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

[Seraphim7]

What spinning? Perhaps you didn';t understand. I'd like a link to where Danny Shelton came and posted all these lies you and Di credited him with, and proof that they are lies.

LOL, obviously you do not know your place. It is not to demand that anyone search anything for you. Besides, once you find what you are looking for you are less likely to accuse those who help as spreading misinformation. Since you did the leg work yourself. You do not want to be "told" because you want "proof". Well proof requires work, so get to it. You do know how to do an online search right?

You are welcome to do your work while I rest.

[Johann]

Richard,

It is disturbing, but as far as Johann goes, I believe he thinks he is telling the truth, but the FACTS are he is not a eyewitness to much. He introduced her and the Doctor, he came here to the U.S. with the Doctor once and flew back without the Doctor leaving him and Linda here together. I believe he also once went to visit the Doctor while Linda was there.,.

Other then that, all his views are based on what he was told by email or phone.

Danny, Walt Thompson and others tried to reason with him, but he would accept nothing and his bias and inability to separate his feelings from his job and put the ministry first got him fired.

He lives in Europe, far from Linda, her Church and 3ABN, and not even close to the Doctor either.

ASK HIM. he is witness only to Linda's POV and his own based on hers, and what she told him, and still tells him.

That alone makes what he says relevant at all. As it provides a insight into her agenda and views.

This post, among many others, show me beyond the slightest doubt, that you are arguing about someting you do not have any knowledge.

The whole point is that I was in faraway Norway at the time Linda was accused of being together with Dr. Arild Abrahamsen in U S A. I know, also beyond a shadow of doubt, that she could not have been together wil Arild, because my wife, Irmgard, and I were staying with Arild Abrhamssen all the time, day and night, at his place in Norway.

I can assure you that neither John Lomacang, Walt Thompson, nor anyone at 3ABN could have been the eye witnesses that Ian is claiming they were, because not one of them saw anything, not at all that Linda and Arild Abrhamsen were together.

All this talk about them being eyewitnesses is utter falsehood, and these people should be honest enough to admit it. If not, they are dishonest people and not trustworthy.

Ian states that I left Arild in America together with Linda. It is true that Arild lost his passport and had to forfeit his flight back because we could not get hold of the person who had the key to where the passport was. So there was a short time I was not there and could check on them. But Alyssa was there with her mother, and mother and daughter were staying together. Are any eyewitnesses telling you this?

What these lying blind eyewitnesses completely ignore now is that at that time when I left Arild behind to find his passport, Linda was already fired from 3ABN for what she was supposed to have done in the past. These lying witnesses have not the slightest sense of chronology, or when things happened. They just spin everything to please Danny and try to make him *innocent*, even if they mix up the times when things happened.

Walt Thompson's letter, which is pinned here at the top, is a prime example of such a shoddy timing of events.

If John Lomacang or Walt Thompson were eyewitnesses, then let them say what they experienced. Something they never will, because they never saw anything.

You Dona and Ian and Fallible, keep proving your untrustworthiness, so we know you are not telling the truth. You were not eyewitnesses and you only get your information from lying witnessses.


I HAVE COPIED THIS OVER TO A NEW SUBJECT: Who are the eyewitnesses?

This post has been edited by Johann: Dec 28 2007, 10:40 AM

[Richard Sherwin]

See here's the deal, you come on here acting as an authority to all things concerning Danny/3abn and yet because you have not proved your credentials your believability takes a big hit. You have every right to not reveal your identity, but when you do not you lose credibility. Again I'm not phishing, just stating the facts, as I see them. A person who is not afraid to put their names on the lines, like Joy and Pickle did, gain credibility. (And there are those on both sides of the issues who have done this, not just the defenders)

Actually I am going by the pattern of 3abn as presented by the accusers, why? Because 3abn has been silent on the allegations, if they could show all the allegations to be false this whole thing would have been over years ago. Instead they do nothing, except send out people telling us the accusers are just telling lies. Not too convincing.

Richard

1.)"Sleazy"? because you or another doesn't know my last name and can't look up my address and phone number? Give me a large time break! Why is that even necessary?

2.) Are you going by the pattern of 3ABN, or the pattern that the accusers of 3ABN present?

There is a big difference.

3ABN tried to answer at first. Who believed them, or accepted it? Not the accusersl
"Prove all things, hold fast that which is good" and "thou shalt not bear false witness" and the dragon was wroth and went to make war with the remnant of her seed who keep the commandments of God and the testimony of Jesus" has alot to do with these issues in my opinion.

.

[LaurenceD]

Link or post number, please.

Page 19, starting at posts 272 then to post 276, regarding Matt. 7:5 and asking you to be specific likewise as you have asked others. Perhaps we can start a new thread, with your name, if you have trouble finding it.

[LaurenceD]

See here's the deal, you come on here acting as an authority to all things concerning Danny/3abn and yet because you have not proved your credentials your believability takes a big hit.

It makes one wonder if they're getting paid at least the minimum wage in Kansas ($2.65 p/hr) for their attempt and best effort at damage control.

[Seraphim7]

Richard, what eyewitnesses have you seen, and are you talking about here?

The letters between her (and to her) from her Pastor and the 3ABN board have all been posted here. Pastor Lomacang, and Dr Thompson and others were eyewitnesses.

Of all those, actually involved, no one from her church or ministry, or who was a real eyewitness, has testified on her behalf. Not a one.

You may have heard different from those she spoke to like Johann, or others posting here, but they heard it from her, or another who did They weren't eyewitnesses, they have just related what she told them... or they have spun and disregarded what the real eyewitnesses and those involved told them,(or another) based on her word alone, claiming all are liars except Linda....

That doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it is what (and who) you choose to believe.

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:

That doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, it is what (and who) you choose to believe.

Simply put:

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

[Richard Sherwin]

Tellin it like it is, for sure.

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:

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

[Richard Sherwin]

They definitely need to hire some new PR people. Some that know the facts and are willing to share them, with openness.

It makes one wonder if they're getting paid at least the minimum wage in Kansas ($2.65 p/hr) for their attempt and best effort at damage control.

[Pickle]

Mr. Pickle's constant whining about the legal maneuvering by 3ABN's legal team not withstanding, they have every right to carry this case on in a manner that is in their client's best interest.

- FHB

I think the Judge of all the earth would beg to differ. There are a lot of things that down here on earth are considered legal, but which will receive stern condemnation by God.

Someone could trick someone else to sign a legal paper that turned over the title of their home without fair compensation. If they signed the dotted line, would it be legal? In the other party's best interest? Even if there was no recourse here on earth, that certainly doesn't mean that it would pass the scrutiny of the court of heaven.

The domain names are part of the ongoing litigation. Their potential sale in the bankruptcy court was on the basis of mere, unproven, and questionable allegations. It's just plain wrong, in my opinion, according to basic Christian ethics.

[Richard Sherwin]

Adherence to Christian ethics would have ended this long ago without it ever going to court, which is in it's self against Christian ethics IMO. This whole thing, on both sides is just sad.

I think the Judge of all the earth would beg to differ. There are a lot of things that down here on earth are considered legal, but which will receive stern condemnation by God.

Someone could trick someone else to sign a legal paper that turned over the title of their home without fair compensation. If they signed the dotted line, would it be legal? In the other party's best interest? Even if there was no recourse here on earth, that certainly doesn't mean that it would pass the scrutiny of the court of heaven.

The domain names are part of the ongoing litigation. Their potential sale in the bankruptcy court was on the basis of mere, unproven, and questionable allegations. It's just plain wrong, in my opinion, according to basic Christian ethics.

[PeacefulBe]

I think the Judge of all the earth would beg to differ. There are a lot of things that down here on earth are considered legal, but which will receive stern condemnation by God.

Someone could trick someone else to sign a legal paper that turned over the title of their home without fair compensation. If they signed the dotted line, would it be legal? In the other party's best interest? Even if there was no recourse here on earth, that certainly doesn't mean that it would pass the scrutiny of the court of heaven.

The domain names are part of the ongoing litigation. Their potential sale in the bankruptcy court was on the basis of mere, unproven, and questionable allegations. It's just plain wrong, in my opinion, according to basic Christian ethics.

Bob, I completely agree that it is vital to face any important situation with basic Christian ethics and within God's will.

What I don't understand is your second paragraph. Is it a metaphor for the current bankruptcy situation or has someone been tricked into turning over the title to their home without fair compensation?

Who is being tricked? And out of what?

Sometimes a clear, straight and honest statement is easier for some of us to understand.

[appletree]

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.

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?

[appletree]

Sorry double post.

This post has been edited by appletree: Jan 1 2008, 03:56 AM

[appletree]

I think the Judge of all the earth would beg to differ. There are a lot of things that down here on earth are considered legal, but which will receive stern condemnation by God.

Someone could trick someone else to sign a legal paper that turned over the title of their home without fair compensation. If they signed the dotted line, would it be legal? In the other party's best interest? Even if there was no recourse here on earth, that certainly doesn't mean that it would pass the scrutiny of the court of heaven.

The domain names are part of the ongoing litigation. Their potential sale in the bankruptcy court was on the basis of mere, unproven, and questionable allegations. It's just plain wrong, in my opinion, according to basic Christian ethics.

Why is it that everything that happens in court that goes against your side is unethical, questionable and wrong? Yet, every unproven, unethical, unchristian thing that you have done against 3abn is supposed to be swallowed without question. Well, it doesn't work that way. You have sown lies, false allegations, unsubstantiated rumors and tried to turn speculation into fact. Moral of the story? You reap what you sow.

[Johann]

Sorry double post.

OK.

Why did Danny offer Linda - seems like it was $7.000 - money to travel to Nevada to get a quick divorce which she did not want - if he was really in love with her? She did not want a divorce. She claimed she had not broken her marriage vows and was not willing to get a divorce.

Happy New Year - though!

This post has been edited by Johann: Jan 1 2008, 04:21 AM