|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Bob Pickle |
| To: |
G. Arthur Joy |
| CC: |
Harold Lance, Gregory Matthews, Linda Shelton,
Deb Young, Ron Christman,
Walt Thompson, Danny Shelton |
| Subject: |
Re: Comments re the process |
| Date: |
Sun, 03 Dec 2006 22:35:24 -0600 |
|
Greetings, Harold.
Here are my thoughts, stated in the context that I am not
overly biased toward or against Linda. I just haven't seen any
evidence, even when it was promised that I could see it.
When I asked Hal Steenson last summer regarding the date of
Melody's wedding, he very soon diverted the conversation to that
of Linda's alleged guilt. I had absolutely no intention of discussing
that topic at all.
Danny has made it fairly clear to me that he only wants the
issue of he and Linda looked into by ASI, nothing else.
What I am saying is that there is a pattern of wanting to
concentrate only on the issue of Danny vs. Linda, and thus if
ASI goes along with that idea, they can easily be accused of
being less than impartial, of doing just what Danny wants, as
they have unfortunately already been accused of doing. I am not
sure that it would be wise to allow that to happen.
Secondly, as you state below:
"The request from the 3ABN Board of Directors to ASI was: ...'request
to ASI that it establish a commission to evaluate and determine
Danny's legal and moral right to remarry.' "
The 3ABN board is further compromising its reputation by making
such a request. The idea was for the board to allow an impartial
ASI panel to look into the allegations, but they have up front
determined that the ASI panel must agree with their own conclusions,
namely, that the only issue needing to be resolved is that of
Linda. Thus they have already determined that the ASI panel cannot
be allowed to be impartial on the most critical point of what
needs to be examined.
That the board would decide thus is rather odd given the fact
that the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations were brought
to the Illinois Conference president's attention in August, and
are essentially what has brought us down to the point of considering
a panel review process. To ignore the very issue that has done
more to produce motivation for considering this process than
any other, it just seems inappropriate.
Thirdly, you state below:
"At the conclusion of the matter the Panelists findings of facts
and recommendations would become publicly available."
I believe that given the current situation, to release only
findings and recommendations without evidence will not accomplish
a thing, unless, like Ted Haggard did, someone confesses. In
the absence of a confession, if all parties (definitely more
than two) refuse to admit wrong doing, the controversy will continue,
to the further detriment of the reputations of 3ABN, ASI, and
our denomination. And I would very much hate to see that happen.
Fourthly,
"During the hearing any Information not relevant to the agreed
upon issues will be excluded."
I think there needs to be some clarification as to how this
would be implemented. For example,
- Dr. Walt Thompson informed in writing within the last week
or so that Danny had essentially misled him in 2003 regarding
the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, and
that he and the board never did an adequate investigation of
the matter in 2003.
- Another person of note, a former prominent 3ABNer who is
not pro-Linda, has informed me in writing that Danny threatened
him/her to back off regarding financial, operational, and personal
concerns, and when he/she didn't, that Danny ordered the fraudulent
manufacturing of evidence against him/her, which thus produced
a damaging allegation against him/her, and led to his/her resignation,
without the board investigating whether his/her claim of such
deceit was legitimate, even when it was brought to their attention.
I wish I could say that that case was ancient history, but it
was definitely not.
Now suppose 3ABN, ASI, Danny, and Linda all make, in my opinion,
the unwise decision to confine the discussion to just Linda and
Danny. The above information establishes a pattern of behavior
that calls into question the trustworthiness of Danny's word
as well as the reliability of the board's decisions in dealing
with serious issues. And that undermines their credibility when
considering whatever evidence they bring to the table regarding
Danny and Linda. But the way that the above is worded, there
is no guarantee that such evidence will be allowed despite its
relevance in the hypothetical situation where the issues are
confined so narrowly.
As far as what Gailon says regarding the appropriateness of
whether a panel can move forward while the civil case regarding
marital assets is still pending, I have no experience on that
one. Do you have any thoughts, Harold, given your experience
as an attorney?
Bob
|
