Hospitalization Of Danny Shelton, Forwarded Announcement from Club Adventist Options

[Artiste]

Welcome back to BSDA, Artiste!

Thank you, Johann!

[LaurenceD]

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.

If you understand jurisprudence 101 this won't be very hard: I said, "Ian, and only Ian, is calling it slander and libel here and now," I didn't say you were the only one. Let's not pretend anyone's being stupid here. You were the only one here and now.

"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.

Who, besides you, has determined that anything said was/is defamation per se as opposed to defamation per quod, or better yet...simply injurious falsehood, or simply an imputation that is harmful without being defamatory? Right now, the difference between the two is considered a mess by most scholars and often there is no clear distinction. One scholar put it this way, "This ostensibly simple classification system has gone through so many bizarre twists and turns over the last two centuries that the entire area is now a baffling maze of terms with double meanings, variations upon variations, and multiple lines of precedent." And another says, "Even in the states where the per se distinction continues to be a factor, it isn't a guarantee of big awards. If you can't show you were damaged by a statement that was defamatory per se, it's possible a trial could result in a finding for you – but only $1 or some other token amount in damages. Courts in most states still technically distinguish between defamation per se and defamation per quod. However, the effect of the distinction has been hugely diluted by federal rulings (such as the landmark libel case Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc.) that have declared that damages "may not be presumed" – a way of saying, "mebbe yes, mebbe no."

So, you may understand there's no guarantee anyone will agree with your hopeful opinion. Let's get a little more specific. According to your interprtation, any lady at 3abn who may have been publically accused of adultry, directly or though insinuation, could simply file charges and all she'd have to do--since she knows she didn't do it--is go to court and collect the damages.

Hummmm. You certain "this is all just basic U.S. Law 101?" I think this river runs a lot deeper than you've been told.

[PeacefulBe]

Glad to see you back, Artiste!

[Artiste]

Glad to see you back, Artiste!

Thank you, PB!

I missed you all...


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

[Pickle]

Re-read the complaint, Ian. The lawsuit alleges defamation... not defamation per se.

Whether this reference is adequate or not, I cannot say, but paragraph 75 of the complaint says:

75. Defendants' false statements refer to Plaintiffs' trade, business and profession, contain false accusations of the commission of a crime by both Plaintiffs, and impute serious misconduct to Plaintiffs 3ABN and Danny Shelton and are therefore defamatory per se.

[Ian]

Re-read the complaint, Ian. The lawsuit alleges defamation... not defamation per se.

Whether this reference is adequate or not, I cannot say, but paragraph 75 of the complaint says:

"75. Defendants' false statements refer to Plaintiffs' trade, business and profession, contain false accusations of the commission of a crime by both Plaintiffs, and impute serious misconduct to Plaintiffs 3ABN and Danny Shelton and are therefore defamatory per se."

Mr Pickle,

While we obviously disagree on much, I do sincerely appreciate your second clarification here on this thread. Thank you.

In post #310 here, which Mr J and others are arguing with I already supplied a link to your earlier post in this thread explaining to PB that defamation per se was part of the lawsuit.

I also supplied a link to your quote from the lawsuit above , as well as a link to the "Cease and desist" letter sent one year ago.

As the "save3ABN" website links I supplied no longer work... I am including the other quote I cited for those who do care to check references, examine the context, and facts or evidence before replying, arguing, denying, or forming an opinion.


quote:
"...Finally, we have been informed that you have maliciously published outrageous, highly damaging and defamatory statements about both Danny Shelton and 3ABN on this same website. These despicable statements include, but are not limited to:.

*
3ABN, through its board chairman has "admitted in writing that Danny [Shelton] had been involved in a cover up" of criminal conduct.
*
Danny Shelton knowingly lied regarding a feud between Tommy Shelton and Glenn Dryden.
*
3ABN directed an attorney to use "intimidation tactics to cover up allegations of child molestation".
*
Danny Shelton attempted to cover up and silence child molestation allegations.
*
Danny Shelton "abuses his power" and "steam roll[s] over alleged victims of his brother Tommy's sexual misconduct."(hereinafter the "Statements").

The obvious meaning of these horrendous falsehoods is that Danny Shelton and 3ABN participated in an orchestrated effort to cover up alleged criminal conduct. The actions you falsely attribute to our clients would be a crime and, as I am sure you are aware, false accusations of criminal conduct constitute defamation per se by you." -- end quote

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 3 2008, 08:25 AM

[Pickle]

While they make the claims, it will be tough for them to prove, given all the evidence that is available.

[Ian]

While they make the claims, it will be tough for them to prove, given all the evidence that is available.

You appear to be trying to pretend the burden of proof is on 3ABN rather then yourself.

It is the type of accusations and allegations made which define them as defamation per se. All they have to do is quote you...

The only way it's not defamation per se, is if you prove you are telling the truth..

You are free to disagree, but this was already explained here with legal references, so, it doesn't seem worth arguing about further, does it?

The bottom line for me and others, is that the court has the final say, and will render the verdict.I am content to wait, too many sincere and heartfelt prayers from both sides have been made regarding this for the truth not to triumph.

True?

[LaurenceD]

The only way it's not defamation per se, is if you prove you are telling the truth.

That's better. There was no reason, earlier, for you to try and make it sound like there were no other possibilities...such as the ones I mentioned above. You have NO guarantees with this. Courts have often disagreed with attorny's classifications.

The bottom line for me and others, is that the court has the final say, and will render the verdict.

That's better. There was no reason, earlier, for you to try and make this sound like anything had already been determined.

[LaurenceD]

I am content to wait, too many sincere and heartfelt prayers from both sides have been made regarding this for the truth not to triumph.

Have you considered all the sincere and heartfelt prayers that must have been offered in the other case 3abn lost in the first round, and perhaps final (3ABN v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS). I doubt if prayers have anything to do with the outcome in our justice system. The determination of truth requires a whole different process.

[Pickle]

The only way it's not defamation per se, is if you prove you are telling the truth..

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think it's already been proven. the complaint raises two issues: 1) Did Danny disclose all his income and assets on his financial affidavit? 2) Did he enrich himself in vioaltion of the Internal Revenue Code?

On question 1, it is proven that he did not list DLS Publishing as an asset on that affidavit, did not list any income from DLS Publishing on that affidavit, and did not list any royalty income on that affidavit.

On question 2, it is proven that he bought a house for $6,139 from 3ABN in 1998 and sold it one week later for $135,000. The only question left is whether that constituted a section 4958 excess benefit transaction, and I can't see any way to argue that it wasn't.

I got ahead of myself. While the two questions raised by the complaint have been proven, I'm not positive that it has been proven that I ever made the exact claims the lawsuit states prior to the lawsuit being filed. So you see, I could approach it two ways. I could prove the things true, or I could first say, "Prove that I really did say what you said I said."

[runner4him]

How did we go from Beartrap clarifying that Danny Shelton wasn't a lifelong vegetarian, to all this about sugar and dairy and this type of thing:
It is my understanding Dan has not had meat, sugar or dairy in his diet for many, many years.

That was actually posted in the Jim Gilley thread when this was all first announced by appletree.

Thanks.

I am wondering how Danny Shelton's health is doing? I heard he was still having some problems with his heart. Does anyone know?

[jakann]

I am wondering how Danny Shelton's health is doing? I heard he was still having some problems with his heart. Does anyone know?

The question could as well be asked of Elder Gilley. He has had, as I understand, a great number of health problems in recent years. I saw him recently and he didn't look all that well. Hope the stress of all this will not wear too heavily on him.