-------- Original Message --------
||Re: Thanks for your note of response
||Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:36:34 -0600
What ****** (who is not pro-Linda) has to say is, in my opinion,
as serious as the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations.
However, unless people already know Danny's side of the story
regarding ******, ****** will not presently provide ***.
I guess that's the way it has to be for now.
****** feels that the way the Tommy Shelton allegations were
handled is very, very serious, and should raise the question
of whether certain individuals such as Walt Thompson, whom he
truly does appreciate and respect, should resign.
"Regarding the issue of who owned the car?"
That isn't the issue. You do realize that that wasn't the
issue, don't you? On Oct. 8, 2006, Danny wrote (skip to the bolded
parts if you want to skim):
"Anyway, let me give you just a few things to think about,
You claim that Linda passed your truth test. Are you not
aware that any one who is a polished liar will not wiggle or
squirm when being questioned about their lies, ESPECIALLY if
they are confident that the person who is questioning them has
already bought their lies hook, line and sinker?
"She told me that she was going to go lay out by the swimming
pool. I decided to go look in her car for any evidence to support
the PI's claim that had not been mailed to me yet. Our car door
was locked. Yes, I'm aware that she claims it was her car but
I have proof that it is titled to both she and I even unto this
day. She didn't apparently remember that I too had keys to this
Toyota Sequoia. I opened the car door and opened the glove compartment.
What did I see? Yes, I saw the same watch described to me by the PI.
"I then pulled the picture of the watch from underneath
my shirt and showed it to her at which point she yelled out,
" 'I can't believe you broke into my car and got into my personal
belongings! This is abuse!' "
Danny said nothing about whether Illinois is a community property
state or not. He didn't claim to "own" the car. He instead explicitly
said that he had "proof" that the car was "titled" in both their
names. But his statement is patently false.
"I suspect Danny hasn't responded to you on that and other
issues is a result of my rather insistent messages for him to
stop engaging in criss cross exchanges that only lead to further
posturing and misunderstandings."
I would strongly recommend that you encourage Danny to follow
through on his board chairman's recommendation that I verify
the information he had given me. Walt has been unkindly accused
of doing whatever Danny says, and of not having any real authority.
For Danny to thumb his nose at Walt's request that I verify that
information substantiates those accusations, and Danny's excuse
that he was merely following your advice will not help the matter.
How have there been any misunderstandings? Did not Walt say
that Danny had told him that the molestation allegations were
30 years old, when they were as recent as three years old in
2003? How was that a misunderstanding?
Danny said the car was "titled" in his name, and the fact
is that it never has been. Where is the misunderstanding? Now
if Danny has an explanation, if he wants to claim that he forgot
or some such, he should not be encouraged not to provide his
explanation, for that will only leave the impression that there
is no explanation and that he has been caught in a lie.
"I would expect that the answer to that issue would be a
matter for the side interested in establishing that fact to present
when a hearing occurs. I would think that what ever documents
bear on that issue would be identified and produced on what ever
time table is agreed upon."
This touches on my question that is still unanswered. Will
such discrepancies as whose name is on the title be considered
by the panel, since that discrepancy doesn't directly impact
the question of whether Danny had biblical grounds to divorce
and remarry? Will the question be raised as to whether a possible
felony was committed in taping a conversation, and if not, will
that conversation still be admissible evidence in the panel process?
The same goes for the phone records that John Lomacang asserts
exists. Were they legally acquired? And if that question cannot
be considered, will those records still be admissible?
As far as the Wild Wild Web goes, take a look at
a site I've done for a group out of a California church that
is an attempt to rein in some of the wild things being said on
the internet about Ellen White. So I am in full agreement with
you regarding the problems of the internet, and I approach the
criticisms against 3ABN having had more than six years of personal
experience in effectively neutralizing similar criticisms out
on the internet.
"I really think the messages have been heard by the people
responsible for operations."
There is no question that they have been heard. But the big
question is whether anything is going to change. If the people
responsible for operations really, really care about 3ABN, then
they need to answer that question in no uncertain terms, ASAP,
and waiting for an ASI panel review to conclude before rendering
an answer is an absolute mistake.
Wishing we could converse on a more pleasant topic,