-complaint.htm

This post has been edited by Ian: Dec 28 2007, 03:30 PM

[Johann]

I personally am tired of people pretending they're stupid.

Ian, you seem to be quite thorough here. . .

I wish you'd be at least as thorough when you study how all of this started, and who are the eyewitnesses right from the beginning.

There you seem to be so uttery shallow - worse than you accuse others of being. Pep up a bit Ian and create some credibility.

[awesumtenor]

"Defamation per se" is a charge where damages are assumed by a civil court according to U.S laws and statutes, because of the specific types of accusations and allegations made against the plaintiffs by the defendants. It is not like criminal law where the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty such as in the accusations of child molestation made against Tommy Shelton here and on the save3abn website as published in AToday, or the embezzling accusations against Danny Shelton, or even the accusation that he and the 3ABN board covered up child molestion, etc...

Re-read the complaint, Ian. The lawsuit alleges defamation... not defamation per se. They are not synonymous nor does an allegation of defamation automatically encompass an assumed allegation of defamation per se. Ergo, the burden of proof is on Danny, not Pickle and Joy.

What you say about defamation per se is absolutely correct... but seeing that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts makes a distinction between a charge of defamation and one of defamation per se, it's absolutely irrelevant until the time when and if the complaint is amended to include a charge of defamation per se.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

Re-read the complaint, Ian. The lawsuit alleges defamation... not defamation per se. They are not synonymous nor does an allegation of defamation automatically encompass an assumed allegation of defamation per se. Ergo, the burden of proof is on Danny, not Pickle and Joy.

What you say about defamation per se is absolutely correct... but seeing that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts makes a distinction between a charge of defamation and one of defamation per se, it's absolutely irrelevant until the time when and if the complaint is amended to include a charge of defamation per se.

In His service,
Mr. J

Thank you for this, Mr. J. It is good to have knowledge, but knowledge also has to reach the scope of the matter. So there is still plenty of room for improvement in the comprehension of Mr. Ian. I'd welcome if he manages to reach into the inner circles of what he is dealing with.

[Artiste]

Thank you for this, Mr. J. It is good to have knowledge, but knowledge also has to reach the scope of the matter. So there is still plenty of room for improvement in the comprehension of Mr. Ian. I'd welcome if he manages to reach into the inner circles of what he is dealing with.

Thank you for your knowledge you've been sharing with us, Johann.


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

[Johann]

Thank you for your knowledge you've been sharing with us, Johann.


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

Welcome back to BSDA, Artiste!