|
-------- Original Message --------
| From: |
Bob |
| To: |
Danny Shelton |
| CC: |
Walt Thompson, Elder Ken Denslow, Pastor Lomacang, Mollie Steenson |
| Subject: |
Questions on John Lomacang's claims. |
| Date: |
Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:09:31 -0600 |
|
Hi Danny.
Before getting to the subject of Pastor Lomacang's claims,
I'd like to review just a little bit. This series of communications
was initiated by yourself when you wrote me on November 23.
That email exchange led to Dr. Walt Thompson's emails to me of
November
24 and 27
in which he gave me information about the Tommy Shelton
child molestation allegations, and your handling of those allegations,
at the end of which Walt wrote:
|
"I would like to request that you ... varify [this letter's] contents."
|
Since Dr. Thompson, your board chairman, had given me only
one named source out of two sources for his information, and
since you were that single named source, the only way I could
fulfill this part of Dr. Thompson's request was to contact you
further. I therefore wrote you on
November 29,
December 5,
December 6, and a second time on
December 6 seeking verification for the
information Dr. Thompson had given.
Yet to date I have received nothing at all from you that makes
any attempt whatsoever to verify Dr. Thompson's information.
With that in mind, please note the following from Judge Rowe's opinion in
3 Angels Broadcasting Network v. The Department of
Revenue of the State of Illinois:
|
"I must conclude from the evidence of record, that applicant
is controlled by Danny and Linda Shelton, and all final decisions
are made by them and not by a disinterested impartial board of
directors" (p.36).
|
I think it very important to make some sort of reply to the
questions raised as soon as possible, for each week that goes
by just raises more questions: If the wishes of the 3ABN board
chairman can so easily be ignored by yourself over such serious
issues as the alleged mismanagement and cover up of child molestation
allegations, is Judge Rowe correct in her assessment after all?
And could that potentially be used to undermine a future appeal
of her decision?
Toward the end of my second email
of December 6, I wrote:
"On November 4
you
wrote to me and said, among other things,
|
" 'I will just say this, ... I have done nothing legally wrong in my administration with 3ABN.'
|
"According to what Hal Steenson and John Lomacang told me, I'm
uncertain that this is true. But I won't go into that now."
|
In my email to you of December 20,
I explained to you what Hal
Steenson had told me, but I made no comment about what John Lomacang had told me. I will do that now.
On or before August 24, 2006, Pastor
John Lomacang wrote a gentleman named Jonathan the following, which was posted on the
adventism_prophecy
at yahoogroups.com email discussion list:
|
"If you honestly want to know the truth you can call me. Sorry
for the misrepresentations that you have read and heard. When
we talk on the phone you can ask me any questions that you wish.
I am leaving my home number. Please call me. If there is anyone
who is willing to hear what they are not being told you can have
them call me there also."
|
Taking Pastor Lomacang up on his invitation, I called him on
September 1. In that conversation he referred to a concrete piece
of evidence against Linda, namely phone card phone records. According to him:
- These phone card phone records amounted to hundreds of hours of phone calls made by Linda to Norway.
- Regarding how these records were obtained, John stated that there is a phone number one can call to get them.
- When asked whether he had personally seen these records, John replied, "Yes."
I either was told by or got the impression from John that these
phone cards were purchased from Wal-Mart. Linda agrees with this
detail:
|
"I do not remember everything precisely, but I do know I purchased phone cards from Walmart."
|
Wal-Mart's web site presently lists three Wal-Mart branded, AT&T
prepaid phone cards. I therefore called AT&T and spoke to multiple
customer service representatives to ensure that I was getting
the correct information. These representatives told me:
- Anyone who has access to both the phone card and the PIN number can obtain the following information for 60 days after a call is made:
- The called-from and called-to area codes and/or country codes, but not the actual called-from and called-to numbers.
- The date and time of the call, the duration of the call, and the amount of total "minutes" or billed units the call cost.
- These records are available verbally over the phone. They are not available in writing or through the mail, a policy that has been in force for at least several years.
- The only way to obtain written records and actual called-to and called-from numbers is by subpoena.
In light of the recent Hewlett-Packard scandal, it seems appropriate
to ask,
Question 36: Did you or anyone else obtain a subpoena
to obtain these records, and if not, were these records either
obtained illegally or forged, or was John being less than truthful
when he said he had personally seen these phone card phone records,
or is there any other explanation for this major discrepancy?
Since according to AT&T call-to and call-from numbers cannot
legally be obtained without a subpoena,
Question 37: How exactly did you determine which calls
were made by Linda, and which calls were made to Dr. Abrahamsen,
which ones to Pastor Thorvaldsson, which ones to Irmgard Thorvaldsson,
and/or which ones to some other individual in Norway?
As far as phone card phone records actually existing, it would
be nice to chalk this one up to an innocent mistake, but that
does not appear possible, as will be seen later.
Here are a couple other details from Pastor Lomacang's conversation:
- John promised that I could see for myself the same phone card phone records that he had seen if I came to 3ABN.
- He promised that I could bring anyone I wanted to with me, and we could all see these phone card phone records.
- When I told him that it was unrealistic to ask someone to travel all that distance (there are less expensive ways to obtain such documentation), he said that that wasn't his decision, and that if it were up to him, he would have nailed the coffin shut a long time ago.
Thus, according to Pastor Lomacang, since it wasn't his decision
and since if it were up to him these records would be more freely
available, it must have been the decision of the 3ABN board or
3ABN management that this piece of evidence could be seen if
one traveled to 3ABN. Therefore,
Question 38: Whose decision was it that these phone
card phone records could be seen by whomever came to 3ABN and
asked to see them?
This phone conversation with Pastor Lomacang was September
1. By September 8 it had dawned on me that if I went to my brother's
wedding, I would be returning home right by 3ABN on October 23.
That fact led me to pursue taking John up on his offer to see
these phone card phone records. I accordingly communicated with
him via email on the following dates:
Why I wrote that many times may be apparent shortly.
The only reply I ever got was on
October 2:
|
"I received your email. You will need to contact the general manager of 3ABN to make an appointment. Her name is Mollie Steenson. If she approves then your trip will occur. She will determine the usefulness and necessity of your meeting."
|
It did sound a bit strange that Mollie would decide whether
I could go to my brother's wedding, but it is likely that John
just made a poor choice of wording.
I accordingly wrote Mollie on:
The only reply I have ever received came on October 17, before the final communication listed above:
|
"Rather than making the evidence available to individuals, which 3ABN has that validate the basis for the actions we have had to take in this matter, we have turned this matter over to a group of respected church leaders who will be looking at all the evidence, not just portions of it, and they will publicly give their findings in the near future."
|
Out of the eleven emails I sent John and Mollie regarding
seeing these phone card phone records as promised, the phrase
"phone card(s)" occurs ten times, and that does not include when
a previous email was attached to a new one for reference purposes.
Not once in the two replies I got from John and Mollie did they
indicate that there had been some mistake, and that these phone
card phone records were really something else or did not exist
after all. Thus it is difficult to assume that there has been
some sort of misunderstanding.
I also mentioned in my email to Mollie on October 3:
|
"[John] indicated that that wasn't his decision. So I assume that it was 3ABN's board or management that determined that those interested in seeing this evidence can indeed see it if they come to 3ABN."
|
Mollie thus far has made no correction to this conclusion
that it was a decision by the 3ABN board or 3ABN management that
anyone who wished could see these phone card phone records if
they came to 3ABN.
Now for the next troubling discrepancy. John explicitly said
on September 1 that these phone card phone records documented
hundreds of hours of calls. I used the phrase "hundreds of hours"
15 times in my eleven emails to John and Mollie, not including
the number of times that this phrase appeared in the previous
emails I attached. Not once did John or Mollie indicate that
John was mistaken in his claim.
But here is information from Wal-Mart and AT&T that raises
questions about this claim:
- Wal-Mart currently sells Wal-Mart branded AT&T prepaid phone cards in denominations of 150, 500, and 1000 minutes.
- 1000 minutes would be the equivalent of 16 hours and 40 minutes if the calls were domestic calls that were billed at that flat rate with no surcharges, and thus "hundreds of hours" would require a minimum equivalent of 12 phone cards.
- Each minute of actual time to a land line in Norway currently costs 7 "minutes," and thus "hundreds of hours" using 1000-minute cards to a land line in Norway would require a minimum equivalent of 84 phone cards, assuming that there were no surcharges.
- Each minute of actual time to a cellphone in Norway currently costs 20 "minutes," and thus "hundreds of hours" to a cellphone in Norway using 1000-minute cards would require a minimum equivalent of 240 phone cards, assuming that there were no surcharges.
Since every phone card has different PIN numbers, in order
to legally obtain information for "hundreds of hours" of calls,
one would need to get a hold of a lot of Linda's phone cards,
and she does admit that you did borrow one and refused to return
it. Thus,
Question 39: How many of Linda's phone cards did you
in actuality get a hold of, and how many hours of time do they
really represent, including and not including recharges?
In my eleven emails to John and Mollie, I asked the following
question a total of six times beginning with
September 8,
and
though it is rapidly approaching four months later, neither of
them has had the courtesy to give any sort of reply. Thus,
Question 40: Did John's statement that there were hundreds
of hours of phone calls by Linda to Norway refer to a) actual
time spent on the phone or b) billed units; in other words, did
"hundreds of hours" really mean 10 to 30 hours of actual time
spent on the phone, since we must divide the value of the phone
card by a factor ranging from perhaps 7 to 20?
John also stated on September 1 in our phone conversation
that his involvement in this whole matter began on March 9, 2004.
In trying to figure out the details about these phone card phone
records, I asked him whether these calls were made prior to March
9. He said that they were. Thus,
Question 41: Over how long a period of time do these
phone card phone records cover, and over that period of time,
how many days was Linda actually in the States and Dr. Abrahamsen
actually in Norway, and according to these phone card phone records,
what was the total amount of time Linda spent on the phone to
Norway (allowing us to calculate an average amount of time per
day and per week)?
To make it easy to follow everything, here is Mollie's sole
reply again from October 17:
|
"Rather than making the evidence available to individuals, which 3ABN has that validate the basis for the actions we have had to take in this matter, we have turned this matter over to a group of respected church leaders who will be looking at all the evidence, not just portions of it, and they will publicly give their findings in the near future."
|
There were a total of four questions in my reply of October 17 to the above:
|
"1) Has there been a change of policy since September 1, when
Pastor Lomacang promised that we could see the phone card phone
records if we came by? He indicated that that wasn't his decision.
Or was he somehow totally mistaken?
"2) Pastor Lomacang indicated that these records showed hundreds
of hours of phone calls, but I have thus far been unable to confirm
from him that these hundreds of hours are actual time spent on
the phone rather than billed phone card units. Can you confirm
this?
"3) What group of respected church leaders has the matter
been turned over to? Who are they?
"4) Will they be making public the evidence that supports
their findings, or will they only make public their findings?
"I ask this last question because from a damage control and
apologetic perspective, the only real way to put all the rumors
to rest once and for all is to come across as if 3ABN has nothing
to hide.
"Take for example these phone records, which Pastor Lomacang
stated emphatically that he had personally seen. After he promised
that we could see them if we stopped by, it has taken more than
five weeks to discover that 3ABN will not allow this, and that
gives the impression that they either do not exist or that they
do not say what he claimed they say.
"This is even more so the case since I asked him on
September 8 and
October 2 and
October 3 and
October 10 and
October 16 whether
the hundreds of hours were actual minutes or billed minutes,
and though I did get a short reply from him on
October 2, he
has yet to answer that simple question. The definite impression
being given is that there never were hundreds of hours spent
on the phone."
|
Since it is now two and a half months later and still no reply
from Mollie, I will ask the following of you:
Question 42: Who made and authorized the dramatic change
in policy between September 1 and October 17 regarding who could
see these phone card phone records, and why did it take from
September 8 (one week after John promised they could be seen)
until October 17 to be informed that there had indeed been a
change in policy?
Question 43: What group of respected "church leaders"
has the matter been turned over to, have they agreed to investigate
the matter and is it certain that they will do so, and if so,
what specific issues have they agreed to investigate, and if
not, why have they not agreed and/or why is it not certain?
Question 44: Have they agreed to examine the question
of whether the phone card phone records or any other evidence,
such as the recording Hal
Steenson alleged exists, was legally
or illegally obtained, and if not, will evidence of this sort
even be allowed to be considered?
Question 45: Will both the findings of, and the evidence
considered by, these respected "church leaders" be released,
and if not, what sort of process is in the works to assure Seventh-day
Adventists everywhere that the findings will not constitute yet
another attempt at evasion, stonewalling, and/or cover up?
Trusting that this new year will be much more pleasant for
you then last year has been,
Bob
|
