-------- Original Message --------
||Re: Thanks for your note of response
||Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:21:04 -0600
CONFIDENTIAL FYEO DO NOT RESEND
I'll bold a few things so that my thoughts might be easier
to pick up if you skim rather than read.
I think you have well stated my own concerns.
The difficulty I have had from when I started looking into
all this this summer is that so much has already been made public
for so long on several internet forums. How can resolution be
found so that all these rumors are put to rest for good? That
was my concern from the beginning.
"There is a willingness to equate rumor with fact."
Not on my part, to be sure. If you look over my recent correspondence
with Danny, or over the correspondence with Walt and Danny that
led to that interchange, you will notice that I did not do this.
I took Walt's statement that Danny had essentially misled
him and gave Danny every opportunity to explain the matter. He
could easily have said that Walt was mistaken, or that Walt was
lying, or some such thing. He chose not to do so which suggests
that he did indeed mislead Walt in 2003 over a very serious matter,
and Walt by his own admission took Danny's word for things rather
than doing his own research.
Do you detect the slightest equating rumor with fact on my
"... even the civil process guarantees the accused the presumption of innocence
that requires proof in a court before conviction."
Again, you will notice from my correspondence that I have
endeavored to do that very thing. Of course, you may find some
place where I could have done that better, but I did the best
I will share with you what I uncovered last week. I've avoided
the divorce and remarriage issue thus far, not knowing how to
get to the bottom of things as far as facts go. But Danny did
claim on Oct. 8, 2006 in writing that when he found a watch in
Linda's car, he was not breaking into her car because, despite
Linda's denials, he had evidence that the car was titled in both
their names to the present. That one detail was something concrete
and easily provable. And the context of this detail was that
Danny, in his words, was trying to prove how polished a liar
I received a fax direct from the lending bank of Linda's automobile
title last week. The vehicle was purchased on Dec. 30, 2002,
the title was issued on Feb. 11, 2003, and Linda's name is the
only one that appears on the title, which is what she has claimed
to be the case according to Danny's own words.
Now that is definitely not equating rumors with facts. But
as far as assuming innocence goes, I did write Danny on Thursday
asking him if he had an explanation for this. And since the context
was how good a liar Linda is, I invited him to send me any similarly
concrete examples of Linda's deceit, examples that aren't solely
dependent on someone's testimony. Thus far Danny has declined
to respond in any way whatsoever.
No, the baby should not be thrown out with the bathwater (though
potentially expelling 3ABN from ASI membership would definitely
not help the baby's influence and effectiveness). Yet that will
to a large degree depend on decisions Danny and his board make.
Currently, he refuses to back down one inch, and his board on
serious issues other than Linda has been inclined to take Danny's
word for things rather than think and act independently. That
combination makes it difficult to see a happy resolution if more
of the allegations prove to be credible and/or true. And, at
what point do we have to remember that sin in the camp hinders
the outpouring of the latter rain?
CONFIDENTIAL FYEO BETWEEN HAROLD LANCE AND BOB ONLY
Harold, my understanding is that you are aware to some extent
of Nick Miller's allegations. Have you been made aware of either
3ABN's or both 3ABN and ******'s account(s) of *** resignation?
If so, what is your understanding of 3ABN's account? I am free
to discuss that matter if you are aware of 3ABN's account of
that situation, and would like to bring that into our conversation.