www.3atalk.com

This pleading lays out convincing evidence that Linda's efforts in the settlement case taking place in southern Illinois have nothing to do with being wronged. Rather, her efforts there are to gain access to post-dissolution information in an effort to smear 3ABN and Danny.

The document also reveals that Linda was more than fairly treated in agreement signed in June of 2004. It appears that she continues to receive a portion of the royalty income from the books Danny wrote/published while they were married.

Danny has not refused to take part in discovery, but has requested a Protective Order before providing requested discovery to the court. Linda rejects the Order. Why? The most obvious answer is that she is not interested in the property issues of the case, but is looking for material to smear Danny and 3ABN with.

The pleading also provides evidence that Linda did in fact provide Danny's personal financial information to Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Jude Pickle. In addition, it reveals that Joy and Pickle have threatened to sue Linda, accusing her of providing information about their activities to Danny.

Good find uncovering truth! Linda admitted to a friend recently she plans to take over 3ABN.

Thanks for posting this.

Uncovering truth: Yes, I will state that the document you have posted is an interesting one that in my opinion serves to establishe a set of important facts that were true at that time that document was written. Certain of those facts established in that doucment im my opinion had not been previously established by documents available to the public. Other facts, as I understand them had been previously known to the public.

I will suggst that at all times one should carefully distinguish between the establishment of a set of facts and the intrepretation of those facts. For example: Let us say that this document establishes how royalty income would be paid to Linda in regard to certain literary works. Such establishemtn does not establish whether or not that is fair. Fairness in this case is simply intrepretation of the underlying facts. ANd, honest people can differ as to whether or not such is fair. Should those differences exist, litigation in the legal system, absent an agreement, is, in my opinion, an approprite method to settle that difference.

No, I do notintend to list the facts that I think are established by this document. People might differ with me. I do not need to attempt to convince them to accept my position. Instead, I will simply say that this document is of value in that it, in my mind, establishes certain facts that I do not believe had been previously established.

One more point: While that document, in my mind, establishes the position of certain people at the time it references, one should still ask if those positions remain as the current positions of the people referenced. Perhaps they remain? Perhaps they have changed?

Notice where the document states

and that she had assistance and the advice of legal counsel in entering into the Agreement...

which proves that her team's cries of "poor Linda! she had no help at all, she was all alone and without a single friend (or legal advisor) when she signed that 'unfair' agreement" was nothing but lies.

I watched Alex Walker on TV and, in my opinion, he looks, acts and talks like someone who doesn't believe what he is saying. Check his body language. Especially where he jumps away from the microphone - and has to be pulled back by his lawyer. Obviously, his lawyer knows something about body language that Walker doesn't know.

And nestor, please stop trying to straddle the fence. Either she's a liar or she's not. I say she has certainly, and proveably, uttered lies. Lies that are documented by others. (Remember the judge saying that Linda lied about the 800 number for her CD sales?)

And as far as the jackals on that [NOT]at site are concerned, I am not in the least bit interested in their opinion about me. But an interesting fact to note is that my description of their activities and character in general, has NOT been denied. They know what they are, and they will answer for their sins to an authority in heaven - an authority that cannot be manipulated by them, and cannot be lied to.

It is easy to say that a person is either A or B; good or evil; a liar or honest. Often life is not that simplistic. My personal perception is that people on both sides participate equally in the same misconduct. IOW, I do not beleive that some people on one side are any more honest than some peope on the other side. Just my opinion.

In addition, The fact that a person may have stated an untruth, does not in my opinion make that person to be a liar. In my understanding, as liar is always one who has attempted to decieve. Absent that attempt to decieve, one has not lied. One may simply be wrong, lack information, or a simple difference in intrepretation.

Straddle the fence: Truth is seldom totally on one side and totally absent from the other. If you see it another way, you live in a world that does not exist in my universe.

Well, have a good day. I am going to go out and enjoy the world that God has created and in which I live.

As I write this, the Sabbath has come to most of the geographic areas of the United States. As the Sabbath dawn, may the blessings of the Day of the Lord come to all reading this.

Nestor when you say

I do not beleive that some people on one side are any more honest than some peope on the other side. Just my opinion.

From this I can conclude that you are truly deluded if you don't understand that Linda's side is completely on the side of the devil. You yourself insisted that Linda was innocent of all the "adultery" charges and yet where is your "innocent" Linda? Living with her "alleged" lover, something she had to admit to in a court deposition, and then in order to do some damage control, she quickly posted on her website:

A dear friend offered me a place to stay in the country of Norway

But you will spend an entire paragraph defending a documented liar, where the judge said that Linda intentionally lied to the court. How do you rationalize every act of Linda as being innocent is beyond my understanding. And then you spout nonsense like this

Truth is seldom totally on one side and totally absent from the other

You do realize that 3ABN was vindicated with regard to the IRS, but Pickle insists that the IRS was bribed. Which is the truth?
Linda declared herself innocent of adultery and demanded that 3ABN provide the proof, but now she lives in Norway with the "doctor". Which is the truth?
Danny was accused of the most evil of acts, presented as "fiction" by Linda's good friend in Switzerland. Was any of that "fiction" true?
Gailon is a convicted embezzler, (and so was Judas). And yet he proclaims 3ABN corrupt. Who is telling the truth?
"Snoopy" claims she saw financial dishonesty while at 3ABN, and yet she was the one found hiding in a ditch by the police. Why was she hiding in a ditch? Would she tell the truth?
A medical "doctor" insisted that Danny provide DNA evidence to prove a child was not his. Danny provided the DNA, but did it convince the "doctor" ? No. But her website lists the miracle cure she got from cancer (or tumor) by following her "special" diet and daily regimen. A diet and regimen lifted straight from E G White and passed off as her own. Would she be telling the truth?
Or another one of Linda's group who was quite the porno addict. Would that person be telling the truth?

To Steffan, Lilly and the manny others reading this thread:

Let me make asuggestion:

You believe:
1) God led Danny to found 3-ABN. I agree witht he proviso that I place Linda as a co-founder.
2) 3-ABN is active in bringing people to join the SDA Chruch. I agree.
3) God is using 3-ABN today. I do not challenge that. I simply say that in the long-run it will be clearly evident as to what God is doing with 3-ABN. I look at all human organizations to include 3-ABN and the organized SDA chruch to be imperfect. But, I believe that God uses imperfect people and organizations up until the time they reject God's leading and depart from His will. NOTE: I do not belive that either 3-aBN or the organized SDA chruch has done such.
4) God has given 3-ABN a mission and ministry.

My suggestion:

If God has given 3-ABN a mission and ministry, get on with it. Proclaim the good news of salvation. Convert people who are outside of Christianity to a saving relationshilp with Christ. Do I claim that you are not doing this, of course not. Expend your efforts and energy in this direction.

Time is short, if we are living in End Time, as I believe. While I see 3-ABN as attempting to do what I have stated should be done, I see a lot of people here diverting their time and energy from this task to something that I do not believe that is the mission that God has given 3-ABN.

Defend yourselves from legal attacks made against you in the legal system. You have every right to do so. Let the truth prevail. Let the judges established byt the civil system which Romans tells us we must subject ourselves to, decide. God can use this system to resolve issues. Whatever the dicisions that they make, consider them to be the judgements of God, regardless of whether or not they are decided in favor of 3-ABN.

Let me suggest that it is not your missiont to spend your time efforts and energy in attacking the character of Linda, Bob, Gailon and others whom you see as you enemies. You may be correct in some of what you say and you may be fasle in other things that you say about them. But, none of that advances the mission that you claim God has given you and the role you believe God wants you to fill in End Time. All fo that simply diverts your time efforts and energy. By continuing to attack the character of those whom you claim as enemies your add full to keep the fire burning.

Would the fire go out if you stopped responding as you continue to do? Probably not. You claim that some of those people are being used by Satan. As such, do not expect the fire to go out. In such a case, it will only go out when God brings it to a conclusions. Butl, in the meantime, you will not be adding fuell to the fire. You will not contnue to fan the blaze higher. Your will demonstrate you greater reliance on God to resolve the issues.

God may not resolve issues to your total satisfaction. Isreal spent 40 years in the wilderness. Due to a lack of faith and a failure to follow God's pland Isreal did nto recieve the Prommised Land as God had intended. Battle Creek burned before we more faithfully followd God's plan for us. It may be that God has some lessons to teach 3-ABN. IF that brings about a more faithful adherence to God's plan for 3-ABN God will resurect it from any ashes (if that is what happens) and 3-ABN will continue to be used by God.

Does 3-ABN have the faith in God's leading to stop attempting to smear the charactor of those you consider to be your worst enemies, to focus on the Christina ministry[ and mission of 3-ABN and leave some issues for God to resolve?

Do you havea the faith in God to do this regardless of the actions of those you beleive are your enemies? Leave them to God.

Nestor,
You make the mistaken assumption that 3ABN has been doing the defending on this forum. I have yet to meet a member of the 3ABN team. 3ABN has nothing to do with this forum, or in any forum where 3ABN has been defended.

You still don't address the real issue of "who is lying?" Instead, you go off in some direction of "3ABN should trust God." 3ABN trusts God, we (not 3ABN) defend 3ABN against vile accusations by supposed Seventh-day Adventists.

Experience has shown me that the slander that that demonic crew puts has to be counteracted. Otherwise, it is spread via the internet and believed to be the truth, unless we counteract it with the facts. I've had church members come to me showing me the "3ABN news" spread by these jackals, and had to point them to a site where the truth is displayed, and the character of the attackers is exposed.

When you say

you may be fasle in other things that you say about them

, I challenge you to point out to me one falsehood. You cannot, because what I have said is factual.