Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: inga on January 23, 2008, 01:03:49 PM
-
Why did Dan Shelton & 3ABN offer to buy the Save3ABN website?
After all the site was not copyrighted. It had no potential to create income, and anyone could reproduce it since it was clearly marked "not copyrighted." And now we are seeing a proliferation of copies of the original website.
But I'm guessing that the proliferation of 3ABN content is not likely to stop Danny & friends from their legal harassment of Gailon Joy in the bankruptcy case.
It seems that for $5,000.00 they want rights to so much more than the website.
Note this from Ian's post on BlackSDA (http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18900&st=60):
33 Filed & Entered: 11/30/2007
Motion to Sell
Docket Text: Motion filed by Trustee Janice G. Marsh for Sale of Property Under Section 363 (B) (1) all domain names and (2) all prepetition claims against Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., and its officers, directors and shareholders and employees, including Danny Shelton with certificate of service (Marsh, Janice) Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2007 (jk, USBC).
JMBankdoc33113007.pdf ( 27.57K ) Number of downloads: 11
JMBankdoc33_1113007.pdf ( 22.87K ) Number of downloads: 8
You can go to Ian's post at BlackSDA (http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=18900&st=60) for clickable links to the documents above.
I read the trustee's reasons for denying Gailon's petition to dismiss the banktruptcy case and her reasons for deeming his listing of assets "untruthful" -- apparently that he failed to list the website www.save3abn.com as an "asset." (Her reasons are also not in the interest of the creditors but rather self-serving, as you can see by reading the document.)
Well, I don't know about you folks, but in Gailon's shoes, I would never have thought to list the Save3ABN website as an "asset." It was a liability, if anything, because domain and hosting fees have to be paid, and it produces no income. It is a not-for-profit volunteer endeavor, and who would have thought to attach a dollar value to it except Danny Shelton and his lawyers?
This legal maneuvering was their "best" legal strategy so far -- though I believe it to be patently dishonest one. Any bankruptcy's focus is on money owed. Since Gailon's business dealt with helping folks with predatory mortgages find more reasonable mortgages, any one loan going bad had the potential to put him in a bad situation. In his case, I understand, several loans went bad. So he felt himself forced into filing for bankruptcy in order to give him opportunity to give him some financial relief. It is to Gailon's credit that he figured out a strategy that made this filing unnecessary (and I can understand that he needed time to do this).
Hower, by this legal maneuver, Danny has prevented Gailon from carrying on business in a normal manner and arranging his affairs so he could pay off his creditors. Danny & his lawyers had no business entering into the bankrupcy proceedings at all because Gailon did not owe them any money! By what legal vagaries his lawyer's intervention was even considered is beyond my understanding. (Perhaps Gailon knows more about it?)
Can you really, honestly blame Gailon, in the midst of a bankruptcy, for not thinking of www.save3ABN.com as an asset?! Would you have thought of your volunteer work as an asset?
Personal Example:
I own several web sites that cost me money and are strictly not-for-profit and aimed to serve. (In my case, they are serving homosexually oriented Christians whose aim is to live in submission to God's will, as contrasted with the propaganda of the gay community, including SDAKinship (http://www.sdakinship.org/) which lobbies for full acceptance of "gay marriage" in the Adventist church.
One of my sites is http://www.gladventist.org (http://www.gladventist.org) I certainly wouldn't think of listing it as an "asset" in a bankruptcy case. But if I should be forced to declare bankruptcy, SDAKinship (http://www.sdakinship.org/) could, potentially, insert itself into the proceedings by precisely the same maneuvering as Dan Shelton did with Gailon Joy. I already know they deem Gladventist.org as "hurtful" to their cause. When we started this outreach, other Adventist organizations were afraid to be in any way connected to this endeavor for fear of reprisal from the gay community. (Think legal and physical attacks, sabotage, house break-ins to gain access to computers, etc. -- all of which have happened in the past.)
http://www.gladventist.org (http://www.gladventist.org) would become an "asset" only after someone (likely SDAKinship (http://www.sdakinship.org/)) should offer to buy it. Like Danny Shelton vs. Gailon Joy, they have much more money at their disposal than I -- though not as much as Danny Shelton, I'm sure.
In the same manner, Save3ABN.com became an asset only after 3ABN offered to buy the domain, and, of course, that was their reason for offering to buy it. Gailon Joy clearly did not foresee this, or he might have listed the domain name as an "asset," even though it could hardly be counted as such.
Another analogy might be Daryl Fawcett with this web site. If he should be forced into bankruptcy, should he declare this site as an asset? (Is this really an income site for you, Daryl? I see you do have a PayPal button, so maybe you're making $3,000.00 a month?? :dunno:)) Gailon's site didn't have a PayPal button, by the way.
Though no one really knows, it could be that the Shelton/3ABN legal strategy was to
1)financially ruin Gailon Joy by making it impossible for him to avail himself of the usual remedies of a bankruptcy filing and making it impossible for him to earn income (this was through the filing of various motions). Is this is one of Danny's ways of "demonstrating God's love"?
2)deny Gailon Joy the remedy of a counter suit to recover some of the costs incurred through the filing of a frivolous law suit against him
3) possibly deny him the use of the factual evidence against wrong-doing by Danny Shelton that would demonstrate their law suit to be frivolous. (I'm not sure about this one because it shouldn't be possible, but the language allows for this.)
Folks, I think this is playing really dirty, and I wish both Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle had access to just 10% of the legal resources that Danny Shelton has. Even a little support would help, if there are folks out there who can contribute even $25.00 a piece, I'm sure it would be gratefully accepted. (After all 100 x $25.00 is $2,500.00 -- perhaps a drop in the bucket to the likes of Danny Shelton, but significant to someone like Bob Pickle.) These families are under terrific financial strain.
By contrast, Danny Shelton has access to unlimited funds through his "anonymous donors." He can afford to wear out Gailon Joy and Bob Pickle by repetitive and essentially frivolous motions. These cost time and money to oppose, and it's a well-used legal strategy used by the "haves" against the "have-nots."
This issue is not just a matter of brother taking brother to court. It is much worse than that.
How long, O Lord, will you allow this to continue? :pray:[/size][/font]
-
I agree with all of your points above, Inga.
In addition, I fail to understand how a website could be considered an asset to begin with, unless it was the basis of a for-profit business.
The web site domain name must be renewed on a regular basis. A building that is leased on a yearly basis is not considered an asset of the person who is leasing it.
The content of the site was already archived by an online site that does that; the content was available to anyone.
Considering these points, what kind of asset was it, anyway?
-
I totally agree with Inga and Artiste in all points.
I would never have considered a website as an asset. I don't believe that any other reasonable person would either. More likely, it was a liability. When one starts to add up what the expenses would most likely be for save3abn website, I can see where it could start to become increasingly a liability. Not only payments for domain name and associated costs, but also time = $S and the amount of time put into developing and continuing with the website, would star to add up to very significant amounts.
I see this as another manoeuvre by Danny and his cohorts, to grasp at straws and do everything possible that they can to destroy both Gailon and Bob. Hardly the actions of Christian people? Is this the kind of thing Jesus would do? If they asked themselves that question, surely they would hang their heads in shame. :'(
Come soon, please Lord Jesus.
-
I may be able to help with understanding how the website might be considered an asset. In the financial world, an asset is defined as a possession that could result in future economic benefit - in other words, a possession that could be converted to cash. The concept of "fair market value" is often used to place a dollar value on such a possession.
In the case of the website, it probably has no potential of "future economic benefit" to anyone but 3ABN, but once 3ABN offered $5,000 for it, that became the site's "fair market value". It is the bankruptcy trustee's duty to liquidate anything possible to settle any bankruptcy liabilities, so the trustee was simply doing her job by agreeing to sell the site for that amount. If I or anyone else had come along and offered $6,000 for it, she would have been obligated to take my offer over 3ABN's $5,000 offer as mine was higher and would offer a greater economic benefit to any bankruptcy creditors who are entitled to be paid.
With regard to the lease question, there are some types of leases that actually are considered assets and are accounted for as such on the lessee's financial statements. There are particular guidelines that such transactions must meet before they can be treated as assets, but once those criteria have been met the lessee actually is required to treat them as assets rather than operating expenses.
DS/3ABN's offer to purchase the site was simply a legal move that appears to have backfired, unless they plan to start buying up any domains that use "3ABN" in their name.
Snoopy
-
Thanks for clarifying that Snoopy--and it makes total sense.
Remembering now that it was claimed (in an accusatory manner) that the web site had not been listed as an asset, it seems that 3ABN must have informed the court that there was an asset not listed in the proceedings that they wanted to buy...which appears strange to me. How was it their business to do that ? How were they able to add to the list of assets?
-
Great questions, Artiste. And I must say that I am not a bankruptcy expert. However, my guess is that anyone could have made it their business if they so desired. Just like in my earlier example where you or I or anyone else could have offered $6,000 and the trustee would have been obligated to take that offer over 3ABN's. It just so happens that the only entity (individual or organization) to place a value on the website was 3ABN. And that makes sense when you think about it, as the site was obviously detrimental to 3ABN and in it was in 3ABN's best interest to buy it and shut it down. Please do not think I am saying I condone that action - I just understand the economic principles behind it.
-
Yes, I think I see now how the economic issue made it possible to happen that way. Thanks for the explanation, Snoopy.
-
Actually, there is no guarantee that the highest offer would be taken, from what I recall reading in the documents.
-
Interesting. I would expect that if the trustee accepted an offer for any asset that was lower than the highest legitimate offer for the asset they might need to explain why. At least, I would expect that if I were a creditor of the BK. Although, I have been wrong before....many times...!
Actually, there is no guarantee that the highest offer would be taken, from what I recall reading in the documents.
-
Is 3ABN still offering to buy the website?
-
They have only offered to buy the Domain Name. Problem is, I don't own them anymore and the Trustee did not move to buy them when they were available. So, I have no clue how they will perpetuate the process and I smell an appeal coming, anyway.
Could be years yet before we figure that one out.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon, evidently, the trustee is not happy with you! :(
Ian posted documents demonstrating that the trustee filed Contempt of Court and Sanctions against you.
See Ian's BSDA post.]http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19817&st=0&gopid=235780&#entry235780] Ian's BSDA post. (http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=19817&st=0&gopid=235780&#entry235780)
-
They have only offered to buy the Domain Name. Problem is, I don't own them anymore and the Trustee did not move to buy them when they were available. So, I have no clue how they will perpetuate the process and I smell an appeal coming, anyway.
Could be years yet before we figure that one out.
Gailon Arthur Joy
An appeal concerning which thing, Gailon?
And also, just curious, is there any 3ABN response to the new duplicate web sites up?
-
And also, just curious, is there any 3ABN response to the new duplicate web sites up?
Are you able to fill us in on this issue Gailon?
-
Though no one really knows, it could be that the Shelton/3ABN legal strategy was to
1)financially ruin Gailon Joy by making it impossible for him to avail himself of the usual remedies of a bankruptcy filing and making it impossible for him to earn income (this was through the filing of various motions). Is this is one of Danny's ways of "demonstrating God's love"?
2)deny Gailon Joy the remedy of a counter suit to recover some of the costs incurred through the filing of a frivolous law suit against him
3) possibly deny him the use of the factual evidence against wrong-doing by Danny Shelton that would demonstrate their law suit to be frivolous. (I'm not sure about this one because it shouldn't be possible, but the language allows for
***********************************************
I wonder if the "Shelton/3ABN legal strategy" has shifted any since DS is being sidelined at 3ABN--and there is Observer's mention of information from both sides hoping that the lawsuit could be resolved before 2009 or later.
-
Here is Observer's post on BSDA:
An objective review of the past few months will reveal that changes ae taking place at 3-ABN. A new President has been selected. There are changes that have taken place with the Executive Board. Policies are being put into place.
Some may wish to debate whether or not these changes are what is needed and whether or not they are enough. I am not going to comment on that pont. My central point is that changes are taking place. As we view these events it places responsibility on all parties to these issues to maximize this context to resolve the issues, settle the disputes and build positively for the future.
This is a time for men and women who are in positions of leadership to exercise boldness in seeking to resolve the conflicts that exist.
As things currently stand, 3-ABN, GAJ, and Bob Pickle are locked into litigation that is scheduled to continue into 2009 and/or beyond. This does not have to be. I have stated in the past that there are some issues that can only be resolved by the civil authorities. I continue to believe that is true. But, I believe that there are other issues that can be resolved by the three parties listed above. I believe that the issues included in the current litigation can be resolved outside of a legal process that takes us into 2009 and possibly beyond. If this can be accomplished, this would be in the interests of all.
To accomplish this will take bold leadership on the part of people who are willing to work to reach an agreement that both sides believe to be fair under the circumstances. It will not be an agreement in which either side will get everything that they want. Each side will have to give up some of what they want. Each side will have to be willing to give on some issues that are important to the other side.
In any case, I believe that the potential is here for resolution to be rached on issues relatiing to the current lawsuit, if we have leaders who are willing to exercise bold leadership.
NOTE: I have had comments made to me, which I am not going to discuss further due to confidentiality reasons, that came from people on both sides of this issue that indicate to me that there are people on both sides who wish to reach an appropriate settlement with the other side and resolve the issues without continuing through 2009.
Folks, it is a time for bold leadership. Feel free to quote me on this and to copy this post to any and all that you wish to read it.
I do not believe this will be an easy task. Some of the issues are emotionally loaded. There are some issues that will have to be faced which one side may not want to face. But, resolution will require that they be faced and dwelt with in a manner that both sides consider to be fair. The issue is: Are there men and women of boldness who will be willing to work to accomplish this task?
This post has been edited by Observer: Today, 05:52 PM
-
Here is Observer's post on BSDA:
An objective review of the past few months will reveal that changes ae taking place at 3-ABN. A new President has been selected. There are changes that have taken place with the Executive Board. Policies are being put into place.
Some may wish to debate whether or not these changes are what is needed and whether or not they are enough. I am not going to comment on that pont. My central point is that changes are taking place. As we view these events it places responsibility on all parties to these issues to maximize this context to resolve the issues, settle the disputes and build positively for the future.
This is a time for men and women who are in positions of leadership to exercise boldness in seeking to resolve the conflicts that exist.
As things currently stand, 3-ABN, GAJ, and Bob Pickle are locked into litigation that is scheduled to continue into 2009 and/or beyond. This does not have to be. I have stated in the past that there are some issues that can only be resolved by the civil authorities. I continue to believe that is true. But, I believe that there are other issues that can be resolved by the three parties listed above. I believe that the issues included in the current litigation can be resolved outside of a legal process that takes us into 2009 and possibly beyond. If this can be accomplished, this would be in the interests of all.
To accomplish this will take bold leadership on the part of people who are willing to work to reach an agreement that both sides believe to be fair under the circumstances. It will not be an agreement in which either side will get everything that they want. Each side will have to give up some of what they want. Each side will have to be willing to give on some issues that are important to the other side.
In any case, I believe that the potential is here for resolution to be rached on issues relatiing to the current lawsuit, if we have leaders who are willing to exercise bold leadership.
NOTE: I have had comments made to me, which I am not going to discuss further due to confidentiality reasons, that came from people on both sides of this issue that indicate to me that there are people on both sides who wish to reach an appropriate settlement with the other side and resolve the issues without continuing through 2009.
Folks, it is a time for bold leadership. Feel free to quote me on this and to copy this post to any and all that you wish to read it.
I do not believe this will be an easy task. Some of the issues are emotionally loaded. There are some issues that will have to be faced which one side may not want to face. But, resolution will require that they be faced and dwelt with in a manner that both sides consider to be fair. The issue is: Are there men and women of boldness who will be willing to work to accomplish this task?
This post has been edited by Observer: Today, 05:52 PM
Thank you Johann, for bringing that over from BSDA.
There are plenty of reasons to get the litigation ended before 2009!
Gailon, what about the points you made as to why the lawsuit would have to continue?
-
Yes, thank you Johann for bringing this from BSDA.
Rather than asking Gailon reasons to continue the lawsuit, lets ask who should be stepping up from both sides and what compromises would be acceptable for resolution.
-
Yes, thank you Johann for bringing this from BSDA.
Rather than asking Gailon reasons to continue the lawsuit, lets ask who should be stepping up from both sides and what compromises would be acceptable for resolution.
I wonder what compromises would need to be made by the side who wants to see reform accomplished at 3ABN?
-
Would you agree that there has already been changes for the better since the fall of 2006?
-
Would you agree that there has already been changes for the better since the fall of 2006?
Would you like to give us a list of the improvements made? Sometimes easier to deal with specific areas than just general statements.
-
I don't know about changes since 2006, however, I would say that there have been changes for the better, but with still more changes that need to be done.
-
Would you agree that there has already been changes for the better since the fall of 2006?
Would you like to give us a list of the improvements made? Sometimes easier to deal with specific areas than just general statements.
Good point Johann...I was just going to say, No!, no improvements that I can see.
But what you said make much more sense...
-
Interesting. Thus far we have the following responses as to whether there has been any changes at 3abn since the fall of 2006.
1. One vote yes; (Daryl)
2. One vote no; (Artiste)
3. One person apparently unwilling or unable to answer the question. (Johann)
I look forward to more responses as well as discussion responsive to Gregory's post which concludes as follows:
"Are there men and women of boldness who will be willing to work to accomplish this task?"
-
Interesting. Thus far we have the following responses as to whether there has been any changes at 3abn since the fall of 2006.
1. One vote yes; (Daryl)
2. One vote no; (Artiste)
3. One person apparently unwilling or unable to answer the question. (Johann)
I look forward to more responses as well as discussion responsive to Gregory's post which concludes as follows:
"Are there men and women of boldness who will be willing to work to accomplish this task?"
ImaAnt:
I don't believe there have been any votes at all.
Opinions don't count as votes.
-
Interesting. Thus far we have the following responses as to whether there has been any changes at 3abn since the fall of 2006.
1. One vote yes; (Daryl)
2. One vote no; (Artiste)
3. One person apparently unwilling or unable to answer the question. (Johann)
I look forward to more responses as well as discussion responsive to Gregory's post which concludes as follows:
"Are there men and women of boldness who will be willing to work to accomplish this task?"
If you are willing to a accomplish the task you will also be willing to point out what should be done, and not spin the question I asked.
-
But did you answer mine?
-
Interesting. Thus far we have the following responses as to whether there has been any changes at 3abn since the fall of 2006.
1. One vote yes; (Daryl)
2. One vote no; (Artiste)
3. One person apparently unwilling or unable to answer the question. (Johann)
Sorry, ImaAnt, but you seem to be spinning things. Nobody "voted." (It would be ridiculous to "vote" on such a vague statement. Something changes every day wherever we are!)
Since you brought up the topic, Johann asked you to list some of the changes you see, so we could discuss something concrete, rather than vague statements.
A helpful response would have been to come up with a list of positive changes you see.
So, again, since you brought up the topic, what positive changes do you see at 3ABN?
-
But did you answer mine?
I haven't seen the question you asked me yet. When will you let me know?
-
Interesting. Thus far we have the following responses as to whether there has been any changes at 3abn since the fall of 2006.
1. One vote yes; (Daryl)
2. One vote no; (Artiste)
3. One person apparently unwilling or unable to answer the question. (Johann)
I look forward to more responses as well as discussion responsive to Gregory's post which concludes as follows:
"Are there men and women of boldness who will be willing to work to accomplish this task?"
I haven't seen any votes here ImaAnt. How did you arrive at that conclusion?
-
They have only offered to buy the Domain Name. Problem is, I don't own them anymore and the Trustee did not move to buy them when they were available. So, I have no clue how they will perpetuate the process and I smell an appeal coming, anyway.
Could be years yet before we figure that one out.
Gailon Arthur Joy
An appeal concerning which thing, Gailon?
And also, just curious, is there any 3ABN response to the new duplicate web sites up?
Sorry, been a bit busy, working on fines and all...We may have to appeal the order for contempt and sanctions. The judges order from December is a bit unclear and we had given constructive notice regarding the decision not to renew the domain names. Judges tend to protect trustees regardless of the trustees' self-dealing. We feel we had provided all the information that was available and yet he sanctioned us for the failure to provide documents that simply did not exist. SO, we are requesting reconsideration and if this does not work, we will appeal.
As to the duplicate websites, well they are aware and purportedly they were considering the idea of trying to dump the lawsuite when we had shut down the domain on January 1, but Danny would not go along with this in any event. Clearly, the proliferation of domains and sites ahas closed any door that Gilley had thought may open and they now assert that the lawsuite continues until certain objectives have been met.
We also have objectives and they are clearly at odds with Thompson and DLS and I am of the opinion that the lawsuite will greatly expand and move toward a significant trial on the merits sometime between October 2009 and spring 2010. Just before the GC session!!!
I do not believe 3ABN, Danny Lee Shelton or Tommy Shelton will be happy with the results.
But then the board now has deep pockets, so they can afford to pay!!!
We move ahead.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
They have only offered to buy the Domain Name. Problem is, I don't own them anymore and the Trustee did not move to buy them when they were available. So, I have no clue how they will perpetuate the process and I smell an appeal coming, anyway.
Could be years yet before we figure that one out.
Gailon Arthur Joy
An appeal concerning which thing, Gailon?
And also, just curious, is there any 3ABN response to the new duplicate web sites up?
Sorry, been a bit busy, working on fines and all...We may have to appeal the order for contempt and sanctions. The judges order from December is a bit unclear and we had given constructive notice regarding the decision not to renew the domain names. Judges tend to protect trustees regardless of the trustees' self-dealing. We feel we had provided all the information that was available and yet he sanctioned us for the failure to provide documents that simply did not exist. SO, we are requesting reconsideration and if this does not work, we will appeal.
As to the duplicate websites, well they are aware and purportedly they were considering the idea of trying to dump the lawsuite when we had shut down the domain on January 1, but Danny would not go along with this in any event. Clearly, the proliferation of domains and sites ahas closed any door that Gilley had thought may open and they now assert that the lawsuite continues until certain objectives have been met.
We also have objectives and they are clearly at odds with Thompson and DLS and I am of the opinion that the lawsuite will greatly expand and move toward a significant trial on the merits sometime between October 2009 and spring 2010. Just before the GC session!!!
I do not believe 3ABN, Danny Lee Shelton or Tommy Shelton will be happy with the results.
But then the board now has deep pockets, so they can afford to pay!!!
We move ahead.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Move ahead. The next GC should provide some interesting highlights.
-
Wal-Mart is suing these days to gain the ownership of Wa1-Mart. They seem to be up against a Star attorney.