John Lomacang Still Around?, Writer claims sign change. Options

[watchbird]

GAJ has taken the title "AU Reporter." You will note that he has never claimed to be a reporter for the Atlantic Union Conference. He has never claimed to be a reporter officially associated with the Seventh-day Adventist Chruch. If I am wrong, someone will immediately correct me.

What does the two letters "AU" mean in the phrase AU Reporter. I will suggest that you go back through the 20 years or so that GAJ has reported, in print (in the beginning) to a group of people who recieved his material. You will find that he reported on happenings in the geographic area that comprises the Atlantic Union Conference. I will suggest that is what resulted in the title AU Reporter. There is no claim of formal connection with the SDA Church in that area.

I will confirm that Gailon answered clearly and directly when I personally asked him if the name of his "publication" meant that he was a reporter for the Atlantic Union, and was he connected officially with the Church organization. His answer was an unequivical "No"... that he was an independent person who at times got involved in church problems in that area. He never, at any time, claimed to be in an official relationship with the Church organization in his area.

[Panama_Pete]

The Fact is that Gailon Joy is NOT a reporter for the Atlantic Union....

3ABN doesn't have three angels on the payroll. Yet, they keep calling themselves Three Angels Broadcasting.

[Pickle]

Actually all but 4 or 5 states acknowledge that certain categories of statements are considered defamation per se, (which is the category of stateements 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.

Excellent point, Ian. Excellent point. So you mean that Danny, Walt, and everyone else's accusation about Linda commiting adultery and fornication could get them in hot water? So if Linda sued them all, she could claim defamation per se, and damages would be assumed, and they would be forced to prove that what they have said in this regard is true, rather than her proving that what they have said is false?

Would you care to donate to her legal expenses?

This post has been edited by Pickle: Nov 14 2007, 12:53 PM

[Pickle]

Ian, I would just like to thank you for providing the documentation regarding Pastor John Lomacang. A simple answer to a simple question. That's all it takes to satisfy me, anyway.

Honestly though, folks, this thread got WAAAY out of hand for no good reason.

Well, we could get back to at least the church sign. Didn't you once tell me that you saw words on the sign that you could trace back to this forum?

[Ian]

Excellent point, Ian. Excellent point. So you mean that Danny, Walt, and everyone else's accusation about Linda commiting adultery and fornication could get them in hot water? So if Linda sued them all, she could claim defamation per se, and damages would be assumed, and they would be forced to prove that what they have said in this regard is true, rather than her proving that what they have said is false?

Sure, "IF" being a key word there.

Obviously she had no problem in filing the suit related to her divorce to try and get more so she has no problem with taking another to court.

But-- I'd be very surprised if she filed a defamation lawsuit, she won't even come forward since there's no "gag order" and be accountable and boldly say in public what she says to others in private and behind the scenes.

I suspect she'd get answered and rebutted publically if she did so.

Of course you know proving that what you said is the truth is the only absolute defense against a defamation charge. So, does she really want that?

You are in contact with her, ask her.

This post has been edited by Ian: Nov 14 2007, 05:53 PM

[Shiny Penny]

FHB, I am not concerned with the fact that the thread "waunders", but more that Ian and Shiny Penny do not have an answer to the question and choose instead to attack the OP. The OP is definitely NOT about Bob's character. They are not in court, they don't have to discredit his ability to ask a question. He aksed a question, that is his right as a human. If they had no answer then they should have stayed out. The thread can wauder where ever it will. We don't catch them all, but we all know that personal attackes are not allowed. I caught this one.

Princessdi - I apologize for what was perceived to be an attack. I did not intend to attack, but rather express my opinion on the manner in which the question was presented ("John hasn't been replaced, has he?") based on a church marquee sign that changes every week. I expected that Pickle would have taken on the responsibility of doing a little checking before he came on this forum asking such a question.

[Pickle]

Obviously she had no problem in filing the suit related to her divorce to try and get more so she has no problem with taking another to court.

Wrong again. Danny was the one who filed suit in Guam against her to obtain a divorce, and Linda was the one who filed suit in order to divide up their property. There's nothing there from what I can tell that has anything to do with getting more.

Feel free to quote from the court filings if you think I'm wrong.

Of course you know proving that what you said is the truth is the only absolute defense against a defamation charge. So, does she really want that?

Your insinuation is a bit nasty, in my opinion.

If she didn't want it, why'd she ask for it last February?

[Shiny Penny]

Is that a theological statement? Are you suggesting that angels cannot make mistakes?

I did not intend it to be a theological statement. I don't know about the mistake-making abilities of angels, but I expect that the holy angels are making fewer mistakes than humans.

[Ian]

Princessdi - I apologize for what was perceived to be an attack. I did not intend to attack, but rather express my opinion on the manner in which the question was presented ("John hasn't been replaced, has he?") based on a church marquee sign that changes every week. I expected that Pickle would have taken on the responsibility of doing a little checking before he came on this forum asking such a question.

I also apologise. To be honest I still don't know how I attacked the OP, or where or how I did so as i have 3 times been warned here? But I do understand I somehow screwed up in my posts and have been warned. So I'll try my best not to mess up again to the best of my ability and understanding.

Sometimes my sense of the ridiculous gets the best of me, and I admit I strongly object to some ideas, views, and claims and even behavior on this forum, but my attacks, if they can be considered that, or are considered that way, are intended to be against those things and not against a individual personally.

Peace

[awesumtenor]

I also apologise. To be honest I still don't know how I attacked the OP, or where or how I did so as i have 3 times been warned here? But I do understand I somehow screwed up in my posts and have been warned. So I'll try my best not to mess up again to the best of my ability and understanding.

Peace

You did it, as you are wont to do, through your editorializing... for example you stated this, in another thread:

I have a respect for Gerry Spence, and appreciate his way of thinking and speaking. I have his books, I have read and followed his cases, and commentary on cases on CNN; so the boneheaded moves and arguments you and joy have made so far, and how you interpret things does not indicate to me that you are following any brilliant or common sense type legal counsel he would have given. (one example: post 10 in this very thread)

You could have conveyed what you were trying to say without calling the "moves and arguments" in question "boneheaded"; once you did you crossed into the area of ad hominem and attacked their person rather than their "moves and arguments"

Sometimes my sense of the ridiculous gets the best of me, and I admit I strongly object to some ideas, views, and claims and even behavior on this forum, but my attacks, if they can be considered that, or are considered that way, are intended to be against those things and not against a individual personally.

This could be credible if this were not a text medium. If it were a voice medium, then a spur of the moment exclamation would be possible and, given the nature of the topic, even probable. But this is *text*. You have to formulate a response and type it out and then send it to the forum. In that process you have myriad opportunities to consider and reconsider what you are saying... as such, what you send is what you planned, consciously and specifically, to say... that includes the attacks.

If you have facts to refute what Pickle or anyone else says, then state them without the editorial comments on the person who stated them and you will avoid stepping out of bounds...

Selah.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Ian]

Wrong again. Danny was the one who filed suit in Guam against her to obtain a divorce, and Linda was the one who filed suit in order to divide up their property. There's nothing there from what I can tell that has anything to do with getting more.

Except for the document which they both signed dividing their property? Except for the 150, 000 Danny gave her for her half of the house and furnishings? Except for the furnishings etc she picked up in more then one truck, all of which you have documented yourself, and all of which took place before she filed her civil case???

Your insinuation is a bit nasty, in my opinion.

If she didn't want it, why'd she ask for it last February?

It wasn't meant to be nasty, your accusation is less then kind, as I said I don't know.

You brought up her filing a defamation suit, not me. Why hasn't she proceeded with one, if as you posted it could make her request become reality?? Don't ask me, as all I can do is give my opinion which I already did, as I suggested since you are in contact with her, ask her.

[Shiny Penny]

You did it, as you are wont to do, through your editorializing... for example you stated this, in another thread:
You could have conveyed what you were trying to say without calling the "moves and arguments" in question "boneheaded"; once you did you crossed into the area of ad hominem and attacked their person rather than their "moves and arguments"
This could be credible if this were not a text medium. If it were a voice medium, then a spur of the moment exclamation would be possible and, given the nature of the topic, even probable. But this is *text*. You have to formulate a response and type it out and then send it to the forum. In that process you have myriad opportunities to consider and reconsider what you are saying... as such, what you send is what you planned, consciously and specifically, to say... that includes the attacks.
...

Thank you for this explanation. It helps to clarify things a bit more for me.

Could Ian have said "the moves and arguments, which in my opinion are boneheaded...." - and not considered to be attacking?

[awesumtenor]

Thank you for this explanation. It helps to clarify things a bit more for me.

Could Ian have said "the moves and arguments, which in my opinion are boneheaded...." - and not considered to be attacking?

No... that would just be changing saying to someone " you're an idiot" to "In my opinion, you're an idiot".

It's still ad hominem.

In His service,
Mr. J

[caribbean sda]

It's been established that John Lomacang is still around...at least for now anyways...

Maybe this one could die a natural death?

oh well...carry on why let a...um...er...good discussion go to waste....

This post has been edited by caribbean sda: Nov 15 2007, 09:34 AM

[Pickle]

Ian, Ian. You could at leas get your facts straight before commenting.

Except for the document which they both signed dividing their property?

There has yet to be any signed document dividing up "their property." The agreement of June 4, 2004, only concerns certain items, and Linda wasn't even given her kids' baby things by that agreement.

Except for the 150, 000 Danny gave her for her half of the house and furnishings?

I would like to see an independent appraisal of that house before commenting.

If Danny could claim in July 2006 in an affidavit that he had a $200,000 mortgage balance on the house from Merlin Fjarli, and if the mortgage balance with the Fjarli Foundation was down to $150,000 by Dec. 31, 2005, you really ought to demand evidence of anything Danny says.

You brought up her filing a defamation suit, not me. Why hasn't she proceeded with one, if as you posted it could make her request become reality??

What request are you referring to? Please quote it.