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

[Shiny Penny]

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.

Could it be that Merlin Fjali could have personally lent in addition to what his foundation had recorded or that there could have been a transfer of the debt between him personally and his foundation? Since Mr Fjarli's personal financial statements are not for public view, and they shouldn't be, you cannot conclude that Danny does not owe him $200,000. What about in 2006 in July, is there any evidence that the balance on the loan was still $150,000 (as reported on 31 Dec 2005) or is there evidence that by July the loan balance had increased to $200,000? I can appreciate your thinking that Danny may not always tell all the facts, but perhaps you may not have or tell all the facts either.

[Snoopy]

Very good info, S. Perhaps then, Mr. Fjarli's personal income tax returns and financial statements should be placed on the defendant's document request list. Hey, I think you are on to something - good thinking, S!!! Are you suggesting that there may be insider loans going on between board members and management - even revolving credit agreements? Maybe the income tax returns and personal financial information of ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS should be requested. Mr. Pickle - any thoughts on that?

Could it be that Merlin Fjali could have personally lent in addition to what his foundation had recorded or that there could have been a transfer of the debt between him personally and his foundation? Since Mr Fjarli's personal financial statements are not for public view, and they shouldn't be, you cannot conclude that Danny does not owe him $200,000. What about in 2006 in July, is there any evidence that the balance on the loan was still $150,000 (as reported on 31 Dec 2005) or is there evidence that by July the loan balance had increased to $200,000? I can appreciate your thinking that Danny may not always tell all the facts, but perhaps you may not have or tell all the facts either.

This post has been edited by Snoopy: Nov 15 2007, 10:15 AM

[Johann]

Very good info, S. Perhaps then, Mr. Fjarli's personal income tax returns and financial statements should be placed on the defendant's document request list. Hey, I think you are on to something - good thinking, S!!! Are you suggesting that there may be insider loans going on between board members and management - even revolving credit agreements? Maybe the income tax returns and personal financial information of ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS should be requested. Mr. Pickle - any thoughts on that?

This post has been edited by Johann: Nov 15 2007, 11:55 PM

[Panama_Pete]

Very good info, S. Perhaps then, Mr. Fjarli's personal income tax returns and financial statements should be placed on the defendant's document request list. Hey, I think you are on to something - good thinking, S!!! Are you suggesting that there may be insider loans going on between board members and management - even revolving credit agreements? Maybe the income tax returns and personal financial information of ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS should be requested. Mr. Pickle - any thoughts on that?

[Pickle]

Could it be that Merlin Fjali could have personally lent in addition to what his foundation had recorded or that there could have been a transfer of the debt between him personally and his foundation? Since Mr Fjarli's personal financial statements are not for public view, and they shouldn't be, you cannot conclude that Danny does not owe him $200,000. What about in 2006 in July, is there any evidence that the balance on the loan was still $150,000 (as reported on 31 Dec 2005) or is there evidence that by July the loan balance had increased to $200,000? I can appreciate your thinking that Danny may not always tell all the facts, but perhaps you may not have or tell all the facts either.

SP, what are the legal ramifications of that possibility, that the Foundation reported the debt paid off by Dec. 31, 2006, when it wasn't really, and when the courthouse didn't record the payoff until Oct. 17, 2007, from what I understand?

[Pickle]

Very good info, S. Perhaps then, Mr. Fjarli's personal income tax returns and financial statements should be placed on the defendant's document request list. Hey, I think you are on to something - good thinking, S!!! Are you suggesting that there may be insider loans going on between board members and management - even revolving credit agreements? Maybe the income tax returns and personal financial information of ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS should be requested. Mr. Pickle - any thoughts on that?

I will have to check on that before commenting. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

[justice4jesus]

Regardless of the changing of the sign or the intended purpose of such, we all must admit that it was very misleading for someone to put "Pastor Hal Steenson" where "Pastor John Lomacang" has always been. That IS misleading to those who are not "in the know".

Just a thought....was this done specifically to spark more discussion? I have no proof of anything; I'm just asking a simple question. Could it be that someone at the church is just trying to mess with our minds for entertainment?

And before anyone asks....no, I would not expect better!

As for you, Pastor Lomacang, glad to hear that all is well with you!

[PeacefulBe]

Justice4Jesus,

I guess the possibilities are nearly endless. Perhaps the new sign intern made a mistake; perhaps it was intended to bait a discussion here; perhaps it was a prophetic message; perhaps it was much ado about little, or even nothing. That's the beauty of time - it will tell.

I'm just waiting on the edge of my seat to see what the sign says for this weekend! I do hope someone reports its message to us.

PB

[Shiny Penny]

SP, what are the legal ramifications of that possibility, that the Foundation reported the debt paid off by Dec. 31, 2006, when it wasn't really, and when the courthouse didn't record the payoff until Oct. 17, 2007, from what I understand?

I am not a lawyer, so I will not speculate on the legal ramifications. My original reply was to point out that there may be other reasons to explain $150,000 vs $200,000, other than the one you had stated. You will note that I mentioned several possibilities, not suggesting that any one, if any, was indeed the case, because I have no way of knowing.

[Eduard]

Ian you are clearly misinformed.

The Federal Constitution does not require that people covered by the Freedom of the Press provisions of the Constitution be employed by any specific organization. It does not require that the product of the reporter be circulated in any specific media. It does not require that the reporter have any specific number of people who read/view that product. Such people can be independent, and operating on their own...

Mr Matthews, I am sorry to correct you, but I am not misinformed. You did not understand my point and reference to Joy and Pickle's erroneous claim that "freedom of the press" applies to what they have done and are doing.
Mr Matthews, whether I like or dislike Joy is irrelevant. It's not about me suing him, it is not about me stating "my case against him" The fact is Gailon and Pickle are already being sued for defamation of character. 3ABN has a case against them, and claims they have distorted the truth.

In my opinion tho- which I am entitled to- they are deceived, muckrakers, backbiters and gossips, rumormongers, and accusers of the brethren. So, I do disagree with Pickle and Joy, in that regard, and was already saying why here in this forum.

The Fact is that Gailon Joy is NOT a reporter for the Atlantic Union as he claims. Neither He or Pickle are members of the press, but even if they were reporters as you claim...
I do not agree that all should assume that the freedom of the Press and the freedom of speech protections within our Constitution apply to what they have done and are doing now in regards to 3ABN, until the court says differently. That is your opinion. It is interesting, but has no authority.

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.

Freedom of the press does NOT guarantee a right to make defamatory statements against another, or protect those doing so.

In my opinion their "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" defense is a sorry one.

The First amendment was not written to guarantee anyone a right to slander or libel others or to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire. (nor to destroy a ministry by doing those things.)

Those things are not included in freedom of the press, the right to free speech, nor in the right to religious freedom, (all of which Pickle and Joy claim have been violated by this lawsuit against them.)

Slander, libel and raising an alarm when there is no reason for alarm are not included in those constitutionally safeguarded rights because those things violate the rights of others, and that same constitution protects and insures the rights of those others also.

You are right in this though, the court will decide.

Your opinion is interesting, but it does not matter. At all. Have Pickle and Joy started the rumors about D. Shelton's financial abuses and improper actions as 3ABNs' president? It wasn't former and current employees of 3ABN? Who posted the thread about the "TeleEvangelist" on this forum? Pickle or Joy? Why have people all over the world lost trust in D. Shelton if he is innocent? Why does he have to go to court to "prove" that he did nothing wrong?

If you want to talk about logical fallacies, maybe you want to explain us what the "straw man," "stacking," and "ad hominem" fallacies are ( You are using them in you message!).

Eduard


This post has been edited by Eduard: Nov 17 2007, 08:32 AM

[Clay]

this one has outlived any meaningful usefulness..... let's move on....