3ABN & Danny Shelton
v.
Gailon Joy & Robert Pickle
Plaintiff 3ABN's Requests for Production of Documents
and Things to Defendant Robert Pickle (First Set)
Document Request No. 3
|
Request No. 3:
All correspondence, including letters, memos, notes, electronic
mail or other communication, that you have sent to any person,
entity or third party, including but not limited to Plaintiffs,
Linda Shelton, Nicholas "Nick" Miller, Gregory Matthews, Robert
Pickle, Calvin Eakins, Daryl Fawcett, Johann Thorvaldson, Arild
Abrahamsen, Adventist Today, or any church, pastor or governing
body of the Seventh-Day Adventist church including ASI, relating
to 3ABN, Danny Shelton, the www.Save3ABN.com website, this litigation,
or the subject matter of the instant dispute.
|
Response by Defendant Pickle: We assume you have to mean
"Request No. 4," not "Request No. 3."
See auto-discovery materials. In these you will find some correspondence we sent to "Robert Pickle,"
but how things I tell myself can be considered defamatory is beyond us. And even though you didn't list Gailon Joy's
name above, we have included correspondence we sent to him as well.
Documents in this category found in the auto-discovery materials that we will highlight in this response
include a brief interchange with a gentleman from August 25, 2006 (regarding
his letter that elicited
John Lomacang's
response of on or before August 24), and our argument of October 3, 2006, in support of
having ASI review the various allegations and evidence that Gailon Joy had compiled, thus countering
the skepticism others had regarding ASI being the route to go. You can find these documents both after
this response in the Save3ABN.com collection and
in the email collection in the auto-discovery materials.
Brief Interchange
"Stick with Objective Facts"
|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Bob |
| To: |
****** |
| Subject: |
Re: Private note about 3ABN |
| Date: |
Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:42:24 -0500 |
|
Hi ******. I'll write you privately in this note.
Your letter to 3ABN could be characterized by them as misinformation
because you identified their attitude, something subjective, which they
can then deny. I would recommend that you stick with objective facts.
For example, Melody Shelton got remarried on October 13, 2005, and gave
birth on May 25, 2006 to a baby that appeared on stage, I am told, the
next day. One could ask John Lomacang if the baby really was born six
weeks premature. That is dealing with something objective, something
that isn't based on hearsay.
And then there are all those nasty allegations against Tommy Shelton.
Problem is is that someone associated with the West Frankfort
non-Adventist church where Tommy used to pastor told me that those
allegations are true. Six boys were allegedly involved. Folks took sides
and the church split in the 1980's because Tommy denied it all. When a
letter was sent from that church to Walt Thompson in 2003 out of concern
that Tommy was going to be ministering in connection with 3ABN, the
reply that was received came from a 3ABN attorney threatening legal
action over defamation of character.
So one could ask John if there is any truth in this at all, and if so,
whether Tommy has ever repented and apologized, and whether 3ABN has
apologized for sending a threatening letter. Further, one could ask what
Linda did in 2004 that was so much worse than child molestation and
getting pregnant out of wedlock that she was treated so differently.
Notice that I am not saying that she shouldn't have been treated
differently. I'm merely asking what she did that justifies the
difference in treatment.
Lastly, you could ask John why Hal Steenson called me a sick puppy and
said I was being led of the pits of hell and threatened to call security
because I was asking questions, and why he hasn't responded to my kindly
written email yet after more than two weeks, and why he hasn't
apologized as I suggested he might consider to do.
Bob
|
"Thank You for This Info"
|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
****** |
| To: |
Bob |
| Subject: |
Re: Private note about 3ABN |
| Date: |
Fri, 25 Aug 2006 14:24:56 -0700 (PDT) |
|
Hi Bob,
Thank you for this info.
The plot thickens.
It makes me very sad for it seems like a whole lot of people
are being sucked in a very nasty tempest. The devil is laughing.
I will give it careful thought and prayer and compose a letter
that does not seek to offend, but to be straight and true.
Again, thank you.
Happy Sabbath
|
"No Easy Way Out"
|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Bob |
| To: |
****** |
| Subject: |
Re: Private note about 3ABN |
| Date: |
Fri, 25 Aug 2006 17:13:13 -0500 |
|
Yes, you are correct. I see no easy way out given the type of
responses they have been giving people who ask questions or cross
them. Imagine this stuff plastered all over the National Enquirer.
Not very pretty.
Now if someone could buy out 3ABN without incurring any liability
for their misdeeds, maybe that would work.
Bob
|
"I Say, Give ASI a Chance"
|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Bob |
| To: |
G. Arthur Joy |
| Subject: |
Another view re: ASI Hearing Panel-statement in opposition |
| Date: |
Tue, 03 Oct 2006 22:43:23 -0500 |
|
Gailon,
I think it important for everyone to realize that the Adventist
Church is not and never should be run like the papacy. The GC
is not a Vatican that has ultimate control over each member and
church and ministry and thus has no grounds upon which to "take
action."
We are built on a different theology and a different form
of government. We are largely congregational in nature, though
less than we used to be now that our ministers serve as settled
pastors instead of as itinerant evangelists.
Conferences and higher levels of organization serve as ways
to pool resources in order to evangelize the world. They also
serve as a way for all our congregations to provide some sort
of accountability toward wayward parts. And in doing that there
is a certain protocol that could and should be followed. The
General Conference can't just step in and tell a private ministry
or a single member what to do. That would be out of line and
would set a dangerous precedent.
There really is no way that the GC can take action against
Danny in ways that some would wish. It might be able to recommend
that conferences and unions disassociate from Danny, but I don't
know that the GC has any way to make the conferences actually
do that.
And there is another very valid issue. Is 3ABN potentially
liable in any lawsuits? Victims would likely affirm. Then if
the GC were to demonstrate that they have some sort of control
over 3ABN by "taking action," it would by so doing open itself
up to liability in such lawsuits. Thus the victims would cause
the Lord's work to be depleted of assets, the very thing that
they have alleged that 3ABN is doing and that they claim to be
trying to prevent.
I see two possible protocols one could use. One could work
through the Illinois Conference which does have a legitimate
degree of control over the operation of the Thompsonville Church
(not 3ABN). The constituents of that conference can legitimately
require the Thompsonville Church to properly deal with matters
of church discipline. And if that doesn't resolve the problems,
the matter could be taken to the union.
The other possibility would be to work through ASI. The GC
would have at least a little control over ASI since the ASI office
is in their building, and thus perhaps the GC could be appealed
to if ASI were to demonstrate that they cannot deal with the
matter in a proper way. Or if the victims feel they have enough
evidence of serious wrong doing on the part of ASI, then maybe
the GC could be appealed to immediately. But then the principal
target of the investigation would be ASI, not 3ABN and Danny,
and that wouldn't be best, in my opinion.
To what extent the members of ASI serve as a constituency,
to what extent they have any control over ASI's operation, I
don't know. If they do serve as a constituency, then they could
be appealed to as well, and perhaps with better results.
But in the end, what action could be taken? The truth could
be discovered and disseminated, true, but what action could be
taken? Individual members could be disciplined by the Thompsonville
Church, the Thompsonville Church could be disciplined by the
Illinois Conference, the Illinois Conference could be disciplined
by the union, 3ABN could lose its ASI membership, ASI could be
reprimanded, but in the end, not one of these entities has any
real control over 3ABN and its operations.
Only the State of Illinois and the Federal Government have
any real control and can take any real action against Danny (other
than church discipline) and 3ABN. The only other tangible results
that might come out of a panel investigation if it concluded
that there was serious wrong doing would be the convincing of
the board that they need to change course, and a drastic change
in denominational perception of 3ABN's reputation.
I can understand why some think that an ASI panel might not
do an adequate job. But the fact of the matter is that if there
is evidence of wrong doing, regardless of what an ASI panel were
to decide, the perception of 3ABN by ASI membership would change,
and that constitutes a significant sector of the Adventist Church.
I know it would change because the heads of a number of high-profile
ASI ministries already are greatly concerned and troubled just
with what little evidence they do have, and that number is bound
to grow even before the panel has a chance to meet.
I say, give ASI a chance.
Bob
|
|
