What were Danny and 3ABN suing Pickle and Joy for, in the first place?

3ABN was 100% victorious over those who slandered them so much, not with out $$$ to all parties and personal losses...

http://www.3atalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=276

What were Danny and 3ABN suing Pickle and Joy for, in the first place?

As I understood the story, there never was a proper DNA test proving Danny was not the Father. Such a test, which is clear where the DNA is from, seems like the only way to stop rumors. As long as this question is unanswered, it will never be over.

Of course the first part of the problem was over a long time ago. That is the part in which Linda was divorced without good reason, and forced to settle for a fraction of her share of 3ABN. I think that was a despicable act in itself. In my opinion, 3ABN will never recover from it.

1) DNA: The results of the DNA test rule out Danny being the Father. The type of test done was decided by the person who paid for it--Not Danny. It was an accurate test. It was not a test that met legal standards for litigation--much more expensive.

2) Linda did not recieve any part of 3-ABN. She recieved a cash payment which was not based upon ownership of 3-ABN.

I read the doctor's report, and it says that the child which was tested was not clearly identified as the child the doctor wanted to test. Danny brought the wrong child to be tested..

What kind of paternity test "tests the wrong child"???

I am not going to get into an extended discussion of this. But,I do need to correct a comment.

1) The face of the child was clearly revealed to all as the DNA sample came from the child's mouth. Attempts were made to keep the child's face from being photographed. There was no requirement that such be allowed.

2) Most people who are on the line to spend several hundred dollars on a DNA test would not submit a DNA Sample, along wiht the required money, if they doubted that the child was who it was claimed to be.

3) If the DNA test had been done in a manner that would have been admissable in a court of law, all of these questions would be resolved. The party who financed the test saved several hundred dollars by having the test done under conditions that could not be admissable in a court of law. That is the reason that these issues are being raised today.

4) The bottom line is this: Brandy was the mother of the child tested. Danny was not the father of the child tested. There is no reasonable speculation that could explain the above and suggest that another child could have been substituted for Trinity.

I think we all deserve the truth.

I would hope my posts are not seen as mean spirited or cold. I am concerned that an innocent woman has been wronged. A positive identification of the child was not made, and neither was her father identified. With all the confusing DNA tests which were done, the poor child may never know who her father is.

But the point of the thread is that the court decided not to reveal all pertinent information in Danny's suit, against Pickle and Joy. I would think this essentially withdraws that legal action. So by winning the later suit, Danny loses the previous suit, which was aimed at shutting down and collecting damages from save3abn.com. Unless I misunderstand, this means that the information on the website, save3abn.com, was correct and true. And the truth is all I want. I think we all deserve the truth. And there is only one reason why a desire for truth is seen as cold or mean spirited. That reason has to be a desire to keep it hidden.

I am not so sure it is. But then like I say ... I am pretty ignorant on this whole entire issue. Why is their marriage and sexual life ... any concern to donors? IOWs why would you have any right to this information?

Originally Posted By: Nan

I cannot fault that logic in general, OldSailor.

However it is most likely that the child's father is the
person who was her mother's partner when she was born.

Ideally, that would be true. However, sometimes a woman's sexual partner is not always her husband, and not always the same on the day of birth as on the day of conception.

A figure of nonpaternity of 10-20% is recognised in many medical circles. (ie the father is not the partner of the mother). Of course I recognise that ...just hoping for the little girl's sake that no further questions arise about her heritage.

One way of not being played for a fool is to donate and support only those organisations which meet basic standards of honesty and integrity.

A man and wife team who are evangelistic leaders for an organization to which we belong have a dispute in which one is wrong. I think we have a right to know the facts of their dispute. Am I wrong? Should we be content to remain deceived fools, while those who are withholding the truth are laughing behind our backs at how foolish we are?

I am 100% for forgiveness. But the first step toward forgiveness is admission of guilt. One of those two spiritual leaders is guilty, and I think I know which one. Of course I could be wrong. It may be the other one. But it seems to me that while one party has a gag order in effect and cannot speak out, the other party is covering and hiding information. But I am just one of over 14,000,000 SDAs who are being played for fools. Of course, the good guys are always played for fools. But being a fool is a sin. Knowing the truth will keep us from being fools. I have a right to know the truth. Do you still say I am wrong?