3abn Continued

[Pickle]

... but you cannot know for sure if she did or didn't ...

Isn't that what I said?

BTW, if this all comes to court and if you were paid by checks instead of cash the payments are traceable and will be a part of the discovery information they will go after.

Didn't I already tell you that she hasn't paid me one penny? Why would you insinuate to the contrary without any evidence whatsoever?

Would that not be akin to my suggesting that Danny and/or Tommy is/are paying you to post here?

 

[bonedealer]

one has to wonder . . . do you realize, robert, how ridiculous you sound when you post like this . . . everyone knows you are in perpetual contact with linda and gailon . . . therefore we already know you know and are just asking for someone to give you the opportunity to spout about this . . . so, if you have something to say - say it and stop your childish games . . .

just 2 cents from the bonedealer

Hey, I've heard that Linda got a new lawyer. Anyone know anything about him? Does Danny like him all right?

 

[bonedealer]

Didn't I already tell you that she hasn't paid me one penny? Why would you insinuate to the contrary without any evidence whatsoever?

you said it . . . but many don't believe it . . . you seem to be perpetually online posting your vitriol here, there, and at save3abn . . . so one has to wonder where last nights meal came from . . . the oil and flour have to be running low if you are neglecting your publishing business . . . there are others who could be financing you though, gailon perhaps . . . or maybe there is an ulterior motive . . . maybe your secret dream is take over dannys role as head of 3abn . . .

just 2 cents from the bone dealer

 

[Pickle]

Please read http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/13/news/international/bc.worldbank.wolfowitz.reut/index.htm? to see just how tough the world can be on conflict of interest issues as it relates to hiring and promoting family and girlfriends.

 

[Pickle]

you said it . . . but many don't believe it . . . you seem to be perpetually online posting your vitriol here, there, and at save3abn . . . so one has to wonder where last nights meal came from . . . the oil and flour have to be running low if you are neglecting your publishing business . . . there are others who could be financing you though, gailon perhaps . . . or maybe there is an ulterior motive . . . maybe your secret dream is take over dannys role as head of 3abn . . .

Your post is wicked.

Quote any vitriol I've written and explain how it's vitriol.

 

[Jimlarmore]

Peach,

Try to understand. Harold Lance blamed the breakdown in part on a lack of communication from Linda. He never mentioned in his statement:

• Danny and Walt never participated in the group discussions either.
• Harold himself ignored questions and admitted so.
• The 3ABN board's decision was not communicated to us until 10 weeks after the fact.
• Danny's acceptance of a document was never communicated to us.
• We never received the October 31 document, and to this day, Harold Lance refuses to send it to us.

All that being so, for Harold Lance to blame the lack of communication entirely on Linda reveals bias on his part.

I think this all falls back on credibility and motive to me. Harold Lance had nothing to gain or to loose in volunteering to mediate this issue for a resolution. As a past ASI president he has impecable standing in our church and appears to have a close walk with the Lord. I read all of his report on this and it is very telling as to what Linda's side really wants. They are specifically after removing Danny Shelton as president of 3ABN and restructuring 3ABN. It appears they will go to about any length to accomplish this goal. Anyway, instead of trying to find the truth of what happened to end the marriage between Danny and Linda they are after much more, 3ABN.

So, again if you look at the fruits that have been produced it's very evident to any clear thinker which side is really wanting to disclose the truth. I don't blame Lance for not proceeding on this. I can tell you this, in cases where mediators work what Linda's side tried to pull would be thrown out in every case. What I mean by that is the issues that was initially being brought up for investigation ( whether or not Danny had Biblical grounds to divorce Linda ) and mediation or resoluition became secondary as one side threw in things that were totally unrelated to the supposed initial accusations. This kind of reminds me of pork barrel loading done all the time in federal legislation.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Pickle]

I think this all falls back on credibility and motive to me.

So you would prefer to ignore the objective facts of the case in favor of subjective feelings and conclusions?

 

[Jimlarmore]

So you would prefer to ignore the objective facts of the case in favor of subjective feelings and conclusions?

Not at all , I can read pretty well and understand the english language. I can see what the big picture really represents here. If you want to call that subjective so be it. I call it making a rational and logical conclusion based on very objective facts.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[dclem]

I know a little about it, I used to investigate these cases as a law enforcement officer. Laying all of that aside you have said if we don't know what we are talking about we need to move on to something else. I would suggest sir you take your own advise. DClem was 19 when this happened according to his own admission. This is not child abuse and DClem wasn't majorly concerned with making a federal case out of what happened until Mr. Pickle got in touch with him. If child abuse occurred then that needs to be addressed but I did not insult DClem and I have not addressed you in any way except when you first started to post on this thread against 3ABN and Danny Shelton.

God Bless

Jim Larmore

You don't know ANYTHING about THIS case. It was very clever of you to say "we" need to move on to something else, yet take the opportunity to get one last dig in toward me.

You are correct that my case is not child abuse. I never said it was. It IS sexual abuse, however.

Bob Pickle has NOT pressured me into making a statement or filing a lawsuit. I am entirely capable of making my own decisions. Furthermore, he didn't get in touch with me. I contacted him first.

It makes me wonder how much understanding and compassion you had toward the victims when you were investigating sexual abuse cases.

 

[Jimlarmore]

You don't know ANYTHING about THIS case. It was very clever of you to say "we" need to move on to something else, yet take the opportunity to get one last dig in toward me.

You are correct that my case is not child abuse. I never said it was. It IS sexual abuse, however.

Bob Pickle has NOT pressured me into making a statement or filing a lawsuit. I am entirely capable of making my own decisions. Furthermore, he didn't get in touch with me. I contacted him first.

It makes me wonder how much understanding and compassion you had toward the victims when you were investigating sexual abuse cases.

My work was about finding out the truth in the cases I investigated. Sometimes the questions we have to ask to obtain that may appear to be insensitive. To me in your case I question your motive now more than anything else. When we communicated initially about this you didn't tell me you were 19 when all of this happened. Why not? The allegations being thrown at Tommy at that point was sexual child abuse and you came to us saying that Tommy was not innocent and you were one of his victims. You presented your posts in that environment knowing full well we were specifically dealing with possible child abuse and didn't disclose that your case was not child abuse until you were asked directly what your age was. Instead you let those reading ( including myself ) believe that you were the victim of child molestation. What else haven't you told us Duane?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Peach45]

You don't know ANYTHING about THIS case. It was very clever of you to say "we" need to move on to something else, yet take the opportunity to get one last dig in toward me.

You are correct that my case is not child abuse. I never said it was. It IS sexual abuse, however.

Bob Pickle has NOT pressured me into making a statement or filing a lawsuit. I am entirely capable of making my own decisions. Furthermore, he didn't get in touch with me. I contacted him first.

It makes me wonder how much understanding and compassion you had toward the victims when you were investigating sexual abuse cases.

Mr Clem,

Respectfully, I have a question based on your response here.

Mr Pickle has published your pms to him on both BSDA and on the Save3ABN website, as well as your mails to him and Mr Joy. It is true you appear to have contacted him first.

What also appears true is that you were very angry at him and even somewhat threatening, and you were defending Tommy Shelton at that time still.

Sometime in the month between your first contact with Mr Pickle and Mr Joy, and Mr Pickle revealling who his anonymous adversary was, that he was posting about in a thread entitled "Tommy Shelton vindicated - I hope" based on what you said to him, things changed drastically.

It does seem accurate to say until Pickle got hold of you, you were not interested or majorly concerned with making a federal case out of what happened.

What did they say to you to cause this change?

I do realize also from what you yoourself have said that Mr Dryden was publically accusing you as well and you threatened him with a lawsuit in order to try and get him to shut up. And also you have posted here in this thread that you came forward to save your ministry as you work with kids.

I'm sorry that Drydens gossip and slander have hurt your reputation and caused questions about your ability to work with these teens, but I am sure then you have every sympathy with Tommy for going through this in a much worse way.
That being so people are going to ask questions.

This is a sensitive subject and is difficult to talk about because people get emotional.

But the plain and simple fact is you yourself have made it public and a topic of discussion on these forums by releasing your statements and private emails and messages to be published, and coming here to talk about it.

That being so people are going to have questions, they are going to form opinions based on what you say and do, and try to determine what is the truth in all this.

I for one, wonder, how you publishing all this and posting here resolves anything.

The biblical way is to go to the one you have a grievance against one and one, and with others and then to the Church.

The civil way is to file charges or a civil case or encourage others to do so.

It is my opinion that all the people who have information or claim to have such as yourself and Pickle are just as accountable as Dryden to report it,

And by that I mean to the authorities and those who can investigate and make or recommend charges.

How do you feel about this?
People keep saying children need to be protected. That's true, but I can't see how either you or Pickle, or Joy or Dryden have done so.

Peach

 

[Pickle]

I call it making a rational and logical conclusion based on very objective facts.

But that's not what I hear you saying. What I hear you saying is that there was nothing wrong with Harold Lance blaming all the lack of communication on Linda when he himself admitted to ignoring a question asked multiple times.

If weeks go by and Harold still hadn't answered a basic question, part of the blame for lack of communication must fall on his shoulders too. That's as objective a conclusion as it gets, but I don't hear you acknowledging this point.

 

[dclem]

My work was about finding out the truth in the cases I investigated. Sometimes the questions we have to ask to obtain that may appear to be insensitive. To me in your case I question your motive now more than anything else. When we communicated initially about this you didn't tell me you were 19 when all of this happened. Why not? The allegations being thrown at Tommy at that point was sexual child abuse and you came to us saying that Tommy was not innocent and you were one of his victims. You presented your posts in that environment knowing full well we were specifically dealing with possible child abuse and didn't disclose that your case was not child abuse until you were asked directly what your age was. Instead you let those reading ( including myself ) believe that you were the victim of child molestation. What else haven't you told us Duane?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Sir, my statement is on the internet for anyone to read. I NEVER hid anything about my age. You told me you had read my statement.

I will NOT be made the criminal here. I have done nothing wrong.

 

[dclem]

I'm sorry that Drydens gossip and slander have hurt your reputation and caused questions about your ability to work with these teens, but I am sure then you have every sympathy with Tommy for going through this in a much worse way.
That being so people are going to ask questions.Peach

I never committed any acts against others. Tommy Shelton did.

 

[Jimlarmore]

But that's not what I hear you saying. What I hear you saying is that there was nothing wrong with Harold Lance blaming all the lack of communication on Linda when he himself admitted to ignoring a question asked multiple times.

If weeks go by and Harold still hadn't answered a basic question, part of the blame for lack of communication must fall on his shoulders too. That's as objective a conclusion as it gets, but I don't hear you acknowledging this point.

I go by the adage of what's fair and reasonable. You could be asking him a million times the same question and if it is outside of fair and reasonable to apply to the initial issues of this case then it wouldn't deserve to be answered. That doesn't place Lance in any bad light at all . The fact that a reasonable man such as Lance chose not to answer you sir is again telling to me.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[Peach45]

But that's not what I hear you saying. What I hear you saying is that there was nothing wrong with Harold Lance blaming all the lack of communication on Linda when he himself admitted to ignoring a question asked multiple times.

If weeks go by and Harold still hadn't answered a basic question, part of the blame for lack of communication must fall on his shoulders too. That's as objective a conclusion as it gets, but I don't hear you acknowledging this point.

Mr Pickle,

Apples and oranges...

Mr Lance was trying to talk to both sides and come to an agreement for a resolution process.The two sides were Linda's team and Danny's team.

Now, Did Linda ever even once answer one of mr Lances emails or questions? Did she ever give one opinion, or express her wishes one way or another to him, at all?

YES___ OR NO___

 

[Pickle]

I go by the adage of what's fair and reasonable. You could be asking him a million times the same question and if it is outside of fair and reasonable to apply to the initial issues of this case then it wouldn't deserve to be answered. That doesn't place Lance in any bad light at all . The fact that a reasonable man such as Lance chose not to answer you sir is again telling to me.

And since you appear to not know what question he ignored, your comments above are subjective, not objective.

The negotiations, the discussion, were for the purpose of laying down the ground rules for the ASI tribunal or panel review process. In that context, questions dealing with ground rules could not rightfully be ignored.

Specifically, I asked multiple times the following question: If the review process must be narrowed down to just the divorce and remarriage, can the legality of evidence be considered? And if not, will that evidence still be admissible?

Harold never replied, though weeks went by. After I received his statement on January 24 which blamed all lack of communication on Linda I called him that very day. He acknowledged seeing my question and told me he "ignored" my question. His word.

His position was that we should accept the ground rules before deciding what that particular ground rule should be. Of course, that doesn't make sense. If you're discussing what the ground rules should be, how can you accept them as is before deciding what one of them should be?

Those are the facts of the matter.

 

[Pickle]

Now, Did Linda ever even once answer one of mr Lances emails or questions? Did she ever give one opinion, or express her wishes one way or another to him, at all?

Yes she did. She communicated through her representative. And if that wasn't acceptable to Harold, he should have made that clear up front.

According to Gailon: In December Harold and Gailon were talking and Harold said that he wanted to talk to Linda. Gailon offered to set up a conference call between the three of them, and then during the conversation he would just drop off. Harold said he would think about it. He never got back to Gailon and took him up on his offer.

One has to wonder, if Harold really wanted to talk to Linda so badly, why he never took Gailon up on his offer.

 

[noahswife]

My work was about finding out the truth in the cases I investigated. Sometimes the questions we have to ask to obtain that may appear to be insensitive. To me in your case I question your motive now more than anything else. When we communicated initially about this you didn't tell me you were 19 when all of this happened. Why not? The allegations being thrown at Tommy at that point was sexual child abuse and you came to us saying that Tommy was not innocent and you were one of his victims. You presented your posts in that environment knowing full well we were specifically dealing with possible child abuse and didn't disclose that your case was not child abuse until you were asked directly what your age was. Instead you let those reading ( including myself ) believe that you were the victim of child molestation. What else haven't you told us Duane?

God Bless
Jim Larmore

Jim,

Was your job about finding out the truth or finding facts? I doubt that your job was to determine the truth of the matters you were investigating. It seems to me your posts suggest you have already reached a conclusion about many things and then look for facts to support that conclusion

To claim that Duane has misled you with his communications tells me a great deal about your ability to investigate. You failed to do your homework if you read anything into what Duane said other than what he meant. He has never claimed or insinuated in anything that has been published that he was under 18 years of age.

Whether you did this intentionally in attempt to victimize him again or whether it was just sloppy investigative work on your part, I will not waste my time arguing about.

Duane has demonstrated repeatedly he will not remain a victim and many of us applaud his decision.

I suggest you leave this alone and move on.

Also, I have read several of your posts that seem to be threatening Pickle with various types of lawsuits, give me a break. Have you failed to read his posts here and elsewhere where he said bring them on? Any opinion you have regarding any potential lawsuit that might be filed adds nothing to this discussion. When and if a lawsuit is filed, then discussion might be in order.

 

[noahswife]

Jim,

You talking about court cases and your interest in possible legal issues made me think of something. It has been alleged here and elsewhere that Linda received professional counseling by her pastorWith the permission of the author and with editing of names to conform to CF rules, I would like you to read the following and comment if you would on the issues raised therein.


O. K. *******:

For the purpose of this discussion, let us accept at face value your claim that Elder John L. is a counselor, and as evidenced by his 16+ years of counseling experience does do counseling.

Do your understand the legal liability that you have potentially placed the IL Conference in, or rather the legal liability that Elder L. has potentially placed the IL Conference?

Do you understand the ramifications of the Odenthal case which comes form MN?

Of course, I understand that a case heard by the MN Supreme Court does not set a precedent in IL. However, as one who has studied psychiatric nursing, and understands counseling, I am certain that you understand the Tarasoff case. You likely know that the Terasoff case became a model that was adapted by probably all of the 50 states of the United States.

Based upon your knowledge of the history of the Tarasoff case, it is unlikely that you would seriously attempt to tell us that the Odenthal case has no relevance for someone in IL.

NOTE: I am very briefly making a statement about a very complex case that went back and forth between the District and Appellate courts until the MN Supreme Court rendered a decision that resulted in the parties reaching a settlement without a trial by the District Court.

In brief the MN Supreme court ruled that the MN Conference of SDA could be sued, and held liable for a failure to supervise the counseling activities of a SDA pastor whom the Court had determined held himself out to be a counselor, and did represent himself as giving marital counseling to the Odenthals. In that ruling the Court ruled that the MN Conference did not have the protection of the First Amendment to the Constitution due to the fact that the pastor involved represented himself as providing the Odenthals with marital counseling.


If what I expect happens actually takes place, ***** and others will comment adversely on me and/ or my post. If they finally respond to my question, they will begin to back track in their claims in regard to Elder L. being either a counselor, or in providing counseling for 16+ years.


Citation: Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976)

See: http://www.atoday.com/220.0.html for a longer discussion of the Odenthal case which I wrote for ADVENTIST TODAY.