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

Must Read:
Mom in Pain #1

Mene, Mene,
Tekel, Parsin

The Actual Lawsuit
IRS Criminal Investigation

Bob Pickle Responds
to Harold Lance's January 24 Statement

< Prev.Next >

Bob Pickle's Response

After talking with Harold Lance by phone regarding his concern about the ASI statement being a breach of the confidentiality agreement, Bob follows up with the following communication.

-------- Original Message --------
From:  Bob
To:  Harold Lance
To:  G. Arthur Joy, Gregory Matthews, Linda Shelton
Subject:  Confidentiality agreement
Date:  Wed, 24 Jan 2007 23:59:58 -0600

Hello Harold.

Thanks so much for talking to me today.

I did a little looking, and here is what I found in the email we all received on December 1, 2006, the only email I received that spelled out what the confidentiality agreement entailed:

"I have already secured an agreement from Linda, Bob and Greg that any communication relating to the process proposal and collateral issues with you or ASI will be held in the strictest confidence, period, until we have reached an agreement or an agreement is deemed impossible, at which time only a mutually agreed statement will be issued. All communique's will be labeled 'Confidential-FYEO-Do Not Re-distribute.' These three will be the only individuals included in the discussions on this side."

In light of the fact that no correction was ever made to the above statement, it stands as it reads. It therefore appears that the sending out of your statement this morning without warning or input from us constitutes a violation of the confidentiality agreement. Of course, whether a "mutually agreed statement" could ever have been arrived at is uncertain, but since there was no attempt whatsoever to arrive at one, I do not think this puts the ASI executive committee in a good light.

(I have previously endeavored to confine my statements regarding the entire proceedings to what was public knowledge prior to the confidentiality agreement we received on December 1. If you notice anywhere where I have done otherwise, I would appreciate your bringing it to my attention.)

Secondly, it raises the question of whether the confidentially agreement is now null and void, and whether everything that was ever written between us can be freely published by whomever wishes. Personally, I don't think that wise, yet if someone feels that the accusations made in the ASI statement are unfair, untrue, and/or distorted, I'm not sure what ethical case can be made to dissuade their being published.

Thirdly, Walt Thompson recently indicated that they were trying to get ASI to help them out. I found that statement puzzling in light of the fact that ASI had already backed out. Your issuing of the type of statement you did without the negotiation that the confidentiality agreement plainly required could suggest that this statement was somehow in response to their request, which would appear strange if ASI was supposed to be impartial in all these proceedings.

Lastly, since you indicated that your statement was sent to certain church leaders and such, how would you suggest that clarification be sent to them by anyone involved who feels that the statement did not fairly and/or accurately portray the situation? Is it possible to get the list of names and addresses from you, or would you be willing to relay any statement to them that might come from one of us? Or, do you have any other suggestions as to how perceived unfairness or inaccuracies in the unilateral statement can be dealt with?

As far as what concerns I had regarding the content of the statement you sent this morning, I won't at this time repeat or add to what I shared with you on the phone. Hopefully, no one will use the statement you sent in such a way that a negative light is placed upon anyone involved, which would go a long ways toward keeping folks who disagree with the statement from trying to defend themselves.

God bless.


< Prev.Next >
Not © 2008