The Apologists of Danny Shelton et. al.
"Linda, you are crazy like a fox!"
Sources close to Danny Shelton believe that Bystander, the author of the post at the bottom of this page, is Danny
himself since in various posts, it is claimed, he used a number of distinctive phrases that Danny uses. Though no one
knows with absolute certainty, the post we included at the bottom of this page, due to the nature of its content,
does raise some questions. Regardless though, Bystander is an avid Danny Shelton apologist.
It seemed kind of strange that all of a sudden the apologists at
multiplied and their activity intensified, but the situation suddenly changed on January 30, 2007,
wwjd, and Dewayneholden were banned by
administration for the following stated reason:
|Pinned: Administrative Action Taken|
||Jan 30 2007, 03:42 PM
I don't usually make known or give reasons for any action
I take to ban members. Because this usually recreates more drama.
I am making an exception because the 3ABN threads are such a
hotly charged discussion.
I have banned Dewayneholder, wwjd, and Bystander from BSDA.
It is highly likely that they are one in the same person. All
are using the same IP addresses (meaning same computer). This
is a clear violation of our policy for having more than one membership
Please email me at calvin at blacksda.com if you want to
return by providing proof to prove me wrong.
Its all been said before....
· Post Preview: #174040
· Replies: 0
· Views: 132
As one user pointed out:
||Jan 30 2007, 04:54 PM
I just had an odd experience. A while after I read dewayneholden's
posted remarks I went back to Forum Home and looked at the list
of members on the bottom to find his name. When I clicked on
it to see if he had made posts elsewhere it took me to Bystander's
personal information! What happened?
· Post Preview: #174058
· Replies: 47
· Views: 1,320
Now comes Bystander's post that we wanted to bring to your attention:
||Jan 24 2007, 05:38 PM
We confess that if we would have known how to resolve the
matter we would have done it, but we don't, but God does. We
urge that all who have a concern be respectful, restrained and
apply the Golden Rule as you would wish it for yourself.
ASI Executive Committee
by Harold Lance
***Aletheia already posted this sans GM's comments in Post #12. I am deleting that portion of your post along with your less than Christ-like comment. We are not going to do it again Please read before you post***
Cudos Linda, I give credit where credit is due. You are crazy
like a fox. The plan that you set up here is absolutely brilliant.
Here is the scenerio: You know that 3ABN has solid evidence against
you that gives reason for the divorce and your dismissal. So..
How could you make it appear that you
welcomed an ASI investigation into the divorce when in reality,
you had much to fear? Simple. Choose someone as your representative
that has no credentials, no real insight on this subject (except
what you have told him) and appears to have "the I am Somebody"
syndrome so, would therefore, welcome, his 10 minutes
of fame. Aka ....Gailon Joy. Could you have known in advance
that he was convicted of embezzlement while representing himself?
That he claims only to have taken money that belonged to him
which one would think, would be fairly easy to prove if one was
competent at all. Not only could he not prove it the first time,
he could not prove it through several appeals. So, Linda, all
you had to do was convince him that you were "victimized" and
needed his help to "clear" yourself. Now readers, stay with me
here, it is complicated. Gailon was chosen, (as well as Pickle
I would assume) because of his lack of knowledge and credentials.
Why? Because Linda knew that Gailon would bumble and fumble his
way through the ASI intervention with unrealistic rules, requests
and wanting to bring in many other topics that were never to
be considered by ASI. Having done this, ASI had no choice but
to withdraw before any "evidence" could be brought forth for
their consideration. Bottom line...Linda looks like she wanted
ASI's involvement when in fact, it appears she set about the
make sure they wouldn't be involved. Great strategy? Absolutely.
Only one problem. What excuses can the people on this forum come
up with for ASI's findings? So far, everyone that has defended
3ABN and it's leadership has been (according to this forum) Scared,
threatened, intimidated, paid off, ect ect....Will the same apply
to such a highly respected organization as ASI? Or are you going
to accuse ASI of being corrupt like you have 3ABN leadership
and the whole board? I think not. We know that ASI is comprised
of many accomplished business men and women with the highest
integrity. The McNeilus Family & Harold Lance just to name a
few. I hardly think that the McNeilus family needs to take a
"payoff" from 3ABN or that they would be "intimidated" by the
leadership there. That is laughable. People, there are no more
excuses, only the facts. ASI had no ulterior motives to make
the statement that they did, other than, it
is the truth. They
are not partial or biased in any way to one side or the other.
They have no reason to be. Their findings are based on fact.
But...whether Linda set out purposely to derail the investigation
or, whether she just got lucky in choosing Gailon, I guess we
will never know for sure....
BRING IN THE NEXT TEAM
· Post Preview: #172273
· Replies: 169
· Views: 3,979
Though the above vitriol is mild in comparison with another of Bystander's recent posts, one that the
moderators entirely deleted, something they rarely do, several points can still be noted:
- Gailon wanting fame and embezzling: Sadly, Gailon hasn't been the only one accused of that lately.
- Convicted for taking his own money: Vermont state law includes as embezzlement the keeping of money belonging to another, even if they owe you the same sum. See Vermont Statutes Annotated, ch. 57, title 13, § 2531.
- Bumble, fumble, lack of knowledge: Years ago, Gailon was part of a team that took Exxon to court, and won. He was more inexperienced then than he is now.
- Unrealistic rules: Linda has demanded that all of the evidence against her be made public. Thus a rule that requires public disclosure might be considered unrealistic if one has something to hide, or if one doesn't want one's ex-wife's reputation restored.
- Bringing in other topics: The ASI panel review process was requested for the purpose of looking into the Alyssa sexual assault allegations against Danny and the child molestation allegations against Tommy. It would be less than straightforward to suggest that it was requested for the sole purpose of looking into whether Danny's divorce and remarriage was biblical.
- Harold Lance's statement is the truth: We ask either Bystander or Danny to spell out for us which parts of Harold Lance's statement are indeed true.
On what constitutes embezzlement in the state of Vermont, Danny Shelton acknowledged receipt of a copy of the
applicable Vermont state statute on November 23, 2006.