3abn Continued

[tomatoe]

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.

One might ask why Linda needs "representatives?" Can't she speak for herself? Mr. Lance will tell you that Danny has spoken to him and had an exchange of emails many times.
Forget it Mr. Pickle, you are beating a dead horse. The fact is, obviously Harold Lance and ASI came to see that you guys had no credibility at playing attorney/investigators and they quit messing with you. Why should they invest their time and energy into something that was going to be a joke and nightmare on your side. They saw how you guys have conducted yourselves with a lack of integrity, and honesty and an abundance of malicious intent. I wouldn't have messed with you either.

 

[PeacefulSDA]

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

Peach,
You begin your post to Duane with "Respectfully" but that term doesn't make your posted opinion any less critical than it is. It is obvious that you, from your reading of the documentation here, on other forums and save3abn, have come to the conclusion that he must have ulterior motives to his actions since he was, at first, still verbally supporting Tommy. Perhaps you missed my post to our brother tomatoe yesterday that dealt with this subject.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33850290&postcount=853

Recovery from abuse is a process. I would go so far as to say it is a life-long process, even after the victimized person has forgiven the abuser. Awareness changes often on that healing path. That is not inconsistant.

Will it really help our brother Tommy's situation to try to undermine the credibility of one he has admitted to victimizing? I don't think so. There has to be a better way to solve this situation.

 

[tomatoe]

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.

NW, unless you are an administrator here and are "giving an order" I would suggest that you not tell others what they can or cannot discuss.
As far as JL comments, in looking back over the posts here at CF and the first communications that JL and DC had, I too, see nowhere That Duane gave his age. He came on while the subject was child abuse and he and JL starting communicating. Duane is the one making the claims. It is not JL's job to go hunting elsewhere to find the exact circumstances of Duane's allegations. He was going on what Duane told him here and it definitely came across that he was putting himself in the child abuse category.
Might I suggest you go back and read their first posts to each other

 

[Pickle]

Since tomatoe and anyone else has not been able to demonstrate that there was not a lack of communication on all sides, we can conclude that Harold was revealing bias when he blamed all lack of communication on Linda.

 

[tomatoe]

Peach,
You begin your post to Duane with "Respectfully" but that term doesn't make your posted opinion any less critical than it is. It is obvious that you, from your reading of the documentation here, on other forums and save3abn, have come to the conclusion that he must have ulterior motives to his actions since he was, at first, still verbally supporting Tommy. Perhaps you missed my post to our brother tomatoe yesterday that dealt with this subject.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33850290&postcount=853

Recovery from abuse is a process. I would go so far as to say it is a life-long process, even after the victimized person has forgiven the abuser. Awareness changes often on that healing path. That is not inconsistant.

Will it really help our brother Tommy's situation to try to undermine the credibility of one he has admitted to victimizing? I don't think so. There has to be a better way to solve this situation.

Any sane and christian way to solve the situation went out the window when all of this was put on the internet.

 

[tomatoe]

Since tomatoe and anyone else has not been able to demonstrate that there was not a lack of communication on all sides, we can conclude that Harold was revealing bias when he blamed all lack of communication on Linda.

You can conclude whatever fantasies that you choose to, but because of so many of your "conclusions" no one is really listening anymore.

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Any sane and christian way to solve the situation went out the window when all of this was put on the internet.

tomatoe,
I must disagree. It is a situation that should have been dealt with proactively years ago, by Tommy's own admission in his emailed confession. I believe anyone who is familiar with dysfunctional family systems can understand why it was not. Now, there is the opportunity to repair this situation. For Tommy's sake, and the good of any of his victims, I pray that the emphasis changes from denial to reformation.

 

[Peach45]

Peach,
You begin your post to Duane with "Respectfully" but that term doesn't make your posted opinion any less critical than it is.

It is obvious that you, from your reading of the documentation here, on other forums and save3abn, have come to the conclusion that he must have ulterior motives to his actions since he was, at first, still verbally supporting Tommy. Perhaps you missed my post to our brother tomatoe yesterday that dealt with this subject.

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=33850290&postcount=853

Recovery from abuse is a process. I would go so far as to say it is a life-long process, even after the victimized person has forgiven the abuser. Awareness changes often on that healing path. That is not inconsistant.

Will it really help our brother Tommy's situation to try to undermine the credibility of one he has admitted to victimizing? I don't think so. There has to be a better way to solve this situation.

Please listen P.

You don't get to criticize, and accuse me for being critical and accusing while acting like butter won't melt in your mouth and expect me not to notice, or reply.

nor do you get to tell all what's obvious and expect I won't object, or call you on it.

I was referring to what Duane has written himself.

I was asking him questions regarding that so he could tell me what's what, instead of me telling him what's what.

Can you understand the difference?

As far as the rest of what you posted goes. It sounds like you have some personal issues about child abuse and recovery, I'm sorry for what you have gone through, I'm sure that conversation has a place in this forum somewhere, and other's may benefit from your internet counselling advice and personal feelings.

I think most here understand this is a emotionally charged issue, and have every sympathy, but I really don't want to see this thread hijacked and have the topic changed as it seems every thread I've read o BSDA concerning all this was.

Sorry.

 

[noahswife]

NW, unless you are an administrator here and are "giving an order" I would suggest that you not tell others what they can or cannot discuss.
As far as JL comments, in looking back over the posts here at CF and the first communications that JL and DC had, I too, see nowhere That Duane gave his age. He came on while the subject was child abuse and he and JL starting communicating. Duane is the one making the claims. It is not JL's job to go hunting elsewhere to find the exact circumstances of Duane's allegations. He was going on what Duane told him here and it definitely came across that he was putting himself in the child abuse category.
Might I suggest you go back and read their first posts to each other

Hi tomatoe

I love how it is ok for some posters (would you like me to list the multiple imperative statements made by Peach45 and Rosie55) to make demands but my request that a victim not be harassed seems to bother you. I guess that is like when you did not like me asking you direct questions. A bit sensitive aren't we? Did I forget to invite tomatoe to the BBQ?

As for Jim, he has made claims about his past profession as if it gave him expertise that some might not. For him to read something into the pm that was not stated there when there is an abundance of information giving that information on the internet is indicative of a number of things in my opinion. One of those things is jumping to a conclusion without investigating the facts. I will leave the rest for others to speculate on. After all they are my opinions.

nw

PS....Thanks for repeating what i write in your quotes. It does make me feel what I have written must matter in some small way.

 

[tomatoe]

tomatoe,
I must disagree. It is a situation that should have been dealt with proactively years ago, by Tommy's own admission in his emailed confession. I believe anyone who is familiar with dysfunctional family systems can understand why it was not. Now, there is the opportunity to repair this situation. For Tommy's sake, and the good of any of his victims, I pray that the emphasis changes from denial to reformation.

Hanging diry laundry out on the internet WILL NOT I repeat WILL NOT bring resolution or reformation.

 

[Jimlarmore]

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?

It seems pretty clear to me from the report that there were established ground rules set up from the outset of these potential proceedings. From what Mr. Lance said you guys wanted to add more than what was initially to be discussed. Is this true or not? I can go back and find the report so I can cut and paste what he said if you wish.

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.

If the man had already placed an established set of guide lines to go by then I don't blame him. You make it sound like he hadn't set any guide lines at all. I distinctly remember him saying in the report what the initial guide lines were, you guys just didn't agree with them or you wanted much more added in. Is that right or not?



God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[noahswife]

Hey Everyone~

In case I forget, please have a wonderful and joyful Sabbath tomorrow.

nw

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Please listen P.

You don't get to criticize, and accuse me for being critical and accusing while acting like butter won't melt in your mouth and expect me not to notice, or reply.

nor do you get to tell all what's obvious and expect I won't object, or call you on it.

What? Sorry, I don't get the "butter won't melt" reference. Regarding the "obvious" point, it was obvious to me from reading your post what your point was. If I interpreted what you were saying incorrectly, I apologize and would love to hear what you actually meant.

I was referring to what Duane has written himself.

I was asking him questions regarding that so he could tell me what's what, instead of me telling him what's what.

Can you understand the difference?

Well, I think so. I was referring to what you wrote yourself. Your "what's what" questions did appear to infer what you expected his "what's what" answers to be. But perhaps I was reading my "what's what" conclusions into yours. On the whole, it appeared you were not really asking for answers, just stating your conclusions in question form.

As far as the rest of what you posted goes. It sounds like you have some personal issues about child abuse and recovery, I'm sorry for what you have gone through, I'm sure that conversation has a place in this forum somewhere, and other's may benefit from your internet counselling advice and personal feelings.

I think most here understand this is a emotionally charged issue, and have every sympathy, but I really don't want to see this thread hijacked and have the topic changed as it seems every thread I've read o BSDA concerning all this was.

Sorry.

I have some personal experience with child abuse and recovery and am happy to offer my own personal insights into the issues but I am not positioning myself as an internet counselor.

You clearly asked Duane why he had changed his position towards Tommy. I offered you a possible reason for the change. Then you went on to infer things about his ministry, his problems with Dryden, and so on.
http://www.christianforums.com/t4811533&page=96

How do you see that as any attempt to hijack this thread? This subject, as well as others, is being discussed here so it is On Topic.

This is a forum, Peach. You post, expect others to read and reply.

http://www.christianforums.com/t4811533&page=96

 

[Peach45]

Hi tomatoe

I love how it is ok for some posters (would you like me to list the multiple imperative statements made by Peach45 and Rosie55) to make demands but my request that a victim not be harassed seems to bother you. I guess that is like when you did not like me asking you direct questions. A bit sensitive aren't we? Did I forget to invite tomatoe to the BBQ?

As for Jim, he has made claims about his past profession as if it gave him expertise that some might not. For him to read something into the pm that was not stated there when there is an abundance of information giving that information on the internet is indicative of a number of things in my opinion. One of those things is jumping to a conclusion without investigating the facts. I will leave the rest for others to speculate on. After all they are my opinions.

nw

PS....Thanks for repeating what i write in your quotes. It does make me feel what I have written must matter in some small way.

Dear NW,

Harassment is a strong accusation. How are simple questions for clarification and information purposes harassment?

If you really believe that why don't you report the post so it can be investigated.

 

[Pickle]

It seems pretty clear to me from the report that there were established ground rules set up from the outset of these potential proceedings. From what Mr. Lance said you guys wanted to add more than what was initially to be discussed. Is this true or not? I can go back and find the report so I can cut and paste what he said if you wish.


If the man had already placed an established set of guide lines to go by then I don't blame him. You make it sound like he hadn't set any guide lines at all. I distinctly remember him saying in the report what the initial guide lines were, you guys just didn't agree with them or you wanted much more added in. Is that right or not?



God Bless
Jim Larmore

The point, Jim, is that there weren't supposed to be any ground rules set in stone. That's what the negotiations were for, to determine the ground rules.

And as far as what was supposed to be discussed, according to email correspondence in September from and to two different GC or NAD officials, the Tommy allegations were supposed to be part of the agenda. But the 3ABN board and Harold Lance did not have the courtesy to inform us that the 3ABN board had decided differently until 10 weeks later.

Get it? The 3ABN board took action to restrict the investigation and then did not inform us for ten weeks that they had done so. And the lack of communication was all due to Linda?

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Hanging diry laundry out on the internet WILL NOT I repeat WILL NOT bring resolution or reformation.

Tomatoe,
While you are certainly allowed to have your opinion, I am not so sure that what you say is true. The Son can do a great job of cleaning things no matter where they are hung.

I will agree, though, that slanderous rumors posted on the internet do nothing to bring resolution or reformation. Therefore, it is imperative that what is posted is verifiable truth. I think we can surely at least agree on that.

 

[PeacefulSDA]

The point, Jim, is that there weren't supposed to be any ground rules set in stone. That's what the negotiations were for, to determine the ground rules.

And as far as what was supposed to be discussed, according to email correspondence in September from and to two different GC or NAD officials, the Tommy allegations were supposed to be part of the agenda. But the 3ABN board and Harold Lance did not have the courtesy to inform us that the 3ABN board had decided differently until 10 weeks later.

Get it? The 3ABN board took action to restrict the investigation and then did not inform us for ten weeks that they had done so. And the lack of communication was all due to Linda?

Pickle,
You are correct. The emails clearly show that progression. I just don't understand why it would take 10 weeks for Linda's reps. to be advised of the 3abn board decision.

 

[Peach45]

Pickle,
You are correct. The emails clearly show that progression. I just don't understand why it would take 10 weeks for Linda's reps. to be advised of the 3abn board decision.

Heelllloooo...

Danny and 3ABN asked for ASI to handle the questions and arguments and concernes regarding Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and ASI agreed.

The discussion of terms were supposed to be about how to fairly do so,and what acould be brought into that discussion and how to do so, it was NOT supposed to be about about bringing in other topics and agendas.


Beginning of letter of explanation (jan '07) from ASI:

"Answering the request of 3ABN's Board of Directors , ASI agreed to explore the possibility of forming a commission "to evaluate and determine Danny's legal and moral right to divorce and to re-marry". ASI's Executive Committee spent a considerable amount of effort from late September 2006 until early 2007 exploring that assignment. ASI's Executive Committee met January 4 to review progress on establishing a commission. After a full discussion the Committee voted unanimously to withdraw from the process they had agreed to consider..."

First letters to Linda:.
-------- Original Message --------
To: Linda Shelton
Subject: Restoration
Date: Sun, November 12, 2006 10:48:33 -0800 (PST)


Dear Linda,
...
The 3ABN board voted to ask ASI to be a liaison between you and Danny and 3ABN to hear all the facts and expectations and prayerfully make a recommendation. ... It can be none other than a directive from God himself. An ASI committee was selected to come up with a plan, headed by Harold Lance. It is to be submitted to all parties by someone other than the committee. If all parties are agreeable, they will go forward. If not, they will drop it.
...
God bless you and please contact me soon - by email or phone as Harold Lance has to report to the ASI Executive Board next week.
With God as our Guide, GW


http://www.save3abn.com/danny-shelton-smokescreen-scheme-october-31-2006.htm


-------- Original Message --------
From: GWTo: Linda SheltonSubject: RestorationDate: Sun, November 12, 2006 11:48 am
-------- Original Message --------
Dear Linda,
I don't know where to start. I just lost me email to you that I spent hours writing and praying over and rewriting before sending. It was about God's intervention in bringing about a restoration of the breach between you and 3ABN. There was no reason for it to be lost. I was just retrieving the attachment.

The 3ABN board voted to ask ASI to be a liaison between you and Danny and 3ABN to hear all the facts and expectations and prayerfully make a recommendation. That I would be asked to be the contact person to present the plan to you touches my heart. It can be none other than a directive from God himself. An ASI committee was selected to come up with a plan, headed by Harold Lance. It is to be submitted to all parties by someone other than the committee. If all parties are agreeable, they will go forward. If not, they will drop it.

Linda, I pray that you will go forward with the plan - well, the amended plan as I have requested (written in italics), anyway. (I know it is a scarey thought) ...
...
God bless you and please contact me soon - by email or phone as Harold Lance has to report to the ASI Executive Board next week.
With God as our Guide, GW




------- Original Message --------
To: Linda Shelton
Subject: Read this first
Date: Tue, November 14, 2006 1:12 pm


Linda,
Well, I just spoke with Harold Lance. Too bad I didn't talk to him yesterday after receiving your message. I could have saved you some disappointment, as well as myself. I'm so sorry.

He asked me to thank you for responding to me and stating who you would like for your representative. He would like to talk with you personally, if you will. He wants you to know that he is eager to work something out.
His home home phone is (***) ***-**** cell (***) ***-**** email hlance@pacific.net




Pickle Joy and Matthews were operating under a false premis and many false assumptions from the beginning, that's why the e-mails they write are so ridiculous as are their arguments.

 

[Jimlarmore]

The point, Jim, is that there weren't supposed to be any ground rules set in stone. That's what the negotiations were for, to determine the ground rules.

And as far as what was supposed to be discussed, according to email correspondence in September from and to two different GC or NAD officials, the Tommy allegations were supposed to be part of the agenda. But the 3ABN board and Harold Lance did not have the courtesy to inform us that the 3ABN board had decided differently until 10 weeks later.

Get it? The 3ABN board took action to restrict the investigation and then did not inform us for ten weeks that they had done so. And the lack of communication was all due to Linda?

The 3ABN board is not obligated to let you or Joy know everything they vote on. It sounds like this whole fiasco is a huge breakdown in communication all the way around. What should have happened in my opinion is Danny and Linda should have met with Harold Lance by themselves individually. They could have told their stories and Lance could have made his decision from that. I mean this started out to be an investigation didn't it? What wound up happening is a joke and more fodder for your circus on this forum and other places on the internet.

This all reminds me of what happens in a divorce situation where the parties communicate thru attorneys only. I can't tell you how many times I've seen what was communicated this way wasn't at all what the parties really wanted to say or mean.

I'm sorry Mr. Pickle but based on what you have said in the past your credibility is seriously compromised. IOW, I can't believe you and what you just said as being a fact at all.

God Bless
Jim Larmore

 

[PeacefulSDA]

Heelllloooo...

Danny and 3ABN asked for ASI to handle the questions and arguments and concernes regarding Linda and Danny's divorce and his remarriage, and ASI agreed.

The discussion of terms were supposed to be about how to fairly do so,and what acould be brought into that discussion and how to do so, it was NOT supposed to be about about bringing in other topics and agendas.

Pickle Joy and Matthews were operating under a false premis and many false assumptions from the beginning, that's why the e-mails they write are so ridiculous as are their arguments.

Peach,
I don't claim to be the brightest bulb on the tree, but I have read the emails and, as far as I can remember, one of Linda's reps made the initial contact with ASI to start the ball rolling.

If I am wrong, please show me the documentation that shows otherwise.