3abn Adds New Board Member, Union President? Options

[YogusBearus]

I would not think that the webmaster of a site could claim a site as his, so I think some of what you wrote could use some tweaking.

But as far as the webmaster goes, the lawsuit says:


Of course, just because the lawsuit says that doesn't make it so.

Bob, this may have already been answered. If so, I missed it. Have you clarified who the owner of the save3abn site is? It sounds like there is some controversy surrounding that basic fact and I assume it would be helpful to clear things up.

If you have already answered this directly, please link me to your statement.

-bear

[PrincessDrRe]

One of the problems is, in certain places, that too much time has passsed for legal proccess to take place.

Which is scary because what that says is that those that molest can continue to molest as long as they never get caught....

...and that's sad!

[Fran]

Which is scary because what that says is that those that molest can continue to molest as long as they never get caught....

...and that's sad!

This is wrong, so wrong! This is a situation where the offender goes merrily on their way to continue their sexual desires at the expense of Many! Their victims suffer a lifetime. The offender moves on to new playgrounds and never think about the abused.

I better stop before I REALLY give my opinion!

[Noahswife]

Which is scary because what that says is that those that molest can continue to molest as long as they never get caught....

...and that's sad!

Has there been any discussion of the case in Salem, Oregon? I don't recall anything here but I may have missed something. It appears this is a civil action where the church was named as a defendant. Does anyone know the status since the news article I found is from last August.

http://www.salem-news.com/printview.php?id=5459

[Fran]

Has there been any discussion of the case in Salem, Oregon? I don't recall anything here but I may have missed something. It appears this is a civil action where the church was named as a defendant. Does anyone know the status since the news article I found is from last August.

http://www.salem-news.com/printview.php?id=5459

We need Jesus to come quickly.

[Ian]

Somehow I missed this post, possibly because a lot of older threads have been bumped up to page one and burying many of the more recent threads in the process.

Ian, I believe what you have posted here bears further discussion. I happen to believe that a number of your thoughts and observations in this post make a lot of common sense and would hate to see them disappear out of view before we have a an opportunity to look at them in more depth.

Frankly, statements supported by documentation hold a lot of weight with many reading here, so if you don't mind spending the time posting the documents you refer to above, it might bring more clarity and credibility to the questions you are asking and the comments you are making.

I apologize for not providing them in my post to Mr Pickle. I wasn't thinking about the others here, I just assumed he would answer and would know of my references. Apparently I was either wrong, or he is still working on his answer, and hasn't had sufficient time to reply.


Here,in part, is an answer to your request:

33 Filed & Entered: 11/30/2007
Motion to Sell
Docket Text: Motion filed by Trustee Janice G. Marsh for Sale of Property Under Section 363 (B) (1) all domain names and (2) all prepetition claims against Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., and its officers, directors and shareholders and employees, including Danny Shelton with certificate of service (Marsh, Janice) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2007 (jk, USBC).

 JMBankdoc33113007.pdf ( 27.57K ) Number of downloads: 16

 JMBankdoc33_1113007.pdf ( 22.87K ) Number of downloads: 12

47 Filed & Entered: 12/14/2007
Objection
Docket Text: Objection with certificate of service filed by Debtor Gailon Arthur Joy Re: [33] Motion filed by Trustee Janice G. Marsh for Sale of Property Under Section 363 (B) (1) all domain names and (2) all prepetition claims against Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., and its officers, directors and shareholders and employees, includi (Heal, Laird)

 GJBankdoc47121407.pdf ( 107.64K ) Number of downloads: 27

48 Filed & Entered: 12/14/2007
Affidavit/Declaration
Docket Text: Affidavit of Bob Pickle In Support of Objection to Trustee's Motion to Sell[#33] (Re: [47] Objection, ). filed by Debtor Gailon Arthur Joy (Heal, Laird)

[attachment=1027:BPdoc48010208.pdf]

Perhaps we could start here? :)



edit 1.) for clarification-- to include court docket text, and document/notice which Pickle and joy were replying and objecting to.2. removed pdf file as the wrong file was uploaded

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 15 2008, 03:45 PM

[Ian]

I apologize to the 6 that had already viewed the wrong document, and for any confusion that may have caused. I uploaded the wrong file.

Right document number, wrong court...

Here is the correct file

48 Filed & Entered: 12/14/2007
Affidavit/Declaration
Docket Text: Affidavit of Bob Pickle In Support of Objection to Trustee's Motion to Sell[#33] (Re: [47] Objection, ). filed by Debtor Gailon Arthur Joy (Heal, Laird)

 BPbankdoc48121407.pdf ( 523.45K ) Number of downloads: 22

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 15 2008, 03:57 PM

[PeacefulBe]

Am interested in hearing Bob's answer to Yogus' question up above.

This post has been edited by PeacefulBe: Jan 15 2008, 05:16 PM

[Ian]

Am interested in hearing Bob's answer to Yogus' question up above.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=232764

Somehow I missed this post, http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...st&p=232474
possibly because a lot of older threads have been bumped up to page one and burying many of the more recent threads in the process.

Ian, I believe what you have posted here bears further discussion. I happen to believe that a number of your thoughts and observations in this post make a lot of common sense and would hate to see them disappear out of view before we have a an opportunity to look at them in more depth.

Frankly, statements supported by documentation hold a lot of weight with many reading here,..

I would also be interested in hearing Mr Pickle answer YB's question and my post and questions also...
( I inserted the link to both above in case he missed them)

Peace--

This post has been edited by Ian: Jan 24 2008, 11:43 AM

[inga]

I would also be interested in hearing Mr Pickle answer YB's question and my post and questions also...
( I inserted the link to both above in case he missed them)]

Peace--

You might be "interested" in having the information, but Bob Pickle might not be "interested" in giving it out -- if he knows who the actual owner/renter of the domain name currently is.

If he knows, why should he tell you?

Now, if DS/3ABN should offer to pay $5,000.00 for each version of the original domain, perhaps the owners would come out of the woodwork and line up to be paid.

[Ian]

You might be "interested" in having the information, but Bob Pickle might not be "interested" in giving it out -- if he knows who the actual owner/renter of the domain name currently is.

If he knows, why should he tell you?

Now, if DS/3ABN should offer to pay $5,000.00 for each version of the original domain, perhaps the owners would come out of the woodwork and line up to be paid.

Inga,

If you read the context and background you will see that the questions were about the original sites.

They were raised because despite all their work, writings/reportings and contributions and even quoted emails from Gailon Joy concerning those sites. Bob was repeating his earlier claims that it wasn't his site, and Gailon was claiming in court he did not believe they were his sites.

Both also implied/claimed to not have much or anything to do with what was posted there either, again, Bob in his posts here on these forums in answer to the posted questions here since the sites first opened, and Gailon most recently in bannkruptcy court.

All of this was before the rash of new sites opened up.

Naturally this raised the question of who did own the sites and who was responsible for the content.

But you are right, Bob does not seem inclined to answer, nor does he have to, that's his choice.

But IMHO something smells stinky here.


And becomes more so when I compare statements and claims by Gailon Joy in the pdf PACER document (posted above) to his subsequent actions and orders/commands in the letter from him (which SSOM posted here):

I am ordering the website opened for 48 hours so that we can accomodate several requests to copy and replicate the information on the site to make the information available for other national and
international requests for websites... it is to be made clear, that anyone may copy and reproduce its contents and repost the same virtually anywhere and anytime without further permission of the owner.

Ian

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 1 2008, 06:02 AM

[Pickle]

But Ian, you already admitted elsewhere that that document didn't have Gailon's signature on it.

I still maintain that it's never been my site, and I haven't had control over the content. Now if you want to quibble over exactly what I meant when I said that, see if you can show up when Danny or 3ABN finally does a deposition.

[Ian]

But Ian, you already admitted elsewhere that that document didn't have Gailon's signature on it.
I still maintain that it's never been my site, and I haven't had control over the content. Now if you want to quibble over exactly what I meant when I said that...

And.. as I already quoted it "elsewhere" the document is signed like this:

Respectfully Submitted,
Gailon Arthur Joy,

By His Attorney,

/s/ Laird J. Heal
Laird J. Heal, Esq...

I don't like to assume, quibble or play game with words and meanings.

I'd rather just ask you straight out "What is your point in making an issue of the signature?" "what do you mean?" hmmm???



Are you claiming that Gailon Joy didn't draft that document?

YES ____ NO ____


Are you claiming that Gailon Joy didn't submit that document to the court himself by the hand of his Attorney, Heal?

YES ____ NO ____

[Pickle]

All I'm saying is that another member posted an hypothesis, and you claimed in contradiction to that hypothesis that Gailon signed the document. Then you corrected your error about the signature, but now have gone back to making the same kind of statements as before, which are based on an assumption you have yet to prove, an assumption revealed by the post of that other member

[Shepherdswife]

All I'm saying is that another member posted an hypothesis, and you claimed in contradiction to that hypothesis that Gailon signed the document. Then you corrected your error about the signature, but now have gone back to making the same kind of statements as before, which are based on an assumption you have yet to prove, an assumption revealed by the post of that other member

Wow, Bob! You have been spending too much time with legal stuff--you are beginning to talk like them...


Shepherdswife