-------- Original Message --------
||G. Arthur Joy, Linda Shelton, Gregory Matthews,
Ron Christman, Deb Young,
Danny Shelton, Walt Thompson
||Re: Process: round three
||Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:00:35 -0600
I want to thank you for all the time and effort you have put
into this. I'm sure it hasn't been easy.
I, unlike others, have always felt that an ASI panel could
be impartial. My primary concern in a number of issues has been
one of appearances, and I still think that unless the findings
are accompanied by either enough evidence or a confession of
the "losing" party, it will be difficult for ASI to avoid accusations
of not being impartial. Of course, it's hard to avoid all criticism,
but that has been my concern.
Regarding the email interchanges, you will recall that my
most recent interchange with Danny began at the request of Dr.
Walt Thompson that I verify what he had told me that Danny had
said in 2003 regarding the Tommy Shelton child molestation allegations.
In my four emails to Danny I gave him every opportunity to explain
the discrepancies, and thus provide some other conclusion than
that he had lied to his board chairman in 2003.
Whether the molestation allegations are true or not is irrelevant
to the main point: Walt said that Danny said that the allegations
were 30 years old while at the same time Walt received a letter
in 2003 indicating that there were allegations as recent as three
years old at that time. Walt said that he was led to believe
that Pastor Glenn Dryden's accounts were apparently the only
ones out there, when Roger Clem had publicly come forward in
early 2003 in the small community surrounding 3ABN. Walt said
he was led to believe that all these allegations were the result
of a feud and jealousy between Pastor Dryden and Tommy, yet they
either had not met yet or lived 800 miles apart during all the
time the alleged actions occurred, except for 1993-1995. Thus,
even if every last allegation is false, we still have Walt indicating
that Danny misled him.
There are either two choices: either Walt Thompson or Danny
Shelton told a huge lie. And we also have a 3ABN attorney threatening
a non-Adventist minister in order to shut him up, using only
the reasoning, from what I can tell from reading a fax of the
original letter, that "Even if the actions did occur," the statute
of limitations has run out.
You very well may be correct about there not being a problem
with ascending liability, and you are certainly more qualified
to address that question than I am. But I wasn't necessarily
thinking of ascending liability. I am told that the IL Conf.
pressured 3ABN to terminate Tommy in the mid-1990's for these
very issues. If that really is true, or even if it isn't, what
about the following three facts?
- The IL Conf. president sits on the 3ABN board and may even
have participated in the reversal of the earlier decision despite
the new allegations being brought to the board's attention. (I'm
sure not wanting to come across as negative in any way in saying
- The 3ABN general manager sits on the conf. committee and
could be arguably aware of the ongoing allegations going back
- An official Broadview Academy campus exists at Thompsonville
(Just surfing around I've come up with addresses of 3577 Angel
Ln. for both the church and the school, and 3941 and 4007 Angel
Ln. for 3ABN. That suggests that the church and school both sit
on the 3ABN campus.)
Would this scenario pose any greater theoretical risk to the
conference if a student at that particular Broadview Academy
campus were to be victimized in the future? If conference officers
and a member of the conference executive committee had opportunity
to know or did know about the negligence involved with the ongoing
employment of an alleged pedophile at 3ABN, and still allowed
academy students to be in a situation in which that alleged pedophile
could possibly have ready access to them, would that not involve
the conference in greater risk if a student was victimized?
And it isn't as if proper precautions have been made. John
Lomcang as of September 1 did not know a thing about the child
molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, based on what
he told me. Thus the pastor of the very church where the school
is located has been kept in the dark by Danny, 3ABN, and the
conference administration (assuming they were in the know, which
may not be the case). Therefore, John Lomacang had no way of
knowing that special precautions needed to be taken.
Regarding email interchanges on other topics than Linda vs.
Danny, if the ASI panel will not be reviewing other issues, then
what would be the point of not seeking clarification on these
other issues in as kind and redemptive a way as possible? My
understanding is that there are a lot of individuals who are
neither the typical pro-Danny or pro-Linda type of folks, folks
who normally would tend to be pro-3ABN, who believe that this
information needs to get out without waiting for an ASI review,
and if that ASI review is not going to be dealing with these
issues anyway, why not?
Plus, you specifically asked those on "Linda's team" to desist,
and I am not really a member of her team. I am still unconvinced
of either her innocence or her guilt since neither side has provided
me any concrete evidence to that effect. Yet I will say that
the events of the last two and a half weeks have clearly demonstrated
that what Danny and the board merely say cannot be trusted as
I do have a question for you. Do you anticipate the ASI panel
reviewing whether the recording Hal Steenson told me about was
created without violating either state or federal law? Hal claimed
that that recording proved Linda's guilt, and thus it directly
relates to the review if the review is narrowed down as you propose,
but will the question of its legality be considered? If not,
will that recording be able to be presented as evidence at all?
If evidence has been illegally obtained, will it be admissible
The same question applies to the phone card phone records
that John Lomacang claims exists. Were they legally acquired?
If not, will they still be able to be submitted as evidence?
Personally, though everyone may disagree with me, I have a
difficult time seeing the wisdom in going forward with a process
that Danny has made very clear that he intends to use as a smokescreen.
As he wrote to me last Tuesday,
"ASI will decide who is doing the cover up. Somebody is
lying! After hearing the testimony and evidence from both sides
ASI will make a decision. Should ASI decide that the 3ABN board
and myself did not 'scapegoat Linda' to cover up my sins, then,
in my opinion it will become obvious to the public that maybe
many of these other accusations are lies also."
Thus, he is hoping to get a positive decision from the ASI
panel, and then use that decision to make all the other allegations
go away, even allegations that are based on the word of his own
board chairman. I have a real problem with that.
Lastly, if you were to look at the various aspects that both
sides would like to see incorporated into the review process,
as it presently stands, how many of the aspects proposed by Danny's/3ABN's
side are on the table, and how many proposed by Linda's side
or myself (since I am not really on "Linda's side") are on the
table? Are any of the proposed changes that Gailon/Linda proposed
even being considered by ASI, and if not, if there is no give
and take on "both" sides, does that not appear to demonstrate
a lack of impartiality on the part of ASI, even if they really
Or, did ASI both arrive at and choose to stick with the original
proposal without any input whatsoever from 3ABN and/or Danny
Shelton? If that be the case, and if that can be made clear,
then perhaps ASI can indeed be impartial in appearance as well
as in fact during the setting-up-of-the-process phase.
However, there is a challenge in establishing that ASI arrived
at the rules as originally proposed without any input whatsoever
from 3ABN or Danny. Gloria sent her email to Linda on Sunday,
November 12. Yet it was back on October 17 that Mollie informed
me that the evidence that was emphatically promised that I could
see would not be shown to me, and that the findings of some sort
of panel would be made public. I then expressed my concern of
what would happen if evidence was not made public as well, and
received no reply whatsoever. And way back on August 4 when I
asked a question of Hal Steenson about Melody, he diverted the
conversation to the question of Linda's guilt, something I had
no intention of bringing up. Thus it is apparent that narrowing
the focus to just that of Linda and keeping the evidence secret
forever has been part of 3ABN's strategy even before, at least
for some aspects of the question, ASI ever got involved, and
definitely before November 12.
Thus it appears to me that if none of the more major elements
proposed by Gailon/Linda are incorporated by ASI into the original
proposal that 3ABN appears to have requested, we have clear evidence
of a lack of impartiality on the part of ASI as well as undue
influence of 3ABN upon the ASI panel review process. Frankly,
I'm unaware of any of the major elements proposed by Gailon/Linda
that have been incorporated, even though they have been suggested
more than once.
I would therefore recommend, if this is the way things have
to be, that for the good of ASI's reputation it decline to get