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

[Snoopy]

F,

whatever

S,

There was nothing unkind, nor unChristian about my comment. I merely stated an observation . . . if you have been reading all along it has been suggested, by 3ABN's legal team, that there was an inherent conflict of interest if Laird Heal was to represent Robert Pickle in the 3ABN case, and Gailon Joy in his personal bankruptcy case.

Additionally, it has been suggested that the filing of said bankruptcy was suspiciously convenient, as in theory it would leave Robert Pickle to bear sole responsibility of any monetary judgment against Pickle/Joy. All of that being restated, my comment was a "thought aloud" on this situation . . . in my opinion, I suggested that the conflict of interest situation had left Robert Pickle the odd man out as it would appear as if Laird Heal, having to chose one or the other case to represent had chosen Gailon Joy's personal bankruptcy case. If this is true (and Robert Pickle has made comment that it isn't but provided no more insight into why he finds himself in need of pro se representation) it would most certainly create an even more precarious position for Robert Pickle as it is a tenuous situation to represent one's self in court - especially when you do not have any legal training.

As to your decision to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church . . . you can never place the blame for that decision on another. Your decision is purely your own and not forced upon you by another. You reached a point in your spiritual journey that you felt you must decide to remain in the church, or leave . . . you chose to leave - that is no one else's responsibility. Their sole responsibility is for their actions, dealing with that within the context of their relationship with their Saviour, to blame someone elses actions for your decision to leave the church is an exercise in shirking the responsibility you have to, as Mrs. White puts it (and I am paraphrasing here), to work out in fear and trembling your spiritual journey with the Lord. It all comes down to what >you< chose for your life regardless of the words or actions of others. I am sure that you can spend enough time in the church of any faith and if you want to look at someone else to give you a reason to leave, you will find such. The world after all is made up of imperfect, fallible human beings all searching for a place in the world and searching for the One to provide hope and direction. As long as you rub shoulders with the rest of us, you are going to find things you don't like - if you base your spiritual decisions on the things we do and say . . . you are going to be hard pressed to find the perfection you are looking for that will allow you to decide to "stay" in the faith. Look up, not across the aisle.

- FHB

[PeacefulBe]

F,

whatever

Snoopy, FHB, being awfully fond of both of you young people I just have to jump in here and say something.

Snoopy, I've been where you were and got so tired of the hypocrisy and mean-spiritedness in my church family that I just walked away. FHB, true, it was my own choice, but I was desperate to find Jesus, to be rubbing shoulders with those representing Him and I didn't find that in my SDA congregation. Instead, I found deacons showing young men the door to the street since they weren't in proper Sabbath attire and pews full of judmental Church Ladies who avoided me because I wasn't toeing the SDA line. So I spent decades away from what should have been the "Body of Christ".

When members of a church make it so distasteful to remain in fellowship, I believe they are culpable for those people who give up and "choose" to leave. I believe they will be among those who hear those awful words "I know you not".

This passage gives a pretty clear picture of how our church families are supposed to be:

Act 2:42-47 They spent their time learning from the apostles, and they were like family to each other. They also broke bread and prayed together. (43) Everyone was amazed by the many miracles and wonders that the apostles worked. (44) All the Lord's followers often met together, and they shared everything they had. (45) They would sell their property and possessions and give the money to whoever needed it. (46) Day after day they met together in the temple. They broke bread together in different homes and shared their food happily and freely, (47) while praising God. Everyone liked them, and each day the Lord added to their group others who were being saved.

It would be nice if we could better practice that same spirit here on the 3abn forum, and remember that, dispite our disagreements, we are still each a part of God's family, brothers and sisters.

PB

[Pickle]

Additionally, it has been suggested that the filing of said bankruptcy was suspiciously convenient, as in theory it would leave Robert Pickle to bear sole responsibility of any monetary judgment against Pickle/Joy.

If you really believe that to be a possibility, then find me a reference that says so. Everything I've seen says that if you don't name a creditor as a creditor, you still owe them money after it's all over.

And while you're at it, find some references that clearly show that someone can call themselves a creditor even if they haven't won a judgment.

... as if Laird Heal, having to chose one or the other case to represent had chosen Gailon Joy's personal bankruptcy case.

Incorrect.

If this is true (and Robert Pickle has made comment that it isn't but provided no more insight into why he finds himself in need of pro se representation) ...

Why should I tell you? If I told you my legal strategy, how long would it be before you would tell the other side? Or if I told you, would I be telling the other side by so doing?

... it would most certainly create an even more precarious position for Robert Pickle as it is a tenuous situation to represent one's self in court - especially when you do not have any legal training.

Agreed, but at this point I think I have better reading comprehension than Attorney Jerrie Hayes, and I know more about some types of computer questions than their computer expert, based on the testimony he gave. I'm certain they have one up on me in lots of areas, but at least in these two, I can hold my own for now.

And another thing is that I'm not running up the tab on 3ABN, which could hurt them financially. For example, at the status conference today there were two attorneys present for 3ABN and Danny Shelton: Duffy from MN and Pucci from MA. I participated via teleconference which is what the magistrate's order specifically permitted.

Get the point? I presume 3ABN had to pay for Duffy to fly from MN to MA for a status conference that lasted less than half an hour, when he could have participated via teleconference. Now how much he charges for his time to travel, I don't know.

(But today was better than last time. Last time they had two lawyers and Mark Lanterman come from MN, but 3ABN didn't have to reimburse them for their travel since they took the 3ABN jet.)

But that's not all. Their computer expert, Mark Lanterman, will apparently be flying soon from MN to MA and work for two days, maybe 12 hours a day, in order to copy hard drives from 5 computers, 3 of which computers are inoperable.

Sounds like they will try to copy the hard drives out of the telephone with voice mail and the scanner too.

What?, you say. You didn't know that those devices had hard drives too? I didn't know either, and according to the letter Jerrie Hayes sent, she doesn't know that either. So I have to give her credit on that. She got that one right, as far as I know. But one of the attorneys today did tell the magistrate that they were interested in looking at the scanner, printer, and telephone too.

At least that's what I heard. And the squirrel that got stuck in our oil furnace flue just before the conference started and just around the corner from my desk, that my wife and two of my kids were trying to rescue before he made too much racket, I don't think the din he was making hindered me from hearing correctly.

(Whatever color he was before he got stuck, he was all black when they got him out. Left some marks here and there as he took bounding leaps, before he finally found the window.)

All that effort is for copying hard drives that they may never get to look at anyway, because the court has never said they can. They have yet to demonstrate why they need to, or what exactly they are even looking for.

Okay, I was told that Lanterman's firm charges $250 to $300 an hour for their work. Add it up, why don't you. 24 hours times those figures. Will 3ABN get charged $6,000 or $7,000 even if the court never allows these folks to peek at the drives? And that doesn't count all the letters written and hearings held over just this one issue.

It might be interesting to see if getting the hard drives benefits Danny more, 3ABN more, or both equally. If it benefits Danny more, than maybe he will pay for it so 3ABN doesn't have to.

_______________________________

Edited so that devices the other side wants to look at conforms with Gailon's recollection. I remembered the fax being desired, but Gailon remembers the telephone with voice mail being what they are after. And the printer was something they wanted to look at without specifying that they wanted to make a copy of whatever it stores information in.

And some might argue that certain high-level printers or scanners do contain hard drives that just might have remnants of some sort of document on them, and thus be worth the effort of dismantling and copying. But my comments above were made in regards to what I believe are the capabilities of the average scanner or printer that the average person or business might have.

Never afraid to clarify or correct, even when it hurts.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Nov 14 2007, 12:41 PM

[Pickle]

It would be nice if we could better practice that same spirit here on the 3abn forum, and remember that, dispite our disagreements, we are still each a part of God's family, brothers and sisters.

I realize my approach has changed a bit. The events of the last few weeks or so, as enumerated at the beginning of this thread, led me to decide that enough is enough. It is time for an aggressive assault in the legal arena.

The challenge will be to not go too far in the words I use, to be Christlike in it all, but the antics of these attorneys have convinced me that they must be met, and met as promptly as prudence dictates.

Luther's words were a bit too strong for our ears, but I've thought it kind of funny what he said about slapping their spirit on the snout.

Luther cared little to meet such men as these; he knew them to be of violent, impatient, and haughty disposition, who could not endure even kind admonition, and who required that everyone should submit at the first word, as to a supreme authority. Such are the enthusiasts in every age. And yet, as they desired an interview, the doctor could not refuse it. Besides, it might be of use to the weak ones of the flock were he to unmask the imposture of the prophets. The conference took place. Stubner opened the proceedings, explaining in what manner he desired to regenerate the Church and transform the world. Luther listened to him with great calmness. "Nothing that you have advanced," replied he at last gravely, "is based upon Holy Scripture.--It is all a mere fable." At these words Cellarius could contain himself no longer; he raised his voice, gesticulated like a madman, stamped, and struck the table with his fist, and exclaimed, in a passion, that it was an insult to speak thus to a man of God. Upon this Luther observed: "St. Paul declares that the proofs of apostleship were made known by miracles; prove yours in like manner."--"We will do so," answered the prophets. "The God whom I worship," said Luther, "will know how to bridle your gods." Stubner, who had preserved his tranquillity, then fixed his eyes on the reformer, and said to him with an air of inspiration, "Martin Luther! I will declare what is now passing in thy soul......Thou art beginning to believe that my doctrine is true." Luther, after a brief pause, exclaimed: "God chastise thee, Satan!" At these words all the prophets were as if distracted. "The Spirit, the Spirit!" cried they. Luther, adopting that cool tone of contempt and cutting and homely language so familiar to him, said, "I slap your spirit on the snout." Their clamors now increased; Cellarius, in particular, distinguished himself by his violence. He foamed and trembled with anger. They could not hear one another in the room where they met in conference. At length the three prophets abandoned the field and left Wittenberg the same day.

[appletree]

If you really believe that to be a possibility, then find me a reference that says so. Everything I've seen says that if you don't name a creditor as a creditor, you still owe them money after it's all over.

And while you're at it, find some references that clearly show that someone can call themselves a creditor even if they haven't won a judgment.


Incorrect.
Why should I tell you? If I told you my legal strategy, how long would it be before you would tell the other side? Or if I told you, would I be telling the other side by so doing?
Agreed, but at this point I think I have better reading comprehension than Attorney Jerrie Hayes, and I know more about some types of computer questions than their computer expert, based on the testimony he gave. I'm certain they have one up on me in lots of areas, but at least in these two, I can hold my own for now.

And another thing is that I'm not running up the tab on 3ABN, which could hurt them financially. For example, at the status conference today there were two attorneys present for 3ABN and Danny Shelton: Duffy from MN and Pucci from MA. I participated via teleconference which is what the magistrate's order specifically permitted.

Get the point? I presume 3ABN had to pay for Duffy to fly from MN to MA for a status conference that lasted less than half an hour, when he could have participated via teleconference. Now how much he charges for his time to travel, I don't know.

(But today was better than last time. Last time they had two lawyers and Mark Lanterman come from MN, but 3ABN didn't have to reimburse them for their travel since they took the 3ABN jet.)

But that's not all. Their computer expert, Mark Lanterman, will apparently be flying soon from MN to MA and work for two days, maybe 12 hours a day, in order to copy hard drives from 5 computers, 3 of which computers are inoperable.

Sounds like they will try to copy the hard drives out of the scanner, printer, and fax machine too.

What?, you say. You didn't know that those devices had hard drives too? I didn't know either, and according to the letter Jerrie Hayes sent, she doesn't know that either. So I have to give her credit on that. She got that one right, as far as I know. But one of the attorneys today did tell the magistrate that they were interested in looking at the scanner, printer, and fax machine too.

At least that's what I heard. And the squirrel that got stuck in our oil furnace flue just before the conference started and just around the corner from my desk, that my wife and two of my kids were trying to rescue before he made too much racket, I don't think the din he was making hindered me from hearing correctly.

(Whatever color he was before he got stuck, he was all black when they got him out. Left some marks here and there as he took bounding leaps, before he finally found the window.)

All that effort is for copying hard drives that they may never get to look at anyway, because the court has never said they can. They have yet to demonstrate why they need to, or what exactly they are even looking for.

Okay, I was told that Lanterman's firm charges $250 to $300 an hour for their work. Add it up, why don't you. 24 hours times those figures. Will 3ABN get charged $6,000 or $7,000 even if the court never allows these folks to peek at the drives? And that doesn't count all the letters written and hearings held over just this one issue.

It might be interesting to see if getting the hard drives benefits Danny more, 3ABN more, or both equally. If it benefits Danny more, than maybe he will pay for it so 3ABN doesn't have to.

Robert, all your mumbo jumbo would be hilarious except for the fact that actually, it is very sad. I don't know if you are trying to convince yourself, or others, or maybe both but you are living in a lala land that has nothing to do with reality.

I took time today to go back, several months and read some of your posts concerning Joy's high powered attorney friend (in case 3abn sued) and how Joy would not only provide legal help for himself but for others that 3abn may go after. Then the reality appeared that the person you were referring to didn't even answer Joy's letter and was not interested at all since he didn't really even know Joy.
The next thing I read was how that 3abn and Danny were terrified because of a new friend and attorney by the name of Laird Heal. Laird, as you told it, had this great history and he wasn't even intimidated by courtroom judges etc. You went so far as to suggest that, at the time, AF and 3abn may be merging out of fear of Mr. Heal.

The truth is he has lost all of his arguments so far in Linda's property settlement case and he has lost most all of the arguments for your side, in the 3abn suit. What kind of attorney doesn't know that he can't represent you in the 3abn suit against you and Joy while representing Joy in the bankruptcy case? Please don't waste time denying this is the reason for your decision to represent yourself, the court says differently.

Robert, anyone that tries to represent themselves with absolutely no training is up against it even if their innocent. You are not innocent. You are guilty of the charges being brought against you and Joy. You have accused a ministry and the people that run that ministry of lying, thieving, cheating, adultery, shady business transactions and a hundred other things with absolutely nothing but some letters and emails to back it up. Listen close Bob...I'm trying to help you....What you have participated in is not only serious business, but a serious crime against God and man. Robert, we are talking Federal Court here. Federal courts do not give gossip, rumor, speculation and anonymous letters any validity whatsoever. You will never get away with your spin doctor tactics. Any attorney worth his salt could make mince meant out of your defense of your actions.

You can play the "I'm not worried game" all day long but no one is buying it. My opinion is that you are doing the laughing to keep from crying, scenerio.
With all your past big talk and big blow and friends that are high powered attorney's, you and Joy end up trying to represent yourselves with no credible defense whatsoever. An impossible task.

By the way, Robert....Is it true that Gailon Joy actually has no license in the state of Mass to practice as a financial counselor? Yet that is the business that he has filed bankruptcy on...correct? Does that mean then, that on top of everything else he has been practicing without a license?

[appletree]

And another thing is that I'm not running up the tab on 3ABN, which could hurt them financially. For example, at the status conference today there were two attorneys present for 3ABN and Danny Shelton: Duffy from MN and Pucci from MA. I participated via teleconference which is what the magistrate's order specifically permitted.

Get the point? I presume 3ABN had to pay for Duffy to fly from MN to MA for a status conference that lasted less than half an hour, when he could have participated via teleconference. Now how much he charges for his time to travel, I don't know.

Robert let's also nip these false accusations in the bud. You have been told repeatedly that 3abn is not paying attorney's fees. Why do you continue to, not just imply, but to state as fact that they are. That is called Lying Bob. Not nice.

[appletree]

There is too much evidence of abuse of privileges and of financial deception in D. Shelton's records as president of 3ABN and as private citizen. It is sad, but true. All other things are irrelevant details, and are not worth debating. How is 3ABN going to recover from this mess as more and more wrongoing is uncovered on the part of D. Shelton and his mercenaries?

Eduard

If the above is really your belief, I believe you will be quite shocked at how a federal court looks at their so called evidence. They have absolutely nothing that fits the description of evidence. They have lies, gossip, rumors, letters, many anonymous and nothing concrete.
I haven't seen you here before but in case you don't it....Neither man has even been to 3abn much less aquainted with any of the parties they are slandering. For the record, Gailon Is not a reporter, or a legal expert and has recently filed bankruptcy on his "financial counseling" business...talk about ironic...
On the other hand there is concrete evidence that he is a convicted embezzler.....yah yah I know, he only took his own money....
Anyway Eduard, do you really think this is a credible source? And by the way, neither is a bitter ex wife.

[appletree]

S,

There was nothing unkind, nor unChristian about my comment. I merely stated an observation . . . if you have been reading all along it has been suggested, by 3ABN's legal team, that there was an inherent conflict of interest if Laird Heal was to represent Robert Pickle in the 3ABN case, and Gailon Joy in his personal bankruptcy case.

Additionally, it has been suggested that the filing of said bankruptcy was suspiciously convenient, as in theory it would leave Robert Pickle to bear sole responsibility of any monetary judgment against Pickle/Joy. All of that being restated, my comment was a "thought aloud" on this situation . . . in my opinion, I suggested that the conflict of interest situation had left Robert Pickle the odd man out as it would appear as if Laird Heal, having to chose one or the other case to represent had chosen Gailon Joy's personal bankruptcy case. If this is true (and Robert Pickle has made comment that it isn't but provided no more insight into why he finds himself in need of pro se representation) it would most certainly create an even more precarious position for Robert Pickle as it is a tenuous situation to represent one's self in court - especially when you do not have any legal training.

As to your decision to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church . . . you can never place the blame for that decision on another. Your decision is purely your own and not forced upon you by another. You reached a point in your spiritual journey that you felt you must decide to remain in the church, or leave . . . you chose to leave - that is no one else's responsibility. Their sole responsibility is for their actions, dealing with that within the context of their relationship with their Saviour, to blame someone elses actions for your decision to leave the church is an exercise in shirking the responsibility you have to, as Mrs. White puts it (and I am paraphrasing here), to work out in fear and trembling your spiritual journey with the Lord. It all comes down to what >you< chose for your life regardless of the words or actions of others. I am sure that you can spend enough time in the church of any faith and if you want to look at someone else to give you a reason to leave, you will find such. The world after all is made up of imperfect, fallible human beings all searching for a place in the world and searching for the One to provide hope and direction. As long as you rub shoulders with the rest of us, you are going to find things you don't like - if you base your spiritual decisions on the things we do and say . . . you are going to be hard pressed to find the perfection you are looking for that will allow you to decide to "stay" in the faith. Look up, not across the aisle.

- FHB

AMEN BROTHER....preach on

[appletree]

Bob,
I think that we should be very careful in judging faithfulness. In fact, I believe that whether or not we agree with Danny and his tactics along with his associates and their activities, we should not judge him and no one else. Be careful.
Chez

Your remarks are right on the money. It never ceases to amaze me what people can say and how they can lay down their judgement on someone they have never even met, much less, seen any "first hand" wrong doing. People, without facts, see what they want to see and in this case, many people and a God given ministry have suffered for it.

[Observer]

Anyway Eduard, do you really think this is a credible source? And by the way, neither is a bitter ex wife.

Let me be clear: Linda Shelton is not relating as a bitter ex-wife. Those who defend Danny and 3-ABN do not do their cause well be continuing to attack her.

[Ian]

Let me be clear: Linda Shelton is not relating as a bitter ex-wife. Those who defend Danny and 3-ABN do not do their cause well be continuing to attack her.

You forgot to add, "in my opinion"

In my opinion, Linda Shelton's involvement behind the scenes and with all that Pickle and Joy and others have said and done here against her ex-husband, his relatives, 3ABN and all associates will be revealed in the current lawsuit, as the discovery process unfolds.

The good news is, she will get her wish for all to be revealed and made known, and so will all the others here.

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 14 2007, 08:15 AM

[awesumtenor]

Your remarks are right on the money. It never ceases to amaze me what people can say and how they can lay down their judgement on someone they have never even met, much less, seen any "first hand" wrong doing. People, without facts, see what they want to see and in this case, many people and a God given ministry have suffered for it.

Funny how selective your indignation is, considering the fact that you said nothing when Cindy was maligning Linda for days on end, even though by her own admission she had never met nor spoken to her and by her own admission she had no first hand knowledge of anything that had transpired.

I guess you make this statement for very small values of never, seeing that it only amazes you when people who do not share your perspective do it... when those in your camp do it, however there is neither indignation nor amazement...

The bible has a word for such... several, in fact.

In His service,
Mr. J

[runner4him]

S,

There was nothing unkind, nor unChristian about my comment. I merely stated an observation . . .it would most certainly create an even more precarious position for Robert Pickle as it is a tenuous situation to represent one's self in court - especially when you do not have any legal training.

As to your decision to leave the Seventh-day Adventist Church . . . you can never place the blame for that decision on another. Your decision is purely your own and not forced upon you by another. - FHB

FHB,

When I read anything you post I feel much sadness for you. I am reminded of the young and old who have experienced pain, loss, disappointment, anger, and such. It is why we want to lash out at others. It helps nothing and leaves us with a bigger hole in our heart. We are so ignorant of how "He" wants to lead us and how "He" wants us to settle differences. You speak as though you are too close to this fire and can only see it all through the smoke.

As for the ones who "leave the church with discouragement" I know they are responsible themselves for the choices they make but I bear the responsibility as well. Have I been one of the flock who forgot the tenderness of the Shepherd? I need to remember that on my shoulders was placed the burden of winning and keeping souls for Him when I heard the call. I just must do what I can in my little place...the family...the neighborhood...the local church...the office place....here.....and.....

R4Him

[Pickle]

Robert let's also nip these false accusations in the bud. You have been told repeatedly that 3abn is not paying attorney's fees. Why do you continue to, not just imply, but to state as fact that they are. That is called Lying Bob. Not nice.

Honestly, I've been told by 3ABN sources that all payments for all legal services are being made by 3ABN.

Whether they are being reimbursed by others is another matter.

[Pickle]

If the above is really your belief, I believe you will be quite shocked at how a federal court looks at their so called evidence.

At least we have evidence.

In my opinion, Linda Shelton's involvement behind the scenes and with all that Pickle and Joy and others have said and done here against her ex-husband, his relatives, 3ABN and all associates will be revealed in the current lawsuit, as the discovery process unfolds.

The one thing that will be largely absent in the case, based on the plaintiffs' Rule 26 disclosures, is any of the evidence that Danny claims he has against Linda.

Now isn't that odd? They claim that it's all about Linda, and then do not disclose any documents that demonstrates her infidelity. In fact, the only witnesses they have listed that can demonstrate the falsity of statements made against Danny are 1) Linda Shelton, and 2) Danny Shelton. Two witnesses and no documents.

Do they even have a case if they have had that hard a time coming up with evidence and witnesses?