Rumors, Lies, & False Accusations Travel With Joy, Confronting AT and Gailon with Truth Options

[Ian]

Please note the nature of the words expressed below...

Can there be any doubt this is of the same strong-arm crowd that hung an emotionally messed up wife out to dry, probably trembling in excitement to see her signing papers, losing face, losing employment--all without legal counsel? Perhaps even denying her?

Who was left to defend her, kind sir? Jesus?

Who told you she didn't have legal counsel?

You REALLY need to stop saying things you know nothing of... yeah, IMHO

[LaurenceD]

Why don't you be the first to inform us...if she was encouraged to seek legal counsel.

You really don't like to hear the other side, do you?

[appletree]

You're missing the point. No one doubts the authenticity of one's willing signature. However, we could understandably doubt the crookedness of a trusting soul who was taken advatage of. The point is, you may not know or understand the circumstances, so therefore the term "crook" is out of order in reference to Linda even though the liability may stand. The other thing is that if one can prove they didn't understand what they were signing, the intentions, or far reaching effects, the validity of a document can sometimes be reversed. The image of crookedness is automatically reversed.

Your description of Linda proves that you absolutely do not know her at all. Since you don't, how and why would you describe your opinion of her personality? I have known Linda for years. None of the words that you use in your description are anywhere close to her true character. If you were to use words like, fantasizer, (if she doesn't like the way things are going she fantasizes in her mind they are going the way she wants them to), self absorbed, conniving, an ultimate actress, arrogant......Those are just a few of what comes to mind......

This post has been edited by appletree: Feb 21 2008, 01:37 AM

[Pickle]

It is time for you, and others who have done likewise, to face the fact that Linda is not the "idiot" you portray her as - she obviously was intelligent enough to get to where she did, therefore she was intelligent enough to understand what she was signing - it's time to face facts, she isn't/wasn't the poor unaware victim you would like to portray her as - or she would like you to portray her as. She knew what she was doing.

There are people out there that that think both Danny and Linda lack the intelligence to get to where they did, and they use that as evidence of God's miraculous working in 3ABN.

[LaurenceD]

Since you don't, how and why would you describe your opinion of her personality?

Do you understand what you are reading? I never described her personality. I said that if it "A" is true "B" cannot be concluded...and you have jumped to "C" as if that was concluded. "One" is not Linda. The only way you could possibly understand the circumstances is if you were there.

So, are you denying the antecedent?

[Pickle]

Factually...

Bob recently filed a letter in court as one of his exhibits where Dr Thompson was explaining the deal about the House and purchase of it, but for some strange reason Bob just keeps asking this same question over and over like he's never read or received any answer, and no one else here would be interested in seeing it for themselves...

Not sure in which court or exactly when Bob filed this at the moment, or where to start looking, but I'm sure Bob knows the letter I am talking about and could post it.

Bob, would you do that for us, please???

I don't recall where or if I filed that one, but what does that letter prove? Walt Thompson's explanation doesn't make it legal, nor get Danny off the hook for stating on the 990 that no such transaction took place.

[Pickle]

Pickle...Linda signed those deeds too. She is just as much a crook as you would like to make Danny out to be.

So what if that were true? What difference would that make?

Linda is gone. If she was guilty of malfeasance and misconduct, she's gone. Why is Danny still around? Why is Walt still around, since his signature is on one of those deeds too? Why the gross inconsistency?

The precedent set with how they dealt with Linda over her allegedly talking on the phone too much demands that Danny and Walt be immediately terminated from all their positions.

And why did you ignore my main point regarding who the source of my info is?

This post has been edited by Pickle: Feb 21 2008, 07:03 AM

[Observer]

Pickle...Linda signed those deeds too. She is just as much a crook as you would like to make Danny out to be.

Shiny Penny:

1) To associate one with being a crook is commonly understood to associate one with being a criminal. In the United States, one is only associate with being a criminal if one has been convicted by a court of a violation of criminal law (felony conviction).

2) I will suggest to you that it is inappropriate for you to associate either Linda or Danny with a conviction of a criminal law unless you are telling us that there has been a trial and a conviction of which we are not aware.

3) It is also inappropriate for you to imply that Linda is just as much a crook as is Danny. For you to say that, there must have been a trial and a conviction in which the court has judged both to be equally at fault.,

4) In may interest you to know that in criminal trials which involve more than one person it is quite common for some parties to be found either not guilty or for the various deffendents to be adjudged with different degrees of guilt. So, it would be quite possisble that if Linda and Danny both went to trial on a criminal charge for one to be found notguilty and the other to be found guilty.

Perhaps your comment was simply due to ignorance of the law. But, in any case you were incorrect in what you posted.

[Observer]

Linda is gone. If she was guilty of malfeasance and misconduct, she's gone.

A reminder to all: there is malfeasance, missfeasance and nonfeasance. Tlhey are not the same. One does not have to assume that malfeasance covers it all. It does not.

[Shiny Penny]

Shiny Penny:

1) To associate one with being a crook is commonly understood to associate one with being a criminal. In the United States, one is only associate with being a criminal if one has been convicted by a court of a violation of criminal law (felony conviction).

Please note that I did not say Linda or Danny were crooks. I said that Linda was as much of a crook as Pickle is trying to make Danny out to be. And until he has some legal proof that Danny did something illegal, he should include both of their names when he makes his statements.

2) I will suggest to you that it is inappropriate for you to associate either Linda or Danny with a conviction of a criminal law unless you are telling us that there has been a trial and a conviction of which we are not aware.

Please make this suggestion to PIckle, next time he come here bring this subject up and blaming Danny alone.

3) It is also inappropriate for you to imply that Linda is just as much a crook as is Danny. For you to say that, there must have been a trial and a conviction in which the court has judged both to be equally at fault.,

Please see my response to your point #1

4) In may interest you to know that in criminal trials which involve more than one person it is quite common for some parties to be found either not guilty or for the various deffendents to be adjudged with different degrees of guilt. So, it would be quite possisble that if Linda and Danny both went to trial on a criminal charge for one to be found notguilty and the other to be found guilty.

Perhaps your comment was simply due to ignorance of the law. But, in any case you were incorrect in what you posted.

Observer - I often appreciate your fairness - but I think in this case you need to also be replying to Pickle's posts on this subject as well.

[Shiny Penny]

Because I distinctly remember reading it on PACER in an exhibit Mr Pickle filed within the past two weeks, but there are 5 open cases right now, in several states, and lots of documents within those 2 weeks.

I do not want to paraphrase what I read, and risk repeating something in error though, so it would be best if the letter could be quoted.

Ian, we may need you to go back and find that filing/letter/exhibit. Pickle has recently claimed that he doesn't remember filing it. How we can rely on anything he says, since he has such a short and selective memory?

[Observer]

Observer - I often appreciate your fairness - but I think in this case you need to also be replying to Pickle's posts on this subject as well.

I am aware that you did not call either a crook. That is why is used the word associate.

I have come to the place where I am limiting my posted comments. I personally do not believe that I have much to contribute in the way of comments directed toward ongoing litigation. That process will continue for however long. I may want to comment on any decision that the court makes. But, I see no benefit to comment extensively at this time on the process.

You may note that I have not focused my comments on either Danny or on 3-ABN.

My focus will continue to be on Linda. I commented becasue you made a comment about Linda. Perhaps this is not fair to others. But, I cannot right every claimed wrong that happens in life. As I read the posts of those who come here and defend Danny and 3-ABN I believe that they are doing an adaquate job. I do not believe that they need my help.

Again, in the future, I intend to comment primarily when Linda is involved. I do not intend to spread myself out to cover every issue that someone claims. I have neither the time nor the energy for that. Danny and 3-ABN are in far better shape to be defended than is Linda. That is where I am going to concentrate.

This post has been edited by Observer: Feb 21 2008, 09:53 AM

[Shiny Penny]

I am aware that you did not call either a crook. That is why is used the word associate.

I have come to the place where I am limiting my posted comments. I personally do not believe that I have much to contribute in the way of comments directed toward ongoing litigation. That process will continue for however long. I may want to comment on any decision that the court makes. But, I see no benefit to comment extensively at this time on the process.

You may note that I have not focused my comments on either Danny or on 3-ABN.

My focus will continue to be on Linda. I commented becasue you made a comment about Linda. Perhaps this is not fair to others. But, I cannot right every claimed wrong that happens in life. As I read the posts of those who come here and defend Danny and 3-ABN I believe that they are doing an adaquate job. I do not believe that they need my help.

Again, in the future, I intend to comment primarily when Linda is involved. I do not intend to spread myself out to cover every issue that someone claims. I have neither the time nor the energy for that. Danny and 3-ABN are in far better shape to be defended than is Linda. That is where I am going to concentrate.

Observer - fair enough. My focus as well is on Linda, though rather than giving her blind support (as so many around here seem to do, but I am not including you), I am questioning much of what is being presented in her favor, because I believe it is biased and unbalanced - just as much of what has been said about Danny I believe to be biased and unbalanced. I have not given blind support to Danny, nor will I. As I have stated before and reiterate here - I support the ministry of 3ABN fully.

[princessdi]

You know, SP, I really do agree with your basic reasoning here. However, the fly in Danny's ointment here is that he decided he wanted to be the only one talking about Linda and her assosciation with him and 3ABN. Now I am aware that he really only meant that to be for the events as they relate to the demise of their marriage, but it back fired when the divorce only opened up several more cans of worms. Linda, when she could talk, continued to be silent, as she should. Now Danny is left to answer -alone-perhaps for offenses committed by both. That is exactly how the enemy leads you out onto a limb and then cuts it off.

Huh? I said "She is just as much a crook as you would like to make Danny out to be."

Where do you get anyone "admitting"?

If Danny is a crook, then Linda is too. If Danny is not, then she is not.

[LaurenceD]

I've never thought, nor stated, that Linda was completely innocent--it takes two to tango you know. What appalled me was how she was "obviously" unfairly treated...which means having all these people over you, in charge of shaping and interpreting your intimate life, calling the shots, outlining the conditions, arranging and rearranging your vocational life, designing you parting schedule, an insiders team all supported with legal counsel, and the unfair and one-sided trashing of her on TV--without anything except so-called evidence which reportedly was selectively shared with the needed firewall, and a pay-off carrot dangled in the face of an admittedly emotionally messed up wife and staff/board member.

It looked so bad that I changed my mind about a ministry I once believed was above board. My trouble may stem from the fact that I've been around these kind of self-sufficient, home-rule, kind of SDA independent ministries before, and on both sides of issues similar to this, and I know the method that is used for establishment to put self-preservation first, not justice or fairness.

I can almost guarantee you that if Linda had the right law firm representing her from the very first letter WT FEDEXed to her...this whole thing would have taken a completely different direction in about three major legal areas. Too bad.