Sign Up!

 

Updated 1/10/2013
2011 Form 990

Updated 6/22/2011
3ABN sued
over Tommy!

Added 3/14/2010
Can 3ABN Survive?

Added 11/16/2010
Judge Rejects
Plea Deal

Updated 4/2/2010
Tommy Shelton
Arrested!

Must Read:
Mom in Pain #1

Mene, Mene,
Tekel, Parsin

The Actual Lawsuit
IRS Criminal Investigation

Round Three: Gregory Matthews

< Prev.Next >

Due to the abrogation of the confidentiality agreement by Harold Lance, the following communications are provided for your perusal.

Quick Reply

-------- Original Message --------
From:  Gregory Matthews
To:  Harold Lance,
G. Arthur Joy, Linda Shelton, Bob Pickle,
Ron Christman, Deb Young,
Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson
Subject:  RE: Process: round three
Date:  Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:55:02 -0700

Harold:

You have clearly expended a lot of time effort and energy in this. That is appreciated. Now, we must consider it, reflect upon it, and respond.

Thank you,
Gregory Matthews

-------- Original Message --------
From:  Gregory Matthews
To:  Harold Lance,
G. Arthur Joy, Linda Shelton, Bob Pickle
Subject:  RE: Process: round three
Date:  Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:06:13 -0700

Harold:

I appreciate the time and effort that you have expended in making this response. It is clear that you have thoughtfully read the comments that have been made to you. I agree with much of what you have said. This mess could turn into litigation that conceivably could result in the expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars. Under some circumstances the idea of it costing tens of thousands of dollars is a gross underestimate. I agree that the Church does not have a process that is suitable for the situation that we are facing. I also think that it is not possible for some of these issues to be resolved outside of the civil realm.

However, I do believe that it is possible for ASI to be involved in this situation in a manner that will be helpful. But, that is only if the respective parties can come to an agreement that allows for that. I am not certain that such an agreement will be reached.

I will make some personal responses to your post to us. I will identify them with my initials (GM), to distinguish them from your comments. It should be noted that my response is simply that, my personal response. It may, or may not agree with that of others of us. In this issue, Mr. Joy is the primary person who is representing the interests of Linda Shelton.

WILL OUR PROCESS CONFLICT WITH THE PENDING ASSET DIVISION LITIGATION?

GM: This is clearly an area that should not be decided by any independent panel. This belongs to the civil realm. In my opinion, it is Biblical for some issues to be left to t he civil realm. Further, that is consistent with the CHURCH MANUEL. Some issues simply cannot be decided outside to the civil authorities. This also applies to a number of issues. Included in these would be criminal matters, and certain financial matters, and issues of taxation.

If we agree on the above, I believe that it is critical for the ASI panel to issue a statement that certain specific matters belong in the civil realm, and people who pursue those issues in civil courts, or cooperate with such, are on Biblical grounds for doing so.

Is ASI willing to issue such a statement?

IS ASI IMPARTIAL OR IN DANNY'S HIP POCKET?

GM: There will always be people who will believe that ASI should not be involved. In one sense, probably most people involved in this will have some sort of a bias. We are never going to change the mind of those who believe that ASI should not be involved. The issue is: Can we structure a process that the respective parties can agree to, and is as fair as possible?

SINCE THERE ARE MANY OTHER CONCERNS WHY LIMIT THE ISSUES TO THOSE SUGGESTED?

GM: You are correct that ASI probably cannot deal with all of the issues that have surfaced. There are many reasons for that. The decisions as to what issues to deal with cannot be made unilaterally. If ASI does that it will immediately be seen in a negative light. The decisions as to what issues to deal with must be made by the parties involved. That is the first issue: What are the issues to be considered?

The second issue is as I have referenced earlier: What about the other issues? How should people work to resolve them? As some are likely to only be resolved in the civil realm, will ASI publicly state that people who do such are acting appropriately?

DO ACTIVITIES AND PERSONNEL ACTIONS THREATEN LIABILITY FOR THE SDA CHURCH?

GM: I am one who has clearly raised this issue. In discussions that I have had with other people, it is clear to me that I have not been clear in what I was attempting to communicate. Let me attempt to state this issue in a better form: I DO NOT believe that either 3-ABN or the denomination has so-called ascending liability for the past actions of any person during a time when they were not employed by 3-ABN. It would be a stretch to conclude otherwise. However, I do believe that should a person accused of prior criminal acts commit such acts in the future, while in a relationship with 3-ABN, that such could involve both 3-ABN and/or the IL Conference in liability. That liability could be based upon the failure of both 3-aBN and/or the IL Conference to exercise due prudence in assigning duties to an individual whom they knew has been accused of criminal or immoral acts in the past.

Re: "IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE INTERCHAGES, CONTAINING DEROGATORY INFORMATION, STOP AMONG THE PARTIES AND THEIR TEAM MEMBERS."

GM: Harold, you have been unable to stop Danny from fueling the fires that you understandably object to. Further, the supporters of 3-ABN are independent, and not controlled by Danny. They continue to engage in such. They can not be stopped. As long as they do such, others will respond.

So, also those who support Linda are independent, and not controlled by either Linda, or us. We cannot stop them. As long as people supporting Linda engage in such, those who support 3-ABN will respond.

Harold, I understand what you are asking. It is not possible for either you or for us.

SHOULD AN SDA JUDGE BE USED TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS?

GM: Point taken, if the parties agree to such.

DO PARTIES WHO MAY BE "PUBLIC FIGURES" GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO PRIVACY?

GM: No, anyone who understands the law knows that public figures do not give up all rights to privacy. But, U.S. law clearly limits the rights to privacy of pubic figures over non-public figures.

Further, public figures to have a right, if conditions are met, to recover damages for slander, libel, and defamation of character. Those who understand the law know that this cuts both ways. It is likely that neither side is guilty to the exclusion of the other side. Should one side litigate over these issues, it is likely that counter-suits will be filed against the side that initiated the litigation.

In addition, I could propose situation in which neither side would want to litigate these issues. It is correct that "truth" may sometimes not be a defense against such a lawsuit. But, I can imagine where a side would not want to litigate an issue that they might win due to discovery and public exposure during a trial.

One fundamental issue is simply this: Public charges have been made against public individuals, and 3-ABN that will not go away unless they are resolved in public. To publicly resolve them, there may have to be some public exposure of facts that are typically protected by confidentiality in denominational circles. A failure to do this will likely result in continued discussion in public.

Let me add an additional factor: The so-called media is following this more closely that some may know. I have been asked to write an article for publication on one aspect of this which I declined to write at that time. There are others who have been approached in a similar manner, to include the secular media. Herald, I predict that if this is not resolved, and fairly soon, the media, to include the secular media, will begin reporting aspects of this which none can control. If ASI cannot resolve this, the world at large may do so.

SHOULD THE PANEL INCLUDE EXPERTS THAT COULD ASSIST IN THEIR COMPREHENSION OF THE INFORMATION?

GM: My comment on "transference" could be satisfied by a witness, rather than a member. Regardless, my point is taken, and you seem to have heard it.

WHAT STANDARD IS TO BE USED IN WEIGHING THE BIBLICAL DIVORCE REMARRIAGE ISSUE?

GM: Yes the CHUCH MANUAL is the standard. But, that can be understood and enforced in various ways. As an attorney you know that while "statute law" is the standard, "case law is always considered. My point is made. As I have previously stated, the "gold standard" among conservative SDAs is physical adultery. It has been clearly stated by 3-ABN that proof of such does not exist. If ASI strays away from that gold standard of adultery, it will lose status among conservative SDAs.

WHAT STANDARD WILL BE USED IN ALLOWING INFORMATION TO BE CONSIDERED ?

GM: Sounds good as I understand it.

HOW WILL PANEL PROCEED AND THE QUESTIONING OCCUR?

GM: The representative must be the one chosen by the party. In other words, ASI cannot exclude anyone from being a representative.

Re: "The hearing will be confidential and private, not recorded or reported by the panel, the parties, or the representative."

GM: I understand. I have some concern. This scandal is public. There must be enough information given to the public to resolve their issues. Harold, the public has a stake in this. All parties, to include 3-ABN have a major interest in this being resolved in the mind of the public.

Re: "Thank you for your patience in awaiting my thoughts. Please read this carefully. If you have questions feel free to express them. Whenever we have clarified adequately we will put our process information into a document that we can all sign on to, then begin the details of scheduling, etc."

GM: And thank you for the effort you have put into this.

Gregory Matthews

< Prev.Next >

Save-3ABN.com
Not © 2008