Danny Shelton/3abn Seeks Protective Order, ... Again Options

[PeacefulBe]

Bob, is it of enough importance to those of us who are interested for you to post it here so that we can read and evaluate it? Or do you not have access to Pacer?

[runner4him]

Bob, is it of enough importance to those of us who are interested for you to post it here so that we can read and evaluate it? Or do you not have access to Pacer?

Anyone can access Pacer but I think there is a small charge per page. You have to sign up and have a password. It is pretty simple and then you can read all the documents and know first hand what is going on. That is what I plan to do.

[Pickle]

Bob, is it of enough importance to those of us who are interested for you to post it here so that we can read and evaluate it? Or do you not have access to Pacer?

The difficulty is that the plaintiffs, contrary to the strong recommendation of the ECF manual, filed their motion and such as scanned PDF's rather than text-based PDF's. I don't have the time to OCR their filings at present.

Previously some documents put on Save3ABN.com, and then links were provided to there. But as you know, the site is down.

Another issue is that Jerrie Hayes included as an exhibit something that contained some material that I would think at this point should be left confidential. And I guess that was the purpose of their proposed protective order. But since she included it as an exhibit, it has now been published to the world on PACER.

[Pickle]

Fallible, Ian, and AppleTree, I have some questions.

In the 12/18/2007 filings for a proposed protective order, we have an affidavit from Mollie Steenson. That means she testified under oath under penalty of perjury.

In that affidavit she states that 3ABN has a company policy that their financial statements and auditor's reports cannot be circulated to anyone other than the directors and the CFO.

Did CFO Larry Ewing forget to tell Corporation Secretary Mollie Steenson that he files those documents annually with the Illinois Attorney General, and that those documents are required by Illinois law to be open to public inspection, and that those documents are downloadable by anyone in the world from the Illinois Attorney General's website? Or did Corporation Secretary Mollie Steenson know all about that at the time she signed that affidavit?

If she didn't know all about that, why does 3ABN have a corporation secretary that is that out of touch with 3ABN's legal requirements and actual goings on?

Are we left to conclude that 3ABN's policy regarding the confidentiality of these documents is, since Illinois law requires them to be filed and to be open to public inspection, illegal as well as contrary to the facts? And when exactly was that company policy made, since I believe Linda says that didn't used to be the policy?

Have I misunderstood anything? I would appreciate any correction you can give, but at this point I am uncertain what other opinions I can derive from all of this.

[Dona]

The difficulty is that the plaintiffs, contrary to the strong recommendation of the ECF manual, filed their motion and such as scanned PDF's rather than text-based PDF's. I don't have the time to OCR their filings at present.

It's not really difficult.

The pdf files on PACER can easily be saved to anyone's computer, and then posted as an attachment here. The only problem is that they can't be edited in the format they are in, but must be posted intact, as filed.

Dona

[YogusBearus]

It's not really difficult.

The pdf files on PACER can easily be saved to anyone's computer, and then posted as an attachment here. The only problem is that they can't be edited in the format they are in, but must be posted intact, as filed.

Dona

Dona, are you saying it would be difficult to selectively quote and/or spin these documents? That really doesn't seem fair.

-bear

[Seraphim7]

Danny did love his wife
He did try repeatedly to save his marriage. The email months after the divorce was put out on the net where he was telling Linda it still wasn't too late. Obviously though, the doc would have to go since three's a crowd.
He claimed that she was an adulteress only after he had facts to go on and was still willing to forgive if, again, the doctor was out of the picture.
I believe the whole board agreed to put it in a nice way by saying "spiritual adultery." They were being kind to Linda. In hindsight I'm sure they see that was a mistake since so much has been made of it and Danny has taken all the blame for that phrase. See what happens when you try to be nice to people who are not nice back?
You certainly are wrong when you say he married another woman "shortly" after saying those things on bsda. Get it right. The guam divorce that Linda agreed to after counseling, after prayer, after board meetings, after every chance in the world to change her ways, was legal and binding. The fact is, it was close to 2 years before he remarried. That was not "shortly" after he came to bsda.

As far your questions of credibility toward myself and Ian....Ian hasn't made personal and up close claims...I have and the things I post have been proven to be accurate facts. I have said I know Danny, Brandy, Mollie, and the board members personally. I have talked also with Jim Gilley at length. I am very aware of procedures, regulations and the accountability factors of how 3abn is run. Now you can choose to believe me or not...my question is...where does that leave you? You who claim to have never met anyone involved, never been to 3abn, never talked to those you accuse and therefore, know absolutely zilch concerning actual facts of 3abn. So, why would anyone listen to your opinion? You can only make "know it all" posts if you "know" something. You don't. Same goes for a lot of you here. It's absurd to think you know more than the people that are there living it. BTW. I was also there "living it" when Linda was still VP and when the Doc thing hit the fan. I saw and heard more than I ever wanted to. Have you?

Appketree: There you go again, with that active imagination of yours. Ahhh, the plot thickens... you are/know Ian, well enough to answer for him? Hmmm, that is very INTERESTING.

Apparently you also miss/ignore a vital point. It has been established that "we do not know you". A simple point of fact is you claim to be somebody who "knows" the people involved yet you, as is your right, have kept your identity to yourself. Which is why, for all we know, you could be Lord Farkward of the land of Far Far Away. That said, your word holds as much sway as any of the other characters in the land of CinDonIanAl There are plenty of alter egos on BSDA who claim to "know" something or, somebody in/at 3abn. That and a dollar might get you a cup of coffee.

Dey spinin... dey spinin

Fact for our consideration - It is widely believed, in the mental health profession, that one begins to believe ones own lies when one tells those lies long enough.

Danny made said claims at BSDA and, "relatively" shortly eafter making said claims he married another woman. (Rhetorica Ql) How is that?

Appletree again, you evaded another question posed to you. Have you been either molested or raped? If your answer is yes, then of course you can identify with one who has also experienced such trauma. If your answer is no then YOU DO NOT HAVE A CLUE about what trauma a victim of sexual assault has experienced and thus, CAN NOT state with certainty what they may or may not say or do in public.

[Observer]

The difficulty is that the plaintiffs, contrary to the strong recommendation of the ECF manual, filed their motion and such as scanned PDF's rather than text-based PDF's. I don't have the time to OCR their filings at present.

Previously some documents put on Save3ABN.com, and then links were provided to there. But as you know, the site is down.

Another issue is that Jerrie Hayes included as an exhibit something that contained some material that I would think at this point should be left confidential. And I guess that was the purpose of their proposed protective order. But since she included it as an exhibit, it has now been published to the world on PACER.

After much hard work, I just learned how to add an attached file--if I can remember how to do it again. Here is a recent motion in the 3-ABN case for your information:

This post has been edited by Observer: Jan 5 2008, 07:50 AM

Attached File(s)

 3ABN_071218___2.pdf ( 262.8K ) Number of downloads: 44

 

[Eduard]

After much hard work, I just learned how to add an attached file--if I can remember how to do it again. Here is a recent motion in the 3-ABN case for your information:

The constant effort made by DS and his accomplices to hide information from the public is very disturbing to me, and I read as a clear indication that something very bad has been going on at 3ABN all the time. We may never be able to get to the bottom of all their perversions, but those who are wise will know better than to support this 3ABN deception with their money.

Years ago I thought that The Quiet Hour was the best of the "independent ministries" concerning their use of donations. They used to publish in "The Quiet Hour Echos" a yearly financial statement which was showing that only 10% of their money was used to support their workers while the 90% left was used for evangelism. This seemed impressive to me, and I wanted to support such dedicated and financially responsible work. I sent them money regularly for about ten years, and then I noticed that they had stopped publishing their yearly financial report. There was also a change in their activities, with more and more PR and expensive annual meetings which were claimed to be attracting big donor money, and I did not like it. The fact that they were no more publishing their yearly financial report, and also their changes in the spending patterns made me decide to call their offices to find out what was happening.

When I called, I was connected to the new office manager, and I told her about my concern. She said that the publication of the yearly financial report had been considered offensive to the donors (?), but that I could get one personally, and that she was going to make sure that I got one as soon as possible. I waited for a few months, but nothing happened, and that was the end of my donations to The Quiet Hour. I could have found out for myself what was happening to the money sent to them, but I did not think it was necessary. I considered that it was their obligation to be transparent with their donors about the way The Quiet Hour used the money received from donors. The fact that they had ceased to be transparent was enough for me to decide that something wrong was going on there. I could not trust them anymore, and took my money somewhere else.

There is no doubt in my mind that DS is a crook. There is too much evidence, OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, that there have been numerous "iregularities" in the way 3ABN has been managing their finances, and that DS has been the man behind all the dirty manipulations. Add to this DS's unchristian behavior and you have the picture of the Teleevangelist in Swagggart's class who claims to be an angel of light, but he is working for the devil. Enough is enough!


Ian and Dona, stop supporting this crook! It is time for him to face the music !

Eduard



This post has been edited by Eduard: Jan 5 2008, 10:19 AM

[Ian]

Fallible, Ian, and AppleTree, I have some questions.

In the 12/18/2007 filings for a proposed protective order, we have an affidavit from Mollie Steenson. That means she testified under oath under penalty of perjury.

In that affidavit she states that 3ABN has a company policy that their financial statements and auditor's reports cannot be circulated to anyone other than the directors and the CFO.

Did CFO Larry Ewing forget to tell Corporation Secretary Mollie Steenson that he files those documents annually with the Illinois Attorney General, and that those documents are required by Illinois law to be open to public inspection, and that those documents are downloadable by anyone in the world from the Illinois Attorney General's website? Or did Corporation Secretary Mollie Steenson know all about that at the time she signed that affidavit?

If she didn't know all about that, why does 3ABN have a corporation secretary that is that out of touch with 3ABN's legal requirements and actual goings on?

Are we left to conclude that 3ABN's policy regarding the confidentiality of these documents is, since Illinois law requires them to be filed and to be open to public inspection, illegal as well as contrary to the facts? And when exactly was that company policy made, since I believe Linda says that didn't used to be the policy?

Have I misunderstood anything? I would appreciate any correction you can give, but at this point I am uncertain what other opinions I can derive from all of this.

Mr Pickle,

You already ran with your opinions and conclusions and filed your own affidavits and objections and arguments with the court and sent letters to attorneys based on your opinions and conclusions. (yes I've read it all).

Being that is the case, asking if you misunderstood and claiming to be uncertain, and seeking correction now, comes a little late, and rings hollow.

BUT, since you asked...

Yes, you have apparently misunderstood.

IMO you are again making a problem where there is not one, and finding fault with others without any justification because you are lifting, and twisting things out of context, making false assumptions, and jumping to the wrong conclusions.


My reply here is for others who may not understand what is being discussed here, or may be misled or confused by what you post here, as they have not read what is being referred to.

You would not need to ask these questions if you just read the Motion for a Protection order, and what information they are seeking to protect, and how both confidential and public information is defined, and then read Mollie Steenson's affidavit with that understanding, and those clear definitions in mind.  MSdoc44121807.pdf ( 268.18K ) Number of downloads: 16


The Motion for Protections concern private and confidential information ONLY.That is what Mrs. Steenson is talking about in her affidavit in support of that motion.. Not everything filed with the government is available to the public.

The Motion for a Protection order DOES NOT CONCERN PUBLIC INFORMATION, OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS such as the part of the tax info which you are referring to. It quite clearly says that information and documents filed with a governmental agency for public access is not to be considered confidential.

(IMO Common sense is lacking here. Even had the Attorneys for 3ABN not clarified that public info is not to be considered confidential in the protection order, the documents and files you refer to, (which you already have anyway) were already filed and made available to the public according to the law, so could never be considered private and confidential)

4. Confidential information shall not at any time consist of any information which has at any time been: (a) produced, disclosed or made available to the public or otherwise available for public access; and/or (B) disclosed in connection with any governmental public filing and which documents or information could not reasonably be assumed to be, or have been intended to be, kept confidential...

Those who want to read the whole motion for protection order for themselves can click here:  protectionmotion.pdf ( 262.8K ) Number of downloads: 8



edit- disabled emoticons to quote accurately.

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 5 2008, 11:57 AM

[Seraphim7]

Ian:

Bless you for coming out of hiding. Please do address the facts noted below and help us understand why you, and others of the house of CinDonIanAl, continue to carry on as one walking to and fro seeking whom ye may devour?

I submit that every member who was here when Danny came to BlackSDA on his own is a witness. I submit that it is not an issue of "he said, she said" but a simple matter of "he said".

He claimed he loved his wife.
He claimed that he was trying to save his marriage.
He claimed that she was an adulteress.
He claimed it was "spiritual adultery".
He married another woman not long after coming to BlackSDA claiming he loved his wife and wanted to save "that" marriage.

So, he put the wife he loved, the wife of his youth away for a younger woman, before the world via a quick divorce.

That said, everyone who was here, when "HE" volunteered to come to BlackSDA all on his own, is a witness to the things he claimed. He brought his actions to the attention of the members of BlackSDA and we witnessed his subsequent "behavior" which, according to scripture, indicates what is actually in the heart. And, as I recall the word also says that we will know them by their fruits. So, from where many of us stand, the fruit he has born before these witnesses is rotten to the core. Based completely on what "HE said" and did.

Can we get a show of hands of anyone who witnessed what is noted above.

[Johann]

Mr Pickle,



You would not need to ask these questions if you just read the Motion for a Protection order, and what information they are seeking to protect, and how both confidential and public information is defined, and then read Mollie Steenson's affidavit with that understanding, and those clear definitions in mind.  MSdoc44121807.pdf ( 268.18K ) Number of downloads: 16

Just wondering. . . .

Why does this happen to be notorized in the state of Florida where no one else in this case resides?

[Seraphim7]

Ian. And while you are still here please do address the follow:

OK Ian let us review some real and verifiable “facts”.

Fact: Ian claims he has been reading here for over a year seen here:
ian Reads

Yet he demands that others “show and prove” things to him.

Fact: Ian claims he went on a tour of 3abn see here:

Ians' "Tour"

Was that “a three hour tour”?

Fact: Ian suggests he has no sources at 3abn see here:
Fact: Ian has given his “opinions”, drawn conclusions and made assumptions, also based on what he has “read" as see here:
Ians' Opinions/Conclusions
Ians' Assumptions
So, Ian is an eyewitness to what?

Fact: Ian has admitted at that he lied see here:
Ians' Lie

Fact: Ian admits – “I think it tiresome to have endless rebuttals from those who actually know no one and nothing personally, and wouldn't recognize anyone involved "if they walked up and slapped them" on the street.” Seen here:
Ians' Tiresome, Endless Rebuttals

Ian is not a friend of the parties in question nor, does Ian have any personal knowledge about, any of the things he has tendered an opinion on. Ian has simply drawn conclusions based on what he has chosen to accept as truth.

Note: Unlike Johann, who is a concerned personal friend Linda and, has spoken of what he has actually seen, heard and experienced.

It is sad that Ian has absolutely no problem presenting his own tiresome, endless rebuttals, and/or opinions and conclusions seeing that Ian does not, as he said himself “actually know no one and nothing personally.” Your opinions are not fact, your conclusions are not authoritative nor is anything you present reliable. What is factual is that you have willingly become the pawn of those who have little if any integrity.

In conclusion, Ian you regularly present tiresome, endless rebuttals and, it is a FACT that, outside of that little tour you took of the 3abn site, you do not actually know any of the parties and nothing personally. With that said, you have no business suggesting that anyone has lied, particularly not Johann and a number of others who have had personal contact with said parties. And do not bother to deny you have suggested it because it is right here in this post and several others.

In Ians' own words:

Simply put:[attachment=1004:Ian_Don_...Kow_Jack.jpg]

Ian thank you for proving, by your own statements, that you have NO CREDIBILITY whatsoever.

[Ian]

2U2 Seraphim7' and all others.

(deleted the balance as it was a error/duplicate post)

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 5 2008, 12:59 PM

[Ian]

Ian:

Bless you for coming out of hiding. Please do address the facts noted below and help us understand why you, and others of the house of CinDonIanAl, continue to carry on as one walking to and fro seeking whom ye may devour?

Seraphim,

You are answering a post where I am citing references and dealing with the subject and the questions asked of me which have to do with 3ABN and the lawsuit, but you aren't discussing that.

But since you are following me from thread to thread repeating yourself...

1. I am not a house I am a individual. My name is not CinDonIanAl, it is Ian, and I have already as nicely as possible asked you to address me by my login name only.

2.I haven't been hiding.

3.. I consider your post less then charitable. I do not feel I really owe you any explanation here.. I asked you to support your own claims about Danny and what you claimed he said by citing the posts you referred to, but you replied by claiming I didn't know my place, and it was too hard and lots of work for you to do so, and claimed it was my job to prove what you said because I read posts here. Immediatly following that you went searching, and citing posts and working very hard to discredit me in the post above , and claimed I admitted I lied by quoting me quoting another. (false, there was no lie, nor contradictions in your quotes)

Now you insult me further, by comparing me to the scriptural descriptions of satan, claiming I am walking to and fro and seeking whom I may devour.

Please stop.



This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 5 2008, 12:47 PM