The Latest In The 3-ring Circus, Discount Attorneys? Options

[Snoopy]

As if he had a choice...

I myself won't ever call him BOB either, he is not my friend nor a relative, and his login name here is "Pickle"

IMO calling him Robert was ALWAYS courteous and respectful. That is his legal, identified and acknowledged name here.
I grew up in the old school of politeness, respect, and etiquette where full names and or titles when addressing or referring to another is always respectfulll, and calling someone by a dimunitive or nickname implies a closeness such as kinship or friendship, and so is considered rude, impertinent, and even dishonest if that isn't the case.
I considered Mr Pickle's protests, and insistance on being called "Bob" after at least 6 mos of answering to "Robert" as petty and just an attempt to control another, and an attempt to one up FHB, and to be what was actually disrespectful, and all those who made such a big deal out of it childish and petty and lacking valid arguments as well. I consider the congratulations and thanks here equally so, and to be "crowing" about getting their way.
My opinion.

Grow up, Ian. It is Sabbath. Quitcherbellyachin and go give thanks for something. Sing a hymn.

[Ian]

Only if you discount the other facts, Fearless Leader.

Discount what other facts PrincessDi? This may be your view but it isn't established fact as far as I am concerned. If I am wrong, then I would appreciate seeing that with references and documentation by what has been posted and published.

"by this time Danny was obliterating her from the network by having everyone retape their shows with her on them, she had also spent countless hours "coundelling " with Jl,(the electronics guy/counselor) at 3ABN and other members of the board. Now, this same man JL, was "inviting her to a meeting at which they were trying to disfellowship her for something she did not do"

Fact, JL only councelled her privately as her Pastor.
Linda herself called him, gave her side first by phone,and then invited him to her house to talk to Danny, and .counsel her and him both. She may not have liked his advice or counsel, or perspective and chosen to disregard it, and continue in her course, after doing so,but that's the facts. Have you read her letters to Pastor Lomacang and his to her about this which were published here?

No one ever re-taped any shows. Don't know where you got that.

No one ever tried to disfellowship her either. You are mixing up events and times. She didn't attend church for at least 6 mos after the divorce if you believe what Linda says on her website and then when she did return she couldn't serve in office or on the podium and she dropped her membership to avoid a censure rather then attend the Thompsonville Church meeting as invited to and give her perspective and side to her friends and brethren. That's what she herself says on her website

I do personally know Danny was NOT involved in the Church discipline issue, and actually asked that they not take action against her, but the church had to follow their own conscience and obligations, informed him of that, and then they did so, but out of love and concern for her, they put her under censure rather then disfellowshipping her.

To avoid their censure. She left the white conference Church she was attending in Springfield,and trying to have her membership transferred to. Asked her former church in thompsonville to drop her membership, rather then tring to give her side or explanation or attend the meeting to discuss it. and then joined a black conference church by profession of faith. She then claimed on her website in answer to questions that she had never been under church discipline or censured.



"Once again they are going on Danny's word."

What word is that? NO. we're not. We're going by Linda's and Pastor Lomacang's words regarding the church discipline,. Their letters were published here. They are not in disagreement on that. She says the same on her website. But that was all 6 or seven mos after she was fired....

"Now, this is am kind of onclear on, but is it not true that lInda was also told not to attend the campmeeting or is this in dispute?"

I don't understand why that would be an issue, whether she was or not, although my understanding is that she could have been there at the campmeeting had she chose to be. The board meeting followed campmeeting, and she was invited and was expected to be there. The board sent a letter to her via Walt Thompson, which was published here. She chose not to go and Johann has posted that he met with Doctor Thompson and others the night before and he was asked if he still wanted to attend. ( He was asked not to come to campmeeting, not the board meeting which followed campmeeting) He has also posted he, along with her Doctor friend helped her write the letter she sent instead of attending

"If it is true it makes sense, if this is also the campmeeting where brandy was baptized."

NO, it's not, that was a year or two later. Brandi didn't even move to Illinois from Fla till months after Linda was fired and months after Danny and Linda were divorced.
Her studies and re-baptism were well after that.

People claiming Danny threw Linda over for a younger wife are lying, believing the lies of others or are just plain delusional, as this has been posted and sent in letters to viewers many times. No evidence has ever been posted to prove any different. It's all just empty and false accusations.

"Like I said I can be corrected on this last point. However,t he others are clear. How many of us would show up when they had be told by word and deed they were not welcome."

Johann and Dr A, called, and sent by Linda, to start...

"HB, I really dont' care who you are and where you get you info, but I am just amamzed at Danny's supporters who question Johann on something he himself experienced. At least one of you said they were across the auditorium. Where were you that you can question him on this? Danny serves Koolaid?
[/b]

Where were YOU? As far as I know Danny Shelton has said nothing about this, and no one has ever publicly claimed he did. I am glad you are open to correction. I don't even understand why you need a personal account from FHB?? You haven't believed any one but Johann so far. (does he serve kool-aid?) Perhaps you should consider, that yes, as you say, others have given their eyewitness acounts of what happened at that campmeeting, some from a distance and others up close and personal like Dr Thompson, and so far they all agree, even Linda's Doctor friends account, and so far, only Johann's is different. But maybe you just haven't seen or believed what the others say?


If you haven't read all the material posted here, and are not familiar with all the emails and eye witness accounts referred to above, let me know. I know there's alot. I'll try and locate them for you.

And as I said above if you have evidence and documents to the contrary, and to support what you claim are the facts, please post it. I , as well as others I am sure, would both welcome and appreciate it.

This post has been edited by Ian: Dec 1 2007, 03:39 PM

[awesumtenor]

And as I said above if you have evidence and documents to the contrary, and to support what you claim are the facts, please post it. I , as well as others I am sure, would both welcome and appreciate it.

You first. You claim to have evidence of Linda's adultery; you been asked to produce it to "support what you claim are the facts" and you have given nothing. You... and Cindy and Dona are not eyewitnesses to any of this, by your own admission; you are taking information third hand from fhb who can hardly be viewed as anything resembling an objective observer... you continue to throw this out towards others but when it's put in your court you never come through.

Lead by example, Ian... give the proof you say you have that supports what you claim are the facts. Leave nothing out... then and only then will you be in a position to say what you have here without hanging a big HYPOCRITE sign around your own neck... but until you are willing to do that, you are not in a position to demand it of others, your indignation notwithstanding.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

You first. You claim to have evidence of Linda's adultery; you been asked to produce it to "support what you claim are the facts" and you have given nothing. You... and Cindy and Dona are not eyewitnesses to any of this, by your own admission; you are taking information third hand from fhb who can hardly be viewed as anything resembling an objective observer... you continue to throw this out towards others but when it's put in your court you never come through.

Lead by example, Ian... give the proof you say you have that supports what you claim are the facts. Leave nothing out... then and only then will you be in a position to say what you have here without hanging a big HYPOCRITE sign around your own neck... but until you are willing to do that, you are not in a position to demand it of others, your indignation notwithstanding.

In His service,
Mr. J

Mr J,

And who and what do you know?

I offered to supply links to what I referred to...

I can't speak for others but I can speak for myself.I have made no such claims as you credit me with.

FACTS: You don't know me, you don't know who I know, what I have seen or what I have or have not witnessed nor what evidence I am privy to.

From what I have read here; your constant accusations, condemnations and ridicule only identify yoour own behavior and faults and expose yoourself rather then others.


l

This post has been edited by Ian: Dec 1 2007, 04:36 PM

[Johann]

Johann and Dr A, called, and sent by Linda, to start...

This does not make any sense to me. Would you kindly explain what you are trying to say?

only Johann's is different. But maybe you just haven't seen or believed what the others say?

I don?t understand. Your explanation is requested.

And as I said above if you have evidence and documents to the contrary, and to support what you claim are the facts, please post it. I , as well as others I am sure, would both welcome and appreciate it.

[awesumtenor]

Mr J,

And who and what do you know?

I offered to supply links to what I referred to...

I can't speak for others but I can speak for myself.I have made no such claims as you credit me with.

FACTS: You don't know me, you don't know who I know, what I have seen or what I have or have not witnessed nor what evidence I am privy to.

From what I have read here; your constant accusations, condemnations and ridicule only identify yoour own behavior and faults and expose yoourself rather then others.
l

I know you continue to try to hold others to a standard you will not meet yourself... nor will anyone else in your camp.

The bible calls such hypocrisy.

As for what you know, etc... you said this:

I am a poster just giving my own personal opinions, views, and conclusions on all this; based solely on the stuff that you and your group have posted, what has been revealed publicly by 3ABN to all, and my own personal research and investigation based on that.

If you had witnessed anything first hand you would not need to rely on what has been posted or on what has been revealed publicly by 3ABN or any "personal research and investigation". So before you get all indignant, it would help you to be mindful of what you've said yourself about how you have been apprised of what you state. You have not been a participant in anything, by your own admission, and you have not been a firast hand witness to any events or conversations... which is why you told Pickle the possibility of your being deposed was a waste of time...

You're taking on Cindy-esque qualities again, Ian; you act as if we cant go back and read what you've already posted...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

Linda herself called him, gave her side first by phone,and then invited him to her house to talk to Danny, and .counsel her and him both.

Is this only on John's word?

I do personally know Danny was NOT involved in the Church discipline issue, ....

Yes he was. He refused to allow her to defend herself without her incurring great financial loss. He used the 3ABN Separation Agreement to keep her muzzled over personal issues when her name was coming up for censure. I think that could be called private inurement, but we should consult a tax specialist before saying for sure.

We're going by Linda's and Pastor Lomacang's words regarding the church discipline,.

On September 1, 2006, John Lomacang said that he had personally seen hundreds of hours worth of phone card phone records. AT&T said they don't give out written phone records without a subpoena.

Who lied? a) John Lomacang? b ) AT&T? c) Both? d) Neither?

People claiming Danny threw Linda over for a younger wife are lying, believing the lies of others or are just plain delusional, as this has been posted and sent in letters to viewers many times.

Was Danny lying or delusional when he said on August 4, 2006, that Brandy had been chasing him for 17 years and he finally gave in?

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 1 2007, 09:48 PM

[Pickle]

On Friday afternoon, Bankruptcy Trustee Janice Marsh filed the following three documents with the Bankruptcy Court:

NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE SALE OF ESTATE PROPERTY,
DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING OBJECTIONS AND
HIGHER OFFERS, AND HEARING DATE

TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN DEADLINE TO SUBMIT OBJECTIONS TO
PROPOSED SALE AND HIGHER OFFERS

TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING
PRIVATE SALE OF PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE

The way I read these, 3ABN and Danny are trying to buy Gailon's domain names and his ability to file counterclaims for damages prior to his filing for bankruptcy, and Janice Marsh likes the idea. All for $5000. Thus, Save3ABN.com would be in their hands, and Gailon would be restricted in what he could contersue for, all for $5000 without a trial, and without our consent.

Why? For one reason, she says that Gailon's site allegedly infringes trademark and defames.

But is it the perogative of a bankruptcy trustee to decide what a jury is supposed to decide? Or has the day come in America when allegations alone are enough for you to lose your case in court, even if you probably could win at trial?

And why would Janice Marsh like the idea so much that she would ask for a nonappealable order after a shortened time for objections?

And what about where Walt Thompson and Jim Gilley said that the lawsuit was so that the truth could come out in court? Anyone think they would keep the lawsuit going after succeeding with the above? Would anything come out in court if the above was successful?

And most of all, have Danny, Walt, Garwin, Gilley, Tommy, and the board ever heard of 1 John 1:9? Where forgiveness is conditional upon confession? And James 5:16 where we are told to "Confess your faults one to another"? Have they abandoned this most fundamental Christian principle, that the ultimate blessing of God upon 3ABN and themselves is conditional upon confession, upon Danny, Tommy, and 3ABN making things right with God and those they've wronged, rather than upon any sort of face-saving scheme?

Or is there some other way to look at the above documents other than yet another attempt to silence the legitimate questions of the genuinely concerned, and make sure the real truth never sees the light of day? Please help me, someone. Tell me another way to look at this. Please tell me.

Senator Charles Grassley, the Trinity Foundation, American media, are you listening? What do you think about all of this?

[Richard Sherwin]

Bob when you were quoting Ian what was the reason you left our the name of Linda in this quote?

QUOTE(Ian @ Dec 1 2007, 03:11 PM) *
We're going by ... Pastor Lomacang's words regarding the church discipline,.

[Pickle]

Bob when you were quoting Ian what was the reason you left our the name of Linda in this quote?

Because I was dealing with John rather than Linda in my reply.

I do not recall what Linda has said about their interaction. If someone else does, I would be happy to consider commenting on it, if there is a basis for commenting.

Do Linda's and John's accounts of what happened and what they each said to each other in their initial phone call agree? I don't recall looking into that.

[justice4jesus]

On Friday afternoon, Bankruptcy Trustee Janice Marsh filed the following three documents with the Bankruptcy Court:

NOTICE OF INTENDED PRIVATE SALE OF ESTATE PROPERTY,
DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING OBJECTIONS AND
HIGHER OFFERS, AND HEARING DATE

TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN DEADLINE TO SUBMIT OBJECTIONS TO
PROPOSED SALE AND HIGHER OFFERS

TRUSTEE’S MOTION FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING
PRIVATE SALE OF PROPERTY OF THE ESTATE

The way I read these, 3ABN and Danny are trying to buy Gailon's domain names and his ability to file counterclaims for damages prior to his filing for bankruptcy, and Janice Marsh likes the idea. All for $5000. Thus, Save3ABN.com would be in their hands, and Gailon would be restricted in what he could contersue for, all for $5000 without a trial, and without our consent.

Why? For one reason, she says that Gailon's site allegedly infringes trademark and defames.

But is it the perogative of a bankruptcy trustee to decide what a jury is supposed to decide? Or has the day come in America when allegations alone are enough for you to lose your case in court, even if you probably could win at trial?

And why would Janice Marsh like the idea so much that she would ask for a nonappealable order after a shortened time for objections?

And what about where Walt Thompson and Jim Gilley said that the lawsuit was so that the truth could come out in court? Anyone think they would keep the lawsuit going after succeeding with the above? Would anything come out in court if the above was successful?

And most of all, have Danny, Walt, Garwin, Gilley, Tommy, and the board ever heard of 1 John 1:9? Where forgiveness is conditional upon confession? And James 5:16 where we are told to "Confess your faults one to another"? Have they abandoned this most fundamental Christian principle, that the ultimate blessing of God upon 3ABN and themselves is conditional upon confession, upon Danny, Tommy, and 3ABN making things right with God and those they've wronged, rather than upon any sort of face-saving scheme?

Or is there some other way to look at the above documents other than yet another attempt to silence the legitimate questions of the genuinely concerned, and make sure the real truth never sees the light of day? Please help me, someone. Tell me another way to look at this. Please tell me.

Senator Charles Grassley, the Trinity Foundation, American media, are you listening? What do you think about all of this?

Money talks, and apparently, Janice Marsh listens.

I don't know Janice Marsh from the man in the moon, but these documents prove one thing about her....She is not a public servant; she is a politician. Flash some money in front of her (as 3ABN has apparently done) and she's at your beck and call. Makes you want to upchuck, doesn't it?

Say, would this constitute a bribe? Is there any way to find out if any other money has changed hands in regard to this development? I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but we all know that it is best to explore all avenues. This world that we live in is about as far from honest as you can get.

This post has been edited by justice4jesus: Dec 1 2007, 08:51 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

Thanks for the explanation though I don't agree with your modifying a persons statement. It looks deceptive IMO. I'd rather see a quote in it's entirety.

Because I was dealing with John rather than Linda in my reply.

I do not recall what Linda has said about their interaction. If someone else does, I would be happy to consider commenting on it, if there is a basis for commenting.

Do Linda's and John's accounts of what happened and what they each said to each other in their initial phone call agree? I don't recall looking into that.

[Pickle]

Thanks for the explanation though I don't agree with your modifying a persons statement. It looks deceptive IMO. I'd rather see a quote in it's entirety.

Okay. I'll edit it and put it back in.

I usually edit quotes, using ellipses when required, in order to emphasize the part I'm replying to. But not usually within a sentence, from what i recall.

[Pickle]

Is there any way to find out if any other money has changed hands in regard to this development?

I suppose you could ask her. I don't know what the proper protocol is.

Did you notice that any higher offer given by any other person at this private sale, not public sale, would have to be accompanied by a $5000 check to Janice Marsh? Is that attorney fees? And thus, would anything from the $5000 offered by 3ABN go to anyone else, like a creditor somewhere? I don't know how these things work.

[Snoopy]

I suppose you could ask her. I don't know what the proper protocol is.

Did you notice that any higher offer given by any other person at this private sale, not public sale, would have to be accompanied by a $5000 check to Janice Marsh? Is that attorney fees? And thus, would anything from the $5000 offered by 3ABN go to anyone else, like a creditor somewhere? I don't know how these things work.

I am not a BK expert, but I would guess that any proceeds received from the sale of any part of the estate would be used to satisfy creditors.

It sounds to me like desperation is setting in. I see that GERRYS joined BSDA yesterday. If this is the "Gerry S. Duffy" of Siegel Brill etc perhaps he might be able to shed some light on this new development. It sounds to me like desperation is setting in. The discount attorneys are doing a miserable job on the lawsuit so they are moving to Plan B. Here is an address that might be useful:

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Bankruptcy Judges Division
1 Columbia Circle, N.E., Suite 4-250
Washington, DC 20544
Phone: (202) 502-1900

It would be real interesting to see if 3ABN has a vendor file for one "Janice G. Marsh". Also, I tried her website - www.themarshlawfirm.com - and got only a blank page. Maybe she wants the domain for herself!!!

I wonder what secret stash this $5,000 is coming out of? Oh, yeah, that's right. Probably some "anonymous donor" is picking up that tab.



This post has been edited by Snoopy: Dec 1 2007, 10:09 PM