Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: reddogs on July 28, 2008, 11:45:12 AM
-
I just got the following from a fellow church member, does this mean the investigations are over...
"..Subject: 3ABN exonerated by IRS investigation
This is a statement issued by Doug Bachelor regarding the
IRS investigation of 3ABN.
"I spoke with Jim Gilley at the Amazing Facts office
this week and he shared that the IRS has ended it's
audit of both 3ABN and Danny Shelton's finances.
The federal auditors called 3ABN's lawyers and ask
them what 3ABN wanted them to do with the thousands of
pages of documents they had collected as they were closing
the case! They said they could return the documents or
destroy them.
THE VERDICT... Not one infraction, not one discrepancy,
not one fine!< /div>
Evidently, all the nasty internet rumors 3ABN’s enemies
manufactured influenced the feds to investigate. They
figured that where there was smoke there must be fire but
they discovered it was all smoke.
People can be reassured that their donations to 3ABN have
always been, and are still going into expanding God’s
kingdom. Karen and I never stopped supporting them.
Please feel free to share this with you friend s and
perhaps it will help to reestablish confidence in this
great ministry and undo some of the damage caused by the
smear campaign.
Regards,
Pastor Doug Batchelor ..."
-
No, it doesn't mean that at all. While it could be over it very well might not be over.
Gerald Duffy came out with a letter last Friday in which he makes pretty clear that the IRS has not said that the investigation is over. Rather, since the IRS allegedly asked whether 3ABN wanted documents returned or destroyed, 3ABN and company are assuming that the investigation is over.
Duffy also makes clear that the timeframe for the documents in question is 2000 to 2006, thus excluding the 1998 real estate deal.
Moreover, for Doug to assert that there was no infraction or discrepancy suggests that he thinks that the IRS will not consider to be an infraction or a discrepancy the cash receipting of a donation of property. But I highly doubt that either the IRS or the Amazing Facts business office will agree with him on that one.
If you don't believe me, call up Amazing Facts' business office and offer to donate a $5000 car or horse or whatever on condition that they give you a $20,000 cash receipt that you can then deduct off your taxes. I am certain that the AF business office will tell you that there is no way they are going to do that. And you can call up the IRS and they will confirm that such a maneuver is either an infraction or discrepancy.
-
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
-
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
And here is more:
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&p=40#p40
Read it and weep, I did.
Tears of Joy. :) Praise the Lord.
-
No, it doesn't mean that at all. While it could be over it very well might not be over.
Gerald Duffy came out with a letter last Friday in which he makes pretty clear that the IRS has not said that the investigation is over. Rather, since the IRS allegedly asked whether 3ABN wanted documents returned or destroyed, 3ABN and company are assuming that the investigation is over.
Jim Gilley say:
Those agents that came here were dedicated people. They were good people. They were very efficient people. They went through... we supplied them with.. and they took off of our premises over a 100,000 documents. Now that includes documents... our documents and documents of people who we have done business with... They went through all of these with a fine tooth comb and after nine months of investigation they recently called, and said; "what do you want us to do with the documents?" And they said "Do you want us to destroy them or return them?"
Now when they call you like that, that means the investigation is over. And then our attorneys called with the very good news that the investigation was now complete. it was over....That is right. We were found to not have any adjustments which needed to be made. There were no penalties put upon us, nor on Danny Shelton. We were all found to be totally square and above board.
Now that's no surprise to us. Larry Ewing was our head accountant, and a more careful man I have never known, but we praise God for this because now we can get right back into what we do best, and that is spreading the three angels messages.
Sera
-
Is that really what Elder Gilley said?? I didn't see it, so I would love to see a clip. But is that really what all this hoopla is about?? What if the IRS just finished LOOKING at the documents and GLEANING all the interesting tidbits of info they needed to make their case? How come no one from the IRS is quoted as saying "OUR INVESTIGATION IS OVER"!! You all have been touting the existence of just such a letter for a while now, but we have not seen it yet. And now everyone is excited because the IRS wants to know how 3ABN wants their documents disposed of?? Yes, I can see why you would weep Ian!!
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
"They went through all of these with a fine tooth comb and after nine months of investigation they recently called, and said; "what do you want us to do with the documents?" And they said "Do you want us to destroy them or return them?" Now when they call you like that, that means the investigation is over."
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
And here is more:
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&p=40#p40
Read it and weep, I did.
Tears of Joy. :) Praise the Lord.
-
Is that really what Elder Gilley said?? I didn't see it, so I would love to see a clip. But is that really what all this hoopla is about?? What if the IRS just finished LOOKING at the documents and GLEANING all the interesting tidbits of info they needed to make their case? How come no one from the IRS is quoted as saying "OUR INVESTIGATION IS OVER"!! You all have been touting the existence of just such a letter for a while now, but we have not seen it yet. And now everyone is excited because the IRS wants to know how 3ABN wants their documents disposed of?? Yes, I can see why you would weep Ian!!
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
"They went through all of these with a fine tooth comb and after nine months of investigation they recently called, and said; "what do you want us to do with the documents?" And they said "Do you want us to destroy them or return them?" Now when they call you like that, that means the investigation is over."
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
And here is more:
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&p=40#p40
Read it and weep, I did.
Tears of Joy. :) Praise the Lord.
Snoop, be nice......
-
Is that really what Elder Gilley said?? I didn't see it, so I would love to see a clip. But is that really what all this hoopla is about?? What if the IRS just finished LOOKING at the documents and GLEANING all the interesting tidbits of info they needed to make their case? How come no one from the IRS is quoted as saying "OUR INVESTIGATION IS OVER"!! You all have been touting the existence of just such a letter for a while now, but we have not seen it yet. And now everyone is excited because the IRS wants to know how 3ABN wants their documents disposed of?? Yes, I can see why you would weep Ian!!
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
Let us consider this rationally, and as you would like to have it.
The IRS takes this to the grand jury asking for an indictment of both Danny Shelton and 3ABN. They are asked for their evidence against them and answer *we destroyed it* ?
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL:
"They went through all of these with a fine tooth comb and after nine months of investigation they recently called, and said; "what do you want us to do with the documents?" And they said "Do you want us to destroy them or return them?" Now when they call you like that, that means the investigation is over."
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
And here is more:
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2&p=40#p40
Read it and weep, I did.
Tears of Joy. :) Praise the Lord.
[/quote]
-
I just got the following from a fellow church member, does this mean the investigations are over...
"..Subject: 3ABN exonerated by IRS investigation
This is a statement issued by Doug Bachelor regarding the
IRS investigation of 3ABN.
"I spoke with Jim Gilley at the Amazing Facts office
this week and he shared that the IRS has ended it's
audit of both 3ABN and Danny Shelton's finances.
The federal auditors called 3ABN's lawyers and ask
them what 3ABN wanted them to do with the thousands of
pages of documents they had collected as they were closing
the case! They said they could return the documents or
destroy them.
THE VERDICT... Not one infraction, not one discrepancy,
not one fine!< /div>
Evidently, all the nasty internet rumors 3ABN’s enemies
manufactured influenced the feds to investigate. They
figured that where there was smoke there must be fire but
they discovered it was all smoke.
People can be reassured that their donations to 3ABN have
always been, and are still going into expanding God’s
kingdom. Karen and I never stopped supporting them.
Please feel free to share this with you friend s and
perhaps it will help to reestablish confidence in this
great ministry and undo some of the damage caused by the
smear campaign.
Regards,
Pastor Doug Batchelor ..."
Yes it certainly does. The only people unwilling to accept it is the little handful here that are only making themselves look foolish. We have:
Word from a family member several weeks ago,
An announcement on a 3abn Live,
An email from DB as he was told the news from Jim G.,
And now, an official letter from the 3abn attorney that handled the IRS case.
Now think about it. If this investigation was not over and 3abn is announcing that it is on the air and their website, and, all of the 3abn defenders are putting it on the web, don't you think the IRS would have intervened by now and threw one big fit? You better believe they would. As soon as they got wind of the 3abn attorney's letter they would have been on the phone to him PRONTO! They haven't made any moves because IT IS TRUE. People, try to use some reasoning here. Give it up and be glad you were wrong.
-
Sam, seems like you are the one that is refusing to use some reasoning.
Ronnie said that there was no infraction or discrepancy. He was dead wrong, and you know it.
Call up AF's business office, and I guarantee you that they will tell you that they can't issue a $20,000 cash receipt for a $5000 donation of property.
We have a God-given responsibility to follow the rules, and Danny did not, according to his own statement.
-
Do you really think that 3ABN is the center of the universe?? All the IRS has to do all day is sit around and read web sights about an investigation they did? Come on, the IRS is not reading this stuff.
I wish someone could tell me if DB really wrote that email. Has he admitted to writing it? If he did, he is not the man I thought he was and I have lost a whole lot of respect for him.
-
Am I missing something or doesnt everyone want 3ABN to be exonerated and clear to go back to its main mission of spreading the truth. To me that would be a good thing for 3ABN and Adventist members, shouldnt everyone be glad about the outcome of this as the whole chapter has been a black eye for the church, the members and 3ABN....
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
-
Do you really think that 3ABN is the center of the universe?? All the IRS has to do all day is sit around and read web sights about an investigation they did? Come on, the IRS is not reading this stuff.
I wish someone could tell me if DB really wrote that email. Has he admitted to writing it? If he did, he is not the man I thought he was and I have lost a whole lot of respect for him.
OK, give me some help here. It seems that there are some pretty compelling statements made by high profile individuals who should know what they are talking about when it comes to the IRS investigation of 3ABN being finished. I note the absence of Mr. Joy over the last few weeks as a subjective admission that the financial misconduct leg of their defense is gone.
What I find most interesting is the refusal to accept this news and move on. Were we only going to be happy if 3ABN/Shelton were found out of compliance with the IRS and led shackled to the police cruisers? Is our hate so overwhelming that we refuse to deal with reality?
Grat, would you really throw Elder Batchelor under the bus just because he didn’t buy into your view of how things should turn out?
-
Maxey, I think your comments are uncalled for.
The IRS has not released any news that the investigation is over. It's all based on an attorney's interpretation, from what I can tell.
And we are responsible for thinking for ourselves. Claiming a horse to be cash is still a problem, even if the investigation were over.
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
-
Bob - Sorry, guess I missed those or was having trouble getting my mind around that DB would write such. And Maxey, it would not be because he didn't buy into my view but the content of the email and the way it was worded. When you are a public figure you need to be extra careful what and how you say things.
-
Bob - Sorry, guess I missed those or was having trouble getting my mind around that DB would write such. And Maxey, it would not be because he didn't buy into my view but the content of the email and the way it was worded. When you are a public figure you need to be extra careful what and how you say things.
OK Grat. I'll buy that and agree with you that how you say things is just as important as what you say. FWIW, I received the same e-mail that Daryl posted a few hours before he posted it, so I don't question it's validity.
Peace
-
Maxey, I think your comments are uncalled for.
The IRS has not released any news that the investigation is over. It's all based on an attorney's interpretation, from what I can tell.
And we are responsible for thinking for ourselves. Claiming a horse to be cash is still a problem, even if the investigation were over.
That’s fine Bob. I would ask which comments you found objectionable if I cared.
It’s also fine if you choose to deny that the IRS investigation is over. I agree that we do need to do our own thinking. I’m just not sure it is our job to convince the world that our thinking is the only way to think.
Somewhere I got the idea that you and/or Mr. Joy had a direct source for news on the IRS investigation. If that is the case, what are they telling you in this regard?
If the horse, which turns into cash, hasn’t already been reported to IRS, I think it is your obligation to see that it happens.
-
What has been forgotten is that those who reported and gave documents to the IRS against 3ABN and Danny were also called and asked if they wanted their documents returned or destroyed. It seems they would have asked questions, and what were the answers given to them. So far they have not reported it to the forums.
-
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I can't speak for everyone else, but it sure would suit me fine.
-
Do you really think that 3ABN is the center of the universe?? All the IRS has to do all day is sit around and read web sights about an investigation they did? Come on, the IRS is not reading this stuff.
I wish someone could tell me if DB really wrote that email. Has he admitted to writing it? If he did, he is not the man I thought he was and I have lost a whole lot of respect for him.
OK, give me some help here. It seems that there are some pretty compelling statements made by high profile individuals who should know what they are talking about when it comes to the IRS investigation of 3ABN being finished. I note the absence of Mr. Joy over the last few weeks as a subjective admission that the financial misconduct leg of their defense is gone.
What I find most interesting is the refusal to accept this news and move on. Were we only going to be happy if 3ABN/Shelton were found out of compliance with the IRS and led shackled to the police cruisers? Is our hate so overwhelming that we refuse to deal with reality?
Grat, would you really throw Elder Batchelor under the bus just because he didn’t buy into your view of how things should turn out?
The statement I bolded in the above quote brings to mind when Bill Clinton was president of the United States (definitely a high profile individual who should have known what he was talking about). President Clinton was on network television, looked directly into the camera and said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Being high profile and having intimate access to information does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the statement issued is factual.
-
That’s fine Bob. I would ask which comments you found objectionable if I cared.
"What I find most interesting is the refusal to accept this news and move on."
Thus far it's an unconfirmed report which is based on someone's interpretation of what a particular question means.
Somewhere I got the idea that you and/or Mr. Joy had a direct source for news on the IRS investigation.
Not us.
-
Do you really think that 3ABN is the center of the universe?? All the IRS has to do all day is sit around and read web sights about an investigation they did? Come on, the IRS is not reading this stuff.
I wish someone could tell me if DB really wrote that email. Has he admitted to writing it? If he did, he is not the man I thought he was and I have lost a whole lot of respect for him.
OK, give me some help here. It seems that there are some pretty compelling statements made by high profile individuals who should know what they are talking about when it comes to the IRS investigation of 3ABN being finished. I note the absence of Mr. Joy over the last few weeks as a subjective admission that the financial misconduct leg of their defense is gone.
What I find most interesting is the refusal to accept this news and move on. Were we only going to be happy if 3ABN/Shelton were found out of compliance with the IRS and led shackled to the police cruisers? Is our hate so overwhelming that we refuse to deal with reality?
Grat, would you really throw Elder Batchelor under the bus just because he didn’t buy into your view of how things should turn out?
The statement I bolded in the above quote brings to mind when Bill Clinton was president of the United States (definitely a high profile individual who should have known what he was talking about). President Clinton was on network television, looked directly into the camera and said, "I did not have sex with that woman." Being high profile and having intimate access to information does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the statement issued is factual.
Excellent research Sister. The sex reference is unfortunate but true. I guess it won’t hurt our hits.
Since we’re invoking the Clinton name you probably remember a few months back when Mrs. Clinton told General Petraeus that his progress report on Iraq required "a willing suspension of disbelief." In my opinion, we are at that point in this matter. But that’s just me and I certainly don’t feel the need to convince you or anyone else.
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Even if they are cleared of one allegation, it does not necessarily follow that they are not guilty of the numerous others. Each issue must be dealt with individually. Faulty logic on your part Sam.
-
Well, maybe you are right Sam. I didn't realize Jim Gilley was doing so much traveling and promoting. What about Dan Shelton? Is he still promoting and traveling as well? You do seem to be "in the know" about 3ABN business. Can you give us an update on Mr. Shelton's upcoming schedule?
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
-
And now, an official letter from the 3abn attorney that handled the IRS case.
Would this be the attorney whose team didn't even know that there was an investigation just a few months ago?
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Thats all fine and good Sam, but my granny always told me where there is smoke there is fire. We all wouldn't be discussing this if there was no substance. I feel something happened in the marriage to start all this, and people get emotional and sometimes make bad decisions which can have consequences, and we certainly have seen the results of their actions... So someone made a mistake somewhere down the line, and I for one have lost a lot of respect for the people involved, for 3ABN, and for the church for letting this go on. All of them need to be restored at least in my eyes and I am sure in a lot of the Adventist brethrens who have come across this...
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Thats all fine and good Sam, but my granny always told me where there is smoke there is fire. We all wouldn't be discussing this if there was no substance. I feel something happened in the marriage to start all this, and people get emotional and sometimes make bad decisions which can have consequences, and we certainly have seen the results of their actions... So someone made a mistake somewhere down the line, and I for one have lost a lot of respect for the people involved, for 3ABN, and for the church for letting this go on. All of them need to be restored at least in my eyes and I am sure in a lot of the Adventist brethrens who have come across this...
And don't forget us 'sisterens' either, Red! ;D
GrammieT :puppykisses:
-
ADMIN HAT ON
Sam, you need to watch yourself. I have edited your post to remove your last sentence which was degrading.
ADMIN HAT OFF
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Even if they are cleared of one allegation, it does not necessarily follow that they are not guilty of the numerous others. Each issue must be dealt with individually. Faulty logic on your part Sam.
Hardly. The financial reports by the Pickle/Joy team (that would include you) included countless allegations...not one as you stated above. Those countless allegations were wrong and I've yet to see an apology by anyone involved in making those allegations. Including you.
Post edited by Snoopy to remove Sam's degrading remarks.
-
Grat:
I have seen two replies to your question from two folks at AF, and both said that Doug wrote that email.
RedDogs:
It would be wonderful if 3ABN could be exonerated, but God does require confession, repentance, and restitution as conditions for pardon, and we still need to see that. Even if the IRS had totally exonerated 3ABN and Danny, which is impossible in my opinion, there still need to be some apologies over how the Tommy allegations were handled, for divorcing Linda without biblical grounds, for trashing critics over globally televised broadcasts, and such.
I would say that as long as 3ABN and Danny keep the suit going, they are going to be distracted from their mission.
Bob,
If they repented, confessed and dropped all the lawsuits related to the issues, would the brethren accept them back. I think this is the direction they need to go and see if they can be accepted back into the good graces of the members, as this has been a total disaster for everyone involved and Adventism in general...
In other words what would it take to resolve this overall, and would it be accepted by those affected or hurt by it...?
Rick
I'm wondering what "brethern" you are referring to? They have the support of the GC, ASI, countless other ministries like AF, Kenneth Cox, etc. The supporters are coming back in droves. That was proven at the TC campmeeting weekend where there was a record attendance. They have the support of the churches as Jim G. is on the road constantly speaking at those churches. What few doubts that were still hanging around were doused with the news of the IRS clearance.
People aren't stupid. It took awhile for the general public to catch on to what was going on and the tactics being used. Many changed sides just reading Joy and Pickle's own words and watching their actions.
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Thats all fine and good Sam, but my granny always told me where there is smoke there is fire. We all wouldn't be discussing this if there was no substance. I feel something happened in the marriage to start all this, and people get emotional and sometimes make bad decisions which can have consequences, and we certainly have seen the results of their actions... So someone made a mistake somewhere down the line, and I for one have lost a lot of respect for the people involved, for 3ABN, and for the church for letting this go on. All of them need to be restored at least in my eyes and I am sure in a lot of the Adventist brethrens who have come across this...
And don't forget us 'sisterens' either, Red! ;D
GrammieT :puppykisses:
Yes, the 'sisterens' also, we all need to be made whole by all around confession, repentance, forgiveness and a LOT of love for one another before this thing is done. But we need to begin closing it down now and have love and charity in our hearts, as enough pain and suffering has been spread amoung Gods people to wipe out a small nation............
1 Peter 4:8
And above all things have fervent charity among yourselves: for charity shall cover the multitude of sins.
-
Hardly. The financial reports by the Pickle/Joy team (that would include you) included countless allegations...not one as you stated above. Those countless allegations were wrong and I've yet to see an apology by anyone involved in making those allegations. Including you.
Please name the allegations that were made, and demonstrate which ones were wrong. Apologies will promptly follow.
-
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
Hey, reddog, thanks for that link. I was so impressed I felt it ought to be shared with critical people such as the General Conference, Douglas Batchelor and of course the lawfirm that produced it!!!
Now, how do you explain the fact that it still has not been shared with the world yet??? Isn't this as close as we will EVER get to a REAL letter? ANd written by the one and only Gerry Duffy of "common law copyright" fame!!!
Now that is credibility!!!
By the way, he has not yet sued me for violating his common law copyright...
well, maybe is time, such as just after we get done with our adversarial proceeding with him?
Great artwork, though and it really needs to make the rounds!!! I think I will help it along!!! Anyone want to help?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Let us consider this rationally, and as you would like to have it.
The IRS takes this to the grand jury asking for an indictment of both Danny Shelton and 3ABN. They are asked for their evidence against them and answer *we destroyed it* ?
"They went through all of these with a fine tooth comb and after nine months of investigation they recently called, and said; "what do you want us to do with the documents?" And they said "Do you want us to destroy them or return them?" Now when they call you like that, that means the investigation is over."
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
Now Jack,
How many were destroyed and how many did they keep? Do you have the numbers for us?
And this reminds me of the time I was investigating an arson case and had the town health officer condemn all the food and booze. I personally watched the deputies load cases upon cases of wines and top rated national and international beer, etc, to go to the town dump where it was to be shot-gunned and buried. Even dropped by the dump and noticed all seemed to be going well. Months later we found much of that inventory in a fish and game locker and a State trooper and the Fish and Game officer were suspended and a fire marshall (the pied piper) went to jail.
So, after that, we inventoried both ends. Can you inventory both ends for me??? What were those numbers again?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Grat, would you really throw Elder Batchelor under the bus just because he didn’t buy into your view of how things should turn out?
Maxey, let me make it perfectly clear, I would through Doug Batchelor under the bus THREE times, if I could prove he has done the same things that I know Danny Lee Shelton has done.
Treble damages for hypocrits!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Now, SAM, my dear, what makes you think we were wrong about our financial allegations? ANd please let me know which one I am wrong on as I would need to correct the evidence to conform to your position...if it is possible, after all, so much of the evidence is already in the record!!!
ANy ideas on what we can do to doctor the evidence so it would suport your supposition? Believe me, that is what it will take!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
And now, an official letter from the 3abn attorney that handled the IRS case.
Would this be the attorney whose team didn't even know that there was an investigation just a few months ago?
Would this be the same firm that Ms Hayes claimed was not representing 3ABN in the criminal investigation? MY, OH MY!!! I DO BELIEVE IT IS!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
Hey, reddog, thanks for that link. I was so impressed I felt it ought to be shared with critical people such as the General Conference, Douglas Batchelor and of course the lawfirm that produced it!!!
Now, how do you explain the fact that it still has not been shared with the world yet??? Isn't this as close as we will EVER get to a REAL letter? ANd written by the one and only Gerry Duffy of "common law copyright" fame!!!
Now that is credibility!!!
By the way, he has not yet sued me for violating his common law copyright...
well, maybe is time, such as just after we get done with our adversarial proceeding with him?
Great artwork, though and it really needs to make the rounds!!! I think I will help it along!!! Anyone want to help?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Gailon, dont shoot the messenger....
I am only a innocent bystander who 'has no dogs in this hunt'...
If they destroy evidence, God see's it, you cannot hide anything from Him...
If they are innocent God knows it and nothing we do will change that...
Our duty is to go by the process we are given, and forgive as we are told in scripture, and those who love and follow Christ will confess and repent of their sin...its that simple
We do not force anyone to follow what Christ asks and which leads to eternal life or they can choose the other path...
Your brother in Christ
Rick
-
Remember this....the "repentance" you speak of stems from the accusations by the Pickle Joy team. They were wrong about all of their financial allegations doesn't it make sense they are wrong about everything else?
Now, SAM, my dear, what makes you think we were wrong about our financial allegations? ANd please let me know which one I am wrong on as I would need to correct the evidence to conform to your position...if it is possible, after all, so much of the evidence is already in the record!!!
ANy ideas on what we can do to doctor the evidence so it would suport your supposition? Believe me, that is what it will take!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
Pardon me...I thought you were a little smarter than Pickle concerning the IRS investigation. Figured you wouldn't risk looking so foolish to deny something that has obviously taken place. Guess I was wrong. At this point I guess you are willing to risk anything to try and keep the few supporters that remain. You have mislead them many times (which is why you are down to so few) and you are misleading them again. You know it and God knows it.
All the arrogance and sly innuendos in the world won't change the facts. You have nothing. You cannot prove something that the IRS couldn't prove and by finding nothing, they had more to lose than anyone. If the investigation wasn't truly over, they would have been all over 3abn for saying it was.
I guess like Pickle, your power of reasoning and common sense have blown right out the window, along with, your witnessess, your financial allegations and your defense case. The very fact that you called me "dear" shows me something is baaad wrong.
-
Here is a link to the lawyers letter...
http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11
Hey, reddog, thanks for that link. I was so impressed I felt it ought to be shared with critical people such as the General Conference, Douglas Batchelor and of course the lawfirm that produced it!!!
Now, how do you explain the fact that it still has not been shared with the world yet??? Isn't this as close as we will EVER get to a REAL letter? ANd written by the one and only Gerry Duffy of "common law copyright" fame!!!
Now that is credibility!!!
By the way, he has not yet sued me for violating his common law copyright...
well, maybe is time, such as just after we get done with our adversarial proceeding with him?
Great artwork, though and it really needs to make the rounds!!! I think I will help it along!!! Anyone want to help?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Hasn't been shared with the world? Wrong as usual. It has been on the 3abn website for about 5 days now. It was also spoken to the world on the LIVE by Jim Gilley. I'm sure it will be mentioned several more times before it's all said and done. I hear it was also spoken about (to the world) on a today program with Danny & John L. Don't know if that one has aired yet, but, it will.
You also failed to mention that the letter by Duffy was written in conjunction with the law firm that handled the IRS. That makes it totally credible and valid.
I agree with Maxey. It's a done deal. You are just grasping at straws.
-
Sam,
Not sure why you are insisting that the IRS exoneration story is a proven fact, when Duffy himself didn't say that the IRS had said it was over. Why are you going out on on a limb like that?
Remember, Duffy is the attorney who claimed common law copyright protection for his letter of January 30, 2007, so he isn't always correct. And as far as his representing 3ABN in the IRS investigation, Jerrie Hayes told us in January that she didn't know who was representing 3ABN in that, and they are from the same law firm.
Again, why are you willing to go out on a limb like that? Are you equally willing to go out on a limb regarding the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton? If not, why not?
-
Oncer upon a time a man was seriously hurt in a brawl , and he lay there bleeding by the wayside. The first person passing by was a deacon in the church. He slowed down enough to see there had been some kind of a fight, and he realized the man left on the battleground was badly hurt, and yet he did not think a deacon should get involved, since he was only a innocent bystander who has no dogs in this hunt.
Shortly after a pastor passed by. Neither did he think it was appropriate he should get involved. "God sees it," he reasoned, "You cannot hide anything from Him. God knows who is innocent, and nothing I do will change that."
Anything similar to a story Christ once told?
Rick, you state that "our duty is to go by the process we are given," and I agree with you. It so happens that I witnessed how a woman, Linda Shelton, was left bleeding by the wayside by false accusations by her husband and his associates who believed in him. Since I know nothing about taxes, finances, nor the affairs of Tommy, I have nothing to say about those things. An exoneration by the IRS cannot change what I have seen and experienced. Neither what Sam, Ian, nor others who support Danny say, can change that. Yes, forgiveness could change a lot, but as long as there is no word in that direction, an exoneration seems at a far distance.
You have not seen and experiences what I have, and I cannot demand of you that you take my word for it. That is your own choice.
Your brother in Christ
Johann Thorvaldsson, first employed by the SDA church in 1951, and most of the time since then.
-
A special welcome to our newest member "irspro." Waiting with anticipation.
LOL, you just can't make this stuff up.
-
LOL...
I saw that, too, Maxey, and I am very interested to hear from this new member. Maybe we can get some good info from someone who knows the inside scoop! Welcome, irspro!!
A special welcome to our newest member "irspro." Waiting with anticipation.
LOL, you just can't make this stuff up.
-
A New Gust of Wind? Of comprehension?
-
Grat, would you really throw Elder Batchelor under the bus just because he didn’t buy into your view of how things should turn out?
Maxey, let me make it perfectly clear, I would through Doug Batchelor under the bus THREE times, if I could prove he has done the same things that I know Danny Lee Shelton has done.
Treble damages for hypocrits!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AKA three eyes for an eye?
And some still can't figure out why this is all so ugly and wrong?
-
Pardon me...I thought you were a little smarter than Pickle concerning the IRS investigation. Figured you wouldn't risk looking so foolish to deny something that has obviously taken place. Guess I was wrong. At this point I guess you are willing to risk anything to try and keep the few supporters that remain. You have mislead them many times (which is why you are down to so few) and you are misleading them again. You know it and God knows it.
All the arrogance and sly innuendos in the world won't change the facts. You have nothing. You cannot prove something that the IRS couldn't prove and by finding nothing, they had more to lose than anyone. If the investigation wasn't truly over, they would have been all over 3abn for saying it was.
I guess like Pickle, your power of reasoning and common sense have blown right out the window, along with, your witnessess, your financial allegations and your defense case. The very fact that you called me "dear" shows me something is baaad wrong.
SAM,
Time will be the final arbiter here, but you are OH, SO WRONG regarding what we have. We have enouigh in the quiver to put up a formidable defense and we are adding to the quiver every day, despite your best effort to prevent discovery.
SAM, if you want credibility, I would recommend you take "your calling" seriously and investigate the pastoral misconduct claims against Tommy Ray Shelton and report back. Then I would like you to face your creator and pretend we HAVE NOTHING!!! Hope you have experience dodging lightening bolts.
For the rest of the quiver you will have to come to trial. But in the interim, explain what the auditor has that you do not want us to get our hands on.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
I will make a comment on the process that is not directed to any specific person.
The judicial (legal) system exists to make decisions in regard to the law. It is not designed to settle moral issues of right and wrong. It does not deal with spritiual issues. It provides a definative answer as to what the law requires and whether or not an individual has complied with what the law requires.
1) The investigation by the IRS of 3-ABN and/or Danny Sheltion (I am uncertain as to the exact boundaries of the investigation.) has dwelt with only one issue: Did the investigated parties properly file the required IRS forms and if there were errors in their filing were those errors of a magnitude that would require either civil penalities or criminal prosecution. This IRS investigation has no direct bearing on any of the other issues that have been alleged--sexual misconduct, termination of Linda Shelton, constitution of the 3-ABN Board and much more.
A resonable person who understands our legal system and the IRS process would conclude that the IRS investigation failed to discover by the proponderence of the evidence that either 3-ABN or Danny Shelton committed any violation of the IRS rules and the law that would require either civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Folks, if you do not meet the requirement of the proponderence of the evidence, which is the lowest standard, you simply do not have a case. For a criminal prosecution one would be required to have supporting evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." No person who understands what the law requires would ever be able to say that the "evidence" presented in these Internet fourms met the required legal standards.
2) Yes, there are a lot of allegations that have been made in regard to 3-AND Danny Shelton that have not been considered by the IRS investigation. There are allegations that are included in the litigation filed against Joy and Pickle that are not covered by the IRS investigation. Those have not been settled by any objective body.
But, the IRS appears to have settled the issues under its venue. As such, the question now is what is to be done with the other allegations.
First, any other allegations will need to be settled in others venues if such exist and if the stattute of limitations does not apply. If the stattute has run its course, there is likely to be no other judicial/civil remedy to settle those allegations.
I am one who believes that there is not venue whereby those allegations could be settled outside of the civil/judicial arena. So, if that is closed, I do not see any other arena in which those who have charged people with wrong doing can seek relief.
3) However, the apparent closure of the IRS investigation, with no apparent finding of either civil or criminal wrong doing looks like a fatal development for the defendents in the ongoing litigation.
First: The alligation of civil and/or criminal wrong doing as it related to IRS issues now appears to be incorrect. As this was an important part of the litigation, it looks like those who filed the litigation are likely to prevail in this aspect. It, in my thinking, increases the lilkelyhood that they will prevail, at least in part in a judgement for libel, slander and defamination of character.
Second: The apparent failure of the IRS investigation to find either civil or criminal wrong doing as it related to IRS issues casts doubt in the other charges that have been made against 3-ABN and others. If one was wrong in this important area why would one be assumed to be riight in other areas?
4) In the time that has passed since it has been announced that the IRS investigation was finished I have read a lot of responses that have attempted to rebut the announcement. Many of those rebuttals presented the one who wrote them as "grasping at straws" and logically insufficient. Many of them were simply of no value as far as settleing anything is concerned.
5) So, where do we go from here? As I said once before: Gailon is astute enough to read the legal tea leaves lying in the bottom of the tea cup. He will know what to do. Bob needs to see if he can untangle himself from the situation he is in. I have a strong feeling that the ones who have filed the litigation would be willing to allow him to do so if he approached them. I say that because in reading one brief that they filed I saw some humanity on their part in that they did not, in my opinon, come down on him as hard as they might have done.
6) For the rest of the people,they may just have to let things go. In this life some wrongs are never exposed. Righteousness does not always rule. It just may be that there are other alligations that were as wrong as the caims of civil and/or criminal wroing doing in IRS issues were wroing.
7) In summary: The current situation, as I see it, strikes a fatal blow to the raft of alligations that have been made. I do not see it as being helpful to any one to continue grasping as straws as I see some doing. Some people are simply going to have to "get over it."
NOTE: The fatal flaw, in my thinking, in much of this, is that those who made the IRS alligations never knew the evidence that 3-ABN had to support their position of innocence. They only had one side of the picture and that is not enough.
-
Sam,
Not sure why you are insisting that the IRS exoneration story is a proven fact, when Duffy himself didn't say that the IRS had said it was over. Why are you going out on on a limb like that?
Remember, Duffy is the attorney who claimed common law copyright protection for his letter of January 30, 2007, so he isn't always correct. And as far as his representing 3ABN in the IRS investigation, Jerrie Hayes told us in January that she didn't know who was representing 3ABN in that, and they are from the same law firm.
Wrong and wrong.
Read it again: http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11#p22
Hint: Max Carr-Howard of the firm Husch Blackwell Sanders represented 3abn and DS in the IRS Investigation.
-
I will make a comment on the process that is not directed to any specific person.
The judicial (legal) system exists to make decisions in regard to the law. It is not designed to settle moral issues of right and wrong. It does not deal with spritiual issues. It provides a definative answer as to what the law requires and whether or not an individual has complied with what the law requires.
1) The investigation by the IRS of 3-ABN and/or Danny Sheltion (I am uncertain as to the exact boundaries of the investigation.) has dwelt with only one issue: Did the investigated parties properly file the required IRS forms and if there were errors in their filing were those errors of a magnitude that would require either civil penalities or criminal prosecution. This IRS investigation has no direct bearing on any of the other issues that have been alleged--sexual misconduct, termination of Linda Shelton, constitution of the 3-ABN Board and much more.
A resonable person who understands our legal system and the IRS process would conclude that the IRS investigation failed to discover by the proponderence of the evidence that either 3-ABN or Danny Shelton committed any violation of the IRS rules and the law that would require either civil penalties or criminal prosecution. Folks, if you do not meet the requirement of the proponderence of the evidence, which is the lowest standard, you simply do not have a case. For a criminal prosecution one would be required to have supporting evidence "beyond a reasonable doubt." No person who understands what the law requires would ever be able to say that the "evidence" presented in these Internet fourms met the required legal standards.
2) Yes, there are a lot of allegations that have been made in regard to 3-AND Danny Shelton that have not been considered by the IRS investigation. There are allegations that are included in the litigation filed against Joy and Pickle that are not covered by the IRS investigation. Those have not been settled by any objective body.
But, the IRS appears to have settled the issues under its venue. As such, the question now is what is to be done with the other allegations.
First, any other allegations will need to be settled in others venues if such exist and if the stattute of limitations does not apply. If the stattute has run its course, there is likely to be no other judicial/civil remedy to settle those allegations.
I am one who believes that there is not venue whereby those allegations could be settled outside of the civil/judicial arena. So, if that is closed, I do not see any other arena in which those who have charged people with wrong doing can seek relief.
3) However, the apparent closure of the IRS investigation, with no apparent finding of either civil or criminal wrong doing looks like a fatal development for the defendents in the ongoing litigation.
First: The alligation of civil and/or criminal wrong doing as it related to IRS issues now appears to be incorrect. As this was an important part of the litigation, it looks like those who filed the litigation are likely to prevail in this aspect. It, in my thinking, increases the lilkelyhood that they will prevail, at least in part in a judgement for libel, slander and defamination of character.
Second: The apparent failure of the IRS investigation to find either civil or criminal wrong doing as it related to IRS issues casts doubt in the other charges that have been made against 3-ABN and others. If one was wrong in this important area why would one be assumed to be riight in other areas?
4) In the time that has passed since it has been announced that the IRS investigation was finished I have read a lot of responses that have attempted to rebut the announcement. Many of those rebuttals presented the one who wrote them as "grasping at straws" and logically insufficient. Many of them were simply of no value as far as settleing anything is concerned.
5) So, where do we go from here? As I said once before: Gailon is astute enough to read the legal tea leaves lying in the bottom of the tea cup. He will know what to do. Bob needs to see if he can untangle himself from the situation he is in. I have a strong feeling that the ones who have filed the litigation would be willing to allow him to do so if he approached them. I say that because in reading one brief that they filed I saw some humanity on their part in that they did not, in my opinon, come down on him as hard as they might have done.
6) For the rest of the people,they may just have to let things go. In this life some wrongs are never exposed. Righteousness does not always rule. It just may be that there are other alligations that were as wrong as the caims of civil and/or criminal wroing doing in IRS issues were wroing.
7) In summary: The current situation, as I see it, strikes a fatal blow to the raft of alligations that have been made. I do not see it as being helpful to any one to continue grasping as straws as I see some doing. Some people are simply going to have to "get over it."
NOTE: The fatal flaw, in my thinking, in much of this, is that those who made the IRS alligations never knew the evidence that 3-ABN had to support their position of innocence. They only had one side of the picture and that is not enough.
Well said. Thank you Gregory.
-
Oncer upon a time a man was seriously hurt in a brawl , and he lay there bleeding by the wayside. The first person passing by was a deacon in the church. He slowed down enough to see there had been some kind of a fight, and he realized the man left on the battleground was badly hurt, and yet he did not think a deacon should get involved, since he was only a innocent bystander who has no dogs in this hunt.
Shortly after a pastor passed by. Neither did he think it was appropriate he should get involved. "God sees it," he reasoned, "You cannot hide anything from Him. God knows who is innocent, and nothing I do will change that."
Anything similar to a story Christ once told?
Rick, you state that "our duty is to go by the process we are given," and I agree with you. It so happens that I witnessed how a woman, Linda Shelton, was left bleeding by the wayside by false accusations by her husband and his associates who believed in him. Since I know nothing about taxes, finances, nor the affairs of Tommy, I have nothing to say about those things. An exoneration by the IRS cannot change what I have seen and experienced. Neither what Sam, Ian, nor others who support Danny say, can change that. Yes, forgiveness could change a lot, but as long as there is no word in that direction, an exoneration seems at a far distance.
You have not seen and experiences what I have, and I cannot demand of you that you take my word for it. That is your own choice.
Your brother in Christ
Johann Thorvaldsson, first employed by the SDA church in 1951, and most of the time since then.
Johann,
I can see you understand what Christianity is all about....I do not know all the facts of this 3ABN saga, and dont consider myself any 'better' at helping than the next man, and thus can only help as I come across them, if I get a chance to help Linda I will do it. Right now, as any good paramedic or 'samaritan' I am helping all the injured, not picking and choosing.....whether sinner or saints that is not for me to decide on, I leave that to the divine..
Rick
-
3) However, the apparent closure of the IRS investigation, with no apparent finding of either civil or criminal wrong doing looks like a fatal development for the defendents in the ongoing litigation.
Gregory, I do not understand your reasoning here. First of all, there has been no confirmation that the IRS investigation is over, and it seems to be to be irresponsible to base conclusions on mere assumptions.
Secondly, there is no fatal development, for Danny still claimed to have falsified a figure on his 2003 tax return, and he still bought a house in 1998 from 3ABN at below fair market value.
But one must back up and take a look at what the complaint actually says, and what the Defendants actually said. Unless the Plaintiffs can prove that the Defendants actually said what the complaint claims they said, the fatal nature of the case is on the Plaintiffs' side, not the Defendants' side.
And again, I would appreciate it if you keep your opinions of what I ought to do to yourself. But I already told you that. In other words, I absolutely refuse to lie, and I would rather lose all I have than lie.
-
Sam,
Not sure why you are insisting that the IRS exoneration story is a proven fact, when Duffy himself didn't say that the IRS had said it was over. Why are you going out on on a limb like that?
Remember, Duffy is the attorney who claimed common law copyright protection for his letter of January 30, 2007, so he isn't always correct. And as far as his representing 3ABN in the IRS investigation, Jerrie Hayes told us in January that she didn't know who was representing 3ABN in that, and they are from the same law firm.
Wrong and wrong.
Read it again: http://www.3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11#p22
Hint: Max Carr-Howard of the firm Husch Blackwell Sanders represented 3abn and DS in the IRS Investigation.
Did I say Max didn't? Are you saying that Duffy didn't, which would contradict the very letter you are asking me to read?
And are you suggesting that Duffy did not claim common law copyright protection for his letter of Jan. 30, 2007?
-
I am inserting my response to Bob in the body of his comment and in [ ] with my initials added to my comment.
Gregory, I do not understand your reasoning here. First of all, there has been no confirmation that the IRS investigation is over, and it seems to be to be irresponsible to base conclusions on mere assumptions.
[Yes, Bob, I fully understand that you do not understand. Therefore, I do not expect you to agree with me. As to my basing my opinion on a "mere assumption," hardly. But, I do not expect you to agree with that either. My conclusion is based upon more that a mere assumption. But, I am not required to convince you or anyone else of that. So accept or reject my opinion as you will--GM.]
Secondly, there is no fatal development, for Danny still claimed to have falsified a figure on his 2003 tax return, and he still bought a house in 1998 from 3ABN at below fair market value.
[If you do not understand that the IRS development is a fatal development for you, you simply demonstrate the level on which you evaulate legal issues. Your stataement that Danny claimed to have falsified a figure on his 2003 tax retun is likely to be your intrepretation. I do not think that any reasonable person would believe that Danny would openlly claim to have falsified his tax return. You may be entitled to claim that such is what Danny did. But, the current IRS development would lead a reasonable person to beleive that you are wrong. Your continued assertation of such is likely to cast doubt in the minds of reasonable people about other things you say. As to your claim in regard to the house, You have not, in your public statements, properly factored in the "life estate" which has been claimed to be a part of this--GM.]
But one must back up and take a look at what the complaint actually says, and what the Defendants actually said. Unless the Plaintiffs can prove that the Defendants actually said what the complaint claims they said, the fatal nature of the case is on the Plaintiffs' side, not the Defendants' side.
[Sometimes convictions are obtained on the basis of what the defendants inferred--GM.]
And again, I would appreciate it if you keep your opinions of what I ought to do to yourself. But I already told you that. In other words, I absolutely refuse to lie, and I would rather lose all I have than lie.
[Bob, no one has asked you to lie. As to my opinion, you have told me that I am unethical to state an opinon and not support it. Bob, I do not have to document why I have an opinon. This is a public forum. As long as you post here and are part of the discussion, I will comment on your posts and the situation you are in, as I decide to do. If you do not like my stating my opinion, I can live with that and you will have to live with me commenting on your situation--GM.]
Bob, there are probably a number of people who do not like what you have said about them. Life is tough sometimes. They will have to live with what you say and you will have to live with what I say. You can comment, but you know that as you do I shall respond as I see fit.
-
Gregory,
Danny stated in April 2005 in writing that he had claimed on his 2003 tax return that a donation of property was a donation of cash. No one has produced any evidence from the IRS or anyone else to demonstrate that he in fact did not do what he said he did. Interpretations have nothing to do with it.
I have made comments about the life estate, more than once. 3ABN still reported the sale in 1998 as a loss, as below fair market value, and yet Danny denied that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction took place. Duffy's letter indicates that 3ABN did not produce any records going back to 1998, so even if this IRS story were true, it apparently has nothing to do with the real estate deal.
If the Plaintiffs ask me to say that certain things were false when they weren't, that is asking me to lie.
-
Just Checking in. I have NOT heard ANYTHING about everything being over. I haven't heard from the IRS in over a week. In my opinion, it is not "completely" over. Just my $ .02.
-
And I know how totally "off topic" this may be but can't help myself. http://youtube.com/watch?v=CT7x3VnrqbA
I'm so filled with hope when I see youth taking back the arts for God I want to stand up and applaud.
Please enjoy and think on things that are really important.
Maxey
-
Gregory,
Danny stated in April 2005 in writing that he had claimed on his 2003 tax return that a donation of property was a donation of cash. No one has produced any evidence from the IRS or anyone else to demonstrate that he in fact did not do what he said he did. Interpretations have nothing to do with it.
I have made comments about the life estate, more than once. 3ABN still reported the sale in 1998 as a loss, as below fair market value, and yet Danny denied that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction took place. Duffy's letter indicates that 3ABN did not produce any records going back to 1998, so even if this IRS story were true, it apparently has nothing to do with the real estate deal.
If the Plaintiffs ask me to say that certain things were false when they weren't, that is asking me to lie.
Bob,
These kind of things go on in business all the time, if they were not honest and ethical in these small matters, well you can see were I am going. But the damage that is being inflicted and spread all around is being projected far wider than it merits and even you can imagine. This thing has got to stop, as no one is being helped by what is occuring now, its not for correcting a wrong by a individual or two, now it seems its purpose has reached the point of total destruction of the opposing camps. We need to stop, take a look at the extent this has reached and stop the bloodletting, the 'crime' will never fit the 'punishment' at this point, we need to help the wounded and those hurt by this saga and go on. There is a time to go through the process and apply the 'law', and then there is the time to see there is no longer a point in it and apply mercy as Christ shows us in John 8 and work on saving those involved....
Rick
John 8
1But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." 8Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
9At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. 10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."
-
Rick,
See if you can talk to 3ABN/Danny and get them to throw in the towel.
But note that there are bigger issues. Sam has asserted that Gilley plans on getting Danny back into the presidency. Has Danny repudiated John Lomacang's theology that Danny is the Lord's anointed and cannot be corrected by any human being? That is pretty serious. Do we really want someone who buys into that sort of heresy operating a ministry as big and influential as 3ABN?
Moreover, such a move would be unprecedented in the history of our denomination. When have we ever had someone accused of sexual assault, private inurement, unbiblical divorce, wrongfully terminating folks, filing a frivolous lawsuit, covering up child molestation allegations, lying about so many different things, and he still gets to continue on as if nothing happened? Without apologies, without restitution, and without dropping the frivolous lawsuit he started!
-
Rick,
See if you can talk to 3ABN/Danny and get them to throw in the towel.
But note that there are bigger issues. Sam has asserted that Gilley plans on getting Danny back into the presidency. Has Danny repudiated John Lomacang's theology that Danny is the Lord's anointed and cannot be corrected by any human being? That is pretty serious. Do we really want someone who buys into that sort of heresy operating a ministry as big and influential as 3ABN?
Moreover, such a move would be unprecedented in the history of our denomination. When have we ever had someone accused of sexual assault, private inurement, unbiblical divorce, wrongfully terminating folks, filing a frivolous lawsuit, covering up child molestation allegations, lying about so many different things, and he still gets to continue on as if nothing happened? Without apologies, without restitution, and without dropping the frivolous lawsuit he started!
I am going to respond to one issue that you have raised: The "frivolous lawsuit."
Back, several years ago, before a lawsuit had ever been filed, there was a lot of talk going on among a nubmer of peple which included people not defendants in the current lawsuit.
There was an attitude of gleeful expectation that it would be to the advantage of the 3-ABN critics if 3-ABN would file a lawsuit. It was correctly pointed out that the defendants would enjoy some legal advantages is 3-ABN filed and they became defendants. There was great joy when the lawsuit was filed in the 1st Federal Court District as it was thought that would be a major advantage to the defendants.
There was talk of law students becomming involved in various aspects of the case that they could do and of well-known lawyers donating their free time.
I was approached and asked if I would like to join the lawsuit as a defendant. My answer was a very loud NO.
I will also say that many of the issues raised in the lawsuit cannot be resolved by any means other than litigation. Come now, can the issue of copyright be resolved in any other manner.
As you well know, even if you disagree, denominational policy is that the "church" is not to act (nor can it act) as a civil magistrate. Therefore, it agrees that civil lalwsuits may be appropriate for issues that can not be resolved in any other manner.
"Frivolous," hardly. Painful, yes to you and Gailon. I am sorry for the pain that is being caused to you and your family. But, the lawsuit is exactly what I suspect some prayed that God would cause to happen.
I repeat: I do not believe, as I review the record, and have talked to attorney friends of mine that the 3-ABN attornies have treated you as harshly as they could have. I do not see them going for "blood."
You need to reconsider your position as a defendant in this litigation.
No one has ever asked you to lie about anything. Don't raise that as an issue. You lose credibility by raising such.
Gregory Matthews
-
To the contrary, Gregory, you may lose credibility by asserting that I have not been asked to lie. To illustrate, from the lawsuit:
"7. That Defendants be ordered to immediately publish a retraction of the false statements of fact alleged herein and otherwise established at trial, and to publish that retraction in the same forms and forum and to the same general and specific audience as the false statements were originally made."
First of all, to the extent it asks me to retract things I never said, it asks me to lie. Second, to the extent it asks me to retract things that I did say that are really true, it asks me to lie.
Now to assert that there was no other way to resolve the various issues other than by suing is simply false. We could have easily followed Paul's counsel to the Corinthians, but Danny refused to do so.
As far as the issue of copyright goes, the plaintiffs would like to claim that copyright issues aren't part of the lawsuit. I disagree, but that is what they would like to claim.
The lawsuit is indeed frivolous. If you think not, then please specifically state the basis you see for it.
The lawsuit claims that we caused donations to decline though our lies, and yet after more than a year, the plaintiffs have yet to produce any documents which show that we caused donations to decline, and that what we said were lies. More than a year and these basic points are still unsubstantiated.
The only document that comes close to linking us to a decline in donations is a single exhibit filed in connection with Mollie's affidavit in May 2007, but that one links the withdrawal of a trust with documentation, not with lies. And it was written later than the cutoff point the plaintiffs are now asking for.
-
Gregory, a case in point: The lawsuit says:
"46. Gailon Joy and Robert Pickle have published numerous untrue statements that 3ABN and its President Danny Shelton have committed financial improprieties with donated ministry funds. Among those untrue statements made by Joy and Pickle are, inter alia, that:
"...
"j. Danny Shelton has used the 3ABN corporate plane for personal uses."
If Gailon said that, I have yet to find it. If I said that, I have yet to find it. But I did find where you said something along those lines.
Now how can I retract something that I can't verify that I ever said? Why would I get sued for what someone else said, if I never did say it?
But the lawsuit said I said it, and truth is an absolute defense in defamation, so I went about trying to think of a way to prove that it was so. And I believe I found a way to do so. So besides not being able to retract something that I can't verify that I said, I'd have trouble retracting what appears to be in fact true unless someone can show me that I am mistaken.
But regarding the plane, Gregory, do you now think that Danny never used it for personal purposes?
-
I am going to respond to one issue that you have raised: The "frivolous lawsuit."
Back, several years ago, before a lawsuit had ever been filed, there was a lot of talk going on among a nubmer of peple which included people not defendants in the current lawsuit.
There was an attitude of gleeful expectation that it would be to the advantage of the 3-ABN critics if 3-ABN would file a lawsuit. It was correctly pointed out that the defendants would enjoy some legal advantages is 3-ABN filed and they became defendants. There was great joy when the lawsuit was filed in the 1st Federal Court District as it was thought that would be a major advantage to the defendants.
There was talk of law students becomming involved in various aspects of the case that they could do and of well-known lawyers donating their free time.
I was approached and asked if I would like to join the lawsuit as a defendant. My answer was a very loud NO.
I will also say that many of the issues raised in the lawsuit cannot be resolved by any means other than litigation. Come now, can the issue of copyright be resolved in any other manner.
As you well know, even if you disagree, denominational policy is that the "church" is not to act (nor can it act) as a civil magistrate. Therefore, it agrees that civil lalwsuits may be appropriate for issues that can not be resolved in any other manner.
"Frivolous," hardly. Painful, yes to you and Gailon. I am sorry for the pain that is being caused to you and your family. But, the lawsuit is exactly what I suspect some prayed that God would cause to happen.
I repeat: I do not believe, as I review the record, and have talked to attorney friends of mine that the 3-ABN attornies have treated you as harshly as they could have. I do not see them going for "blood."
You need to reconsider your position as a defendant in this litigation.
No one has ever asked you to lie about anything. Don't raise that as an issue. You lose credibility by raising such.
Gregory Matthews
Mr. Gregory, your recollection is apparently flawed. Prior to service and from the end of Decmber up until service was rendered, I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT ASSERTED DANNY LEE SHELTON WOULD FILE SUITE You did not agree.
The filing in Massachusetts did indeed prove to be a major advantage, including the defeat of the Motion to Impound. The only other option would have been Minnesotta. One would think that would have been a major advantage to a firm based in Minneapolis. But they elected my back yard in a court with a judge who is a sound constitutionalist. Are you suggesting it was not an advantage? Is your analysis somehow gone awry? Explain!!!
As to well known lawyers "donating their time" that is a serious mis-statement. We did work to make available counsel on both west and east coast to pursue various claims of OTHERS damaged by various actions of 3ABN, including Linda Sue Shelton, other 3ABNers, trust services staff and various others. Most have declined to pursue their claims, the good little church memebers or denominational employees that they be.
You were a player in convincing Linda not to pursue her claims. Seems you are big on Civil process to resolve certain issues until it crosses your personal philosophy or personal preservation concerns. BUT AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST YOU BECOME A DEFENDANT!!! Nor have I ever suggested I wanted to add you as a third party defendant, despite your role and the evidence you provided.
AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!
None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.
As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.
As to the issue of copyright, well lets just say THAT IS FRIVOLOUS and you know very well why, unless your counsel are seriously challenged. If you wish to debate that here, I suspect we would be willing to enlighten your sudden ignorance on the issue. And we do have attorneys that have offered to deal with that issue at the proper time. We are still a ways from "dispositive motions" and discovery is still alive and well. It is the current focus and will be for a few months yet.
Gregory, it is very clear that you have your own agenda and has been clear since the beginning of the year: Preserve Gregory!!!. Just remember we have loads of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that you have conveniently buried your views on certain issues. If you would like me to share that, to demonstrate your amusing little revisionist effort, I shall be most happy to accomodate.
Let me also contradict your view on "civil magistrate". Conciliation has long been the preferred solution to controversy between the brethren. An eccliastical process would have been the far better process for preserving the rights of the parties and restoring the brotherhood. US Civil courts are adversarial, not conciliatory. Therefore, let me go on record to state emphatically I disagree with your non biblical premise. Copyright and any other controversy could easilly be resolved by the parties meeting together as a minimal start. And how many times did we offer to meet with the 3ABN board? Would you like us to publish the record?
Then electing a conciliation process would be the appropriate alternative dispute resolution. WE DID NOT CLOSE THAT DOOR, 3ABN DID, if your recollection is still intact. ANd again we proposed meeting directly with the brethren (the 3ABN Board). And again, actually several times, we were deemed "no-bodies" and not worthy of sitting at the same table. I seem to recall you would have been part of that process, assuming you would show up. So, they elected to sue "no-bodies" in a civil magistrate. Ignore due process, conciliation and elect adversarial law.
Mr Gregory, there was no good biblical or ecclesistical basis for what has gone on here and we have now way too much evidence to simply walk away and desert outr station, regardless of your philosophies.
In the subject case, it is exactly the issue of due process and the right to face ones accusers that 3ABN has repeatedly avoided. In case after case they have been fortunate to find spineless believers that would not face them down and stand for the rights of victims. They have consistently avoided due process. So, they chose a new battlefield. They can no longer avoid due process, something they are not use to. We have elected to meet them there, something you have taken great pains to avoid.
I trust you know what I think of deserters. That is right, deserters!!!
But don't you dare misrepresent by innuendo or otherwise the real history or you will be met head on!!! I would think you would know by now we take exception to factually challenged statements. When you move that direction you will be corrected.
As to your legal counsel, I have read your paranormal legal analysis and you can pass back the following message...ignorance is bliss but it is also ignored.
Tell her she needs a vacation from her paranoias!!! You have promoted her for going on two years now (yes, I remember the call promoting her availability) and my position remains the same...I do not get into bed with the enemy!!!
I do not desert my post!!! And I will not partner with non-believers.
Now, put your military training to good use and re-evaluate where you stand, before the sand erodes your wanton position.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon, some excellent food for thought.
-
Gailon for some reason I expected to find that there would be a response waiting for me this morning. As I have done befroe, I will respond with comments placed in [ ]s in your post:
Mr. Gregory, your recollection is apparently flawed. Prior to service and from the end of Decmber up until service was rendered, I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT ASSERTED DANNY LEE SHELTON WOULD FILE SUITE You did not agree.
[Gailon, Yes you believed that Danny would file a lawsuit. And, there were others who agreed with you. Come now, do you really thilnk that you can truthfully say that no one else agreed with your position--GM?]
The filing in Massachusetts did indeed prove to be a major advantage, including the defeat of the Motion to Impound. The only other option would have been Minnesotta. One would think that would have been a major advantage to a firm based in Minneapolis. But they elected my back yard in a court with a judge who is a sound constitutionalist. Are you suggesting it was not an advantage? Is your analysis somehow gone awry? Explain!!!
[My suggestion is and always has been that it was an advantage. Never have I suggested that it was not. Where does this question come from--GM?]
As to well known lawyers "donating their time" that is a serious mis-statement. We did work to make available counsel on both west and east coast to pursue various claims of OTHERS damaged by various actions of 3ABN, including Linda Sue Shelton, other 3ABNers, trust services staff and various others. Most have declined to pursue their claims, the good little church memebers or denominational employees that they be.
You were a player in convincing Linda not to pursue her claims. Seems you are big on Civil process to resolve certain issues until it crosses your personal philosophy or personal preservation concerns. BUT AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST YOU BECOME A DEFENDANT!!! Nor have I ever suggested I wanted to add you as a third party defendant, despite your role and the evidence you provided.
[My reference to being added as a third party was not to you--GM.]
[Your reference to Linda is incomplete. You simply do not know the facts. At times when Linda did not have any legal representation and did not have any idea as to who could represent her I strongly advised her to obtain representation from an attorney and I gave her suggestions as to how she could obtain such. At no time did I ever suggest that she obtain such from a certain female attorney, of which you are aware, as that person did not practice an an area that was appropriate for Linda. Some of the advice that I gave Linda came from other male attornies, friends of mine, who made suggestions to me--GM.]
AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!
None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.
As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.
As to the issue of copyright, well lets just say THAT IS FRIVOLOUS and you know very well why, unless your counsel are seriously challenged. If you wish to debate that here, I suspect we would be willing to enlighten your sudden ignorance on the issue. And we do have attorneys that have offered to deal with that issue at the proper time. We are still a ways from "dispositive motions" and discovery is still alive and well. It is the current focus and will be for a few months yet.
[My position always has been that the legal situation in regard to certain of the copyright issues involved with the Internet is not clear. This situation is a developing one as various courts render decisions that are not uniform. As you well know, there are conflicting decisions from the courts which appear to give advantage to both you and 3-ABN on this issue. In view of the fact that the various decisions are in some conflict with each other, the litigation is not frivolous. Any lawsuit that may bring clairty to an issue is not frivolous. In fact, Gailon, your may go down in legal history as being involved in a case that helped to clairfy the issues--GM.]
Gregory, it is very clear that you have your own agenda and has been clear since the beginning of the year: Preserve Gregory!!!. Just remember we have loads of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that you have conveniently buried your views on certain issues. If you would like me to share that, to demonstrate your amusing little revisionist effort, I shall be most happy to accomodate.
[My agenda from the very beginning has been two-fold: a) To support Linda Shelton and b) to help her to make the decisions that she needed to make. NOTE: That was not to influence her to make any specific decision bur rather to consider the options that she had, evaulate them and decide. The exception to this, as I have already stated, was that at times when she had no legal representation of any kind she needed to obtain such. Gailon, while you may think you are fully informed as to how I related to Linda, you are not so informed--GM.]
Let me also contradict your view on "civil magistrate". Conciliation has long been the preferred solution to controversy between the brethren. An eccliastical process would have been the far better process for preserving the rights of the parties and restoring the brotherhood. US Civil courts are adversarial, not conciliatory. Therefore, let me go on record to state emphatically I disagree with your non biblical premise. Copyright and any other controversy could easilly be resolved by the parties meeting together as a minimal start. And how many times did we offer to meet with the 3ABN board? Would you like us to publish the record?
[Gailon, I agree with your that the civil courts are adversarial. You are correct. I have been formally trained in mediation by the Office of Resolution Management. This training occured after the ASI thing fell through. There are simply some issues that are quite unlikely to be failrly settled by mediation. In several of the issues the civil courts preserve the rights of the individuals far better than any church process could. You may call my position unbiblical. Regardless, it is denominational policy that certain issues can not properly be decided by a chruch process in which the rights of all are preserved and that it is the position of the denomination that the chruch should not play the role of a civil magistrate. Disagree if you wish, but that is church policy--GM.]
Then electing a conciliation process would be the appropriate alternative dispute resolution. WE DID NOT CLOSE THAT DOOR, 3ABN DID, if your recollection is still intact. ANd again we proposed meeting directly with the brethren (the 3ABN Board). And again, actually several times, we were deemed "no-bodies" and not worthy of sitting at the same table. I seem to recall you would have been part of that process, assuming you would show up. So, they elected to sue "no-bodies" in a civil magistrate. Ignore due process, conciliation and elect adversarial law.
[I happen to have some agreement with you on this point. I agree that the ASI proposed process was flawed from the very beginning. While you and I do disagree in some aspects of this, I still beleive that properly done ASI mediation could have accomplished something that would have been worthwhile--GM]
Mr Gregory, there was no good biblical or ecclesistical basis for what has gone on here and we have now way too much evidence to simply walk away and desert outr station, regardless of your philosophies.
In the subject case, it is exactly the issue of due process and the right to face ones accusers that 3ABN has repeatedly avoided. In case after case they have been fortunate to find spineless believers that would not face them down and stand for the rights of victims. They have consistently avoided due process. So, they chose a new battlefield. They can no longer avoid due process, something they are not use to. We have elected to meet them there, something you have taken great pains to avoid.
[Due process and the right to face accusers are important issues on which I agree with you. Do not imply that I take positions that I do not take--GM.]
I trust you know what I think of deserters. That is right, deserters!!!
But don't you dare misrepresent by innuendo or otherwise the real history or you will be met head on!!! I would think you would know by now we take exception to factually challenged statements. When you move that direction you will be corrected.
As to your legal counsel, I have read your paranormal legal analysis and you can pass back the following message...ignorance is bliss but it is also ignored.
Tell her she needs a vacation from her paranoias!!! You have promoted her for going on two years now (yes, I remember the call promoting her availability) and my position remains the same...I do not get into bed with the enemy!!!
I do not desert my post!!! And I will not partner with non-believers.
[Gailon my specific reference was to a male attorney, not a female attorney. You have simply made an assumption that is wrong--GM.]
Now, put your military training to good use and re-evaluate where you stand, before the sand erodes your wanton position.
[Gailon, time will tell. I have stated from the beginning that each side will win some and lose some. Time will ultimately tell who won and lost the most--GM.]
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon for some reason I expected to find that there would be a response waiting for me this morning. As I have done befroe, I will respond with comments placed in [ ]s in your post:
Mr. Gregory, your recollection is apparently flawed. Prior to service and from the end of Decmber up until service was rendered, I AM THE ONLY PERSON THAT ASSERTED DANNY LEE SHELTON WOULD FILE SUITE You did not agree.
[Gailon, Yes you believed that Danny would file a lawsuit. And, there were others who agreed with you. Come now, do you really thilnk that you can truthfully say that no one else agreed with your position--GM?]
The filing in Massachusetts did indeed prove to be a major advantage, including the defeat of the Motion to Impound. The only other option would have been Minnesotta. One would think that would have been a major advantage to a firm based in Minneapolis. But they elected my back yard in a court with a judge who is a sound constitutionalist. Are you suggesting it was not an advantage? Is your analysis somehow gone awry? Explain!!!
[My suggestion is and always has been that it was an advantage. Never have I suggested that it was not. Where does this question come from--GM?]
As to well known lawyers "donating their time" that is a serious mis-statement. We did work to make available counsel on both west and east coast to pursue various claims of OTHERS damaged by various actions of 3ABN, including Linda Sue Shelton, other 3ABNers, trust services staff and various others. Most have declined to pursue their claims, the good little church memebers or denominational employees that they be.
You were a player in convincing Linda not to pursue her claims. Seems you are big on Civil process to resolve certain issues until it crosses your personal philosophy or personal preservation concerns. BUT AT NO TIME DID I EVER SUGGEST YOU BECOME A DEFENDANT!!! Nor have I ever suggested I wanted to add you as a third party defendant, despite your role and the evidence you provided.
[My reference to being added as a third party was not to you--GM.]
[Your reference to Linda is incomplete. You simply do not know the facts. At times when Linda did not have any legal representation and did not have any idea as to who could represent her I strongly advised her to obtain representation from an attorney and I gave her suggestions as to how she could obtain such. At no time did I ever suggest that she obtain such from a certain female attorney, of which you are aware, as that person did not practice an an area that was appropriate for Linda. Some of the advice that I gave Linda came from other male attornies, friends of mine, who made suggestions to me--GM.]
AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!
None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.
As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.
As to the issue of copyright, well lets just say THAT IS FRIVOLOUS and you know very well why, unless your counsel are seriously challenged. If you wish to debate that here, I suspect we would be willing to enlighten your sudden ignorance on the issue. And we do have attorneys that have offered to deal with that issue at the proper time. We are still a ways from "dispositive motions" and discovery is still alive and well. It is the current focus and will be for a few months yet.
[My position always has been that the legal situation in regard to certain of the copyright issues involved with the Internet is not clear. This situation is a developing one as various courts render decisions that are not uniform. As you well know, there are conflicting decisions from the courts which appear to give advantage to both you and 3-ABN on this issue. In view of the fact that the various decisions are in some conflict with each other, the litigation is not frivolous. Any lawsuit that may bring clairty to an issue is not frivolous. In fact, Gailon, your may go down in legal history as being involved in a case that helped to clairfy the issues--GM.]
Gregory, it is very clear that you have your own agenda and has been clear since the beginning of the year: Preserve Gregory!!!. Just remember we have loads of evidence that conclusively demonstrates that you have conveniently buried your views on certain issues. If you would like me to share that, to demonstrate your amusing little revisionist effort, I shall be most happy to accomodate.
[My agenda from the very beginning has been two-fold: a) To support Linda Shelton and b) to help her to make the decisions that she needed to make. NOTE: That was not to influence her to make any specific decision bur rather to consider the options that she had, evaulate them and decide. The exception to this, as I have already stated, was that at times when she had no legal representation of any kind she needed to obtain such. Gailon, while you may think you are fully informed as to how I related to Linda, you are not so informed--GM.]
Let me also contradict your view on "civil magistrate". Conciliation has long been the preferred solution to controversy between the brethren. An eccliastical process would have been the far better process for preserving the rights of the parties and restoring the brotherhood. US Civil courts are adversarial, not conciliatory. Therefore, let me go on record to state emphatically I disagree with your non biblical premise. Copyright and any other controversy could easilly be resolved by the parties meeting together as a minimal start. And how many times did we offer to meet with the 3ABN board? Would you like us to publish the record?
[Gailon, I agree with your that the civil courts are adversarial. You are correct. I have been formally trained in mediation by the Office of Resolution Management. This training occured after the ASI thing fell through. There are simply some issues that are quite unlikely to be failrly settled by mediation. In several of the issues the civil courts preserve the rights of the individuals far better than any church process could. You may call my position unbiblical. Regardless, it is denominational policy that certain issues can not properly be decided by a chruch process in which the rights of all are preserved and that it is the position of the denomination that the chruch should not play the role of a civil magistrate. Disagree if you wish, but that is church policy--GM.]
Then electing a conciliation process would be the appropriate alternative dispute resolution. WE DID NOT CLOSE THAT DOOR, 3ABN DID, if your recollection is still intact. ANd again we proposed meeting directly with the brethren (the 3ABN Board). And again, actually several times, we were deemed "no-bodies" and not worthy of sitting at the same table. I seem to recall you would have been part of that process, assuming you would show up. So, they elected to sue "no-bodies" in a civil magistrate. Ignore due process, conciliation and elect adversarial law.
[I happen to have some agreement with you on this point. I agree that the ASI proposed process was flawed from the very beginning. While you and I do disagree in some aspects of this, I still beleive that properly done ASI mediation could have accomplished something that would have been worthwhile--GM]
Mr Gregory, there was no good biblical or ecclesistical basis for what has gone on here and we have now way too much evidence to simply walk away and desert outr station, regardless of your philosophies.
In the subject case, it is exactly the issue of due process and the right to face ones accusers that 3ABN has repeatedly avoided. In case after case they have been fortunate to find spineless believers that would not face them down and stand for the rights of victims. They have consistently avoided due process. So, they chose a new battlefield. They can no longer avoid due process, something they are not use to. We have elected to meet them there, something you have taken great pains to avoid.
[Due process and the right to face accusers are important issues on which I agree with you. Do not imply that I take positions that I do not take--GM.]
I trust you know what I think of deserters. That is right, deserters!!!
But don't you dare misrepresent by innuendo or otherwise the real history or you will be met head on!!! I would think you would know by now we take exception to factually challenged statements. When you move that direction you will be corrected.
As to your legal counsel, I have read your paranormal legal analysis and you can pass back the following message...ignorance is bliss but it is also ignored.
Tell her she needs a vacation from her paranoias!!! You have promoted her for going on two years now (yes, I remember the call promoting her availability) and my position remains the same...I do not get into bed with the enemy!!!
I do not desert my post!!! And I will not partner with non-believers.
[Gailon my specific reference was to a male attorney, not a female attorney. You have simply made an assumption that is wrong--GM.]
Now, put your military training to good use and re-evaluate where you stand, before the sand erodes your wanton position.
[Gailon, time will tell. I have stated from the beginning that each side will win some and lose some. Time will ultimately tell who won and lost the most--GM.]
Gailon Arthur Joy
I would like to address item “b” that I have highlighted in red. I believe that statement is misleading. When one takes a counseling position with an individual that has been abused in a way that has resulted in that person having difficulty in making their own life decisions, because their abuser has conditioned them to rely on the abuser for guidance and to distrust their own thoughts, can easily put the “counselor” in a position where “helping” her consider the options that she had, evaluate them and decide can easily become a process of choosing for her. In the case of Linda’s relationship in regard to any association to Joy and Pickle, by Linda’s own words, I believe that is what you and a small group of individuals, in a combined effort, attempted. Although your attempt in “helping Linda” failed, it had the appearance of taking advantage of a known weakness and exploiting it. Had it achieved the desired results, Linda would have been lead to make a statement on the internet that broke any association with Joy and Pickle and would have resulted in you being the spokesperson for Linda. In my opinion that is manipulation, not counseling.
In this whole sorry saga, only God knows all the hidden agendas. Although not everyone is willing to admit it even to themselves, there are agendas where Linda Shelton merely becomes a pawn to be sacrificed. The first in line in this catagory is her ex-husband, Danny Shelton. Unfortunately, he is not the last...
-
Sister:
Again, I will place my comments in the body of your post in [ ]s.
I would like to address item “b” that I have highlighted in red. I believe that statement is misleading. When one takes a counseling position with an individual that has been abused in a way that has resulted in that person having difficulty in making their own life decisions, because their abuser has conditioned them to rely on the abuser for guidance and to distrust their own thoughts, can easily put the “counselor” in a position where “helping” her consider the options that she had, evaluate them and decide can easily become a process of choosing for her.
[Sister, you are quite correct in your comment in regard to what can happen. This is where it is up to the counselor involved to be professional and to guard against such actually happening. Such may be called manipulation--GM.]
In the case of Linda’s relationship in regard to any association to Joy and Pickle, by Linda’s own words, I believe that is what you and a small group of individuals, in a combined effort, attempted. Although your attempt in “helping Linda” failed, it had the appearance of taking advantage of a known weakness and exploiting it.
[I do not doubt that such is what is being told today. I will tell you and the public at large that a large list of attempts to help Linda came at her specific request. She asked for help and nothing was imposed upon her. She initiated the request for help in situations where we had no reason to believe that help was needed. You reference a "failed attempt to help her." That is your perception. I called off that attempt because Linda had changed her objectives, among other reasons. That in my mind is not a failure. In my mind it is success when people can come to the place where they take charge of their life and make decisions for themself. In this case, Linda did just exactly that. That was growth and progress which I celebrate--GM.]
Had it achieved the desired results, Linda would have been lead to make a statement on the internet that broke any association with Joy and Pickle and would have resulted in you being the spokesperson for Linda. In my opinion that is manipulation, not counseling.
[Was I a spokesperson for Linda? In 2007 and again in 2008 Linda asked me for help on certain specific issues. e.g. In 2007 she asked me to make contact with certain individuals as her spokesperson. There is more to events that took place than is generally known. Be aware that there is an ethical principle that states that when a person is falsely accused that accused person may defend themself by releasing information that would otherwise be considered confidential. Also be aware that confidentiality did not exist between Linda and I. Linda was clearly informed that she and I did not have a relationship in which confidentiality was granted to her. She was told that anything she told me was subject to beign shared with others and several were specificly named. That alone threw confidentiality out the window. I have a great deal of respect for Linda. I have supported her and I continue to support her. False statemenets have been made in regard to events and me. She needs to be aware that I have the right to defend myself as do others about whom false statements are being made--GM]
In this whole sorry saga, only God knows all the hidden agendas. Although not everyone is willing to admit it even to themselves, there are agendas where Linda Shelton merely becomes a pawn to be sacrificed. The first in line in this catagory is her ex-husband, Danny Shelton. Unfortunately, he is not the last...
[I agree with much of what you have said here--GM.]
Linda has a history of complaining about just about everyperson who has attempted to help her--Bob, Gailon, me, and others whom I know have worked very hard to help her and others of whom I am not so closely informed. I personally know that much of what has been said is inaccurate and misleading, even if believed. I am well aware that this is a symptom that is often seen in some people who have gone through certain experiences. e.g. She came to me with an accusation against another person that was essentially accusing them of a misdemeanor. I do not think that it is in the best interests of a number of people for every aspect of this to be put out for public view. Good-hearted, sincere people attempted to help her. She was helped in many ways. She is taking charge of her life, she should get on with it. But, continued accusations will give people the right to defend themselves. There is documented evidence to do so.
-
[My position always has been that the legal situation in regard to certain of the copyright issues involved with the Internet is not clear. This situation is a developing one as various courts render decisions that are not uniform. As you well know, there are conflicting decisions from the courts which appear to give advantage to both you and 3-ABN on this issue. In view of the fact that the various decisions are in some conflict with each other, the litigation is not frivolous. Any lawsuit that may bring clairty to an issue is not frivolous. In fact, Gailon, your may go down in legal history as being involved in a case that helped to clairfy the issues--GM.]
I repeat, the Plaintiffs have not listed copyright as one of their counts against us. Further, they have repeatedly stated that none of 3ABN's programming is copyrighted, and thus are estopped from now asserting otherwise.
The only broadcast they have ever registered with the US Copyright Office contained a tribute to an alleged pedophile, but since that broadcast was not copyrighted, they should never have registered it.
-
Rick,
See if you can talk to 3ABN/Danny and get them to throw in the towel.
But note that there are bigger issues. Sam has asserted that Gilley plans on getting Danny back into the presidency. Has Danny repudiated John Lomacang's theology that Danny is the Lord's anointed and cannot be corrected by any human being? That is pretty serious. Do we really want someone who buys into that sort of heresy operating a ministry as big and influential as 3ABN?
Moreover, such a move would be unprecedented in the history of our denomination. When have we ever had someone accused of sexual assault, private inurement, unbiblical divorce, wrongfully terminating folks, filing a frivolous lawsuit, covering up child molestation allegations, lying about so many different things, and he still gets to continue on as if nothing happened? Without apologies, without restitution, and without dropping the frivolous lawsuit he started!
Bob,
You are correct, in my opinion they all need to step down and clear the 3ABN of the terrible saga that has befallen it. But we need to start backing away from this on both sides, or you will be locked into this tradegy longer than your lifetime. It is Satans snare, and all of you have gotten snagged, its time to untangle, and let God judge those behaviours and sins that need it. As we say in spanish 'basta', or 'enough already', this has poisoned enough good Christians and Adventist, lets cut it off where it is and deny evil the many victims it now has in its grip.....
Rick
-
The one problem, Rick, is that I'm not the one who sued, so it isn't my choice to stop or even draw back. As long as they continue this suit, it can't be over.
According to their own time table, today they are 11 months late giving us a demand to settle. 11 months late!
-
Bro. Gregory Matthews
There is a spirit to your posts that is attractive and evokes a feeling that you are sincere and honest. No bombast just a dealing with the issues raised by others with a calm 'authority'. Seems to me to be the CHRISTian way.
-
Linda has a history of complaining about just about everyperson who has attempted to help her--Bob, Gailon, me, and others whom I know have worked very hard to help her and others of whom I am not so closely informed. I personally know that much of what has been said is inaccurate and misleading, even if believed.
Agreed.
Is it worth mentioning or considering that this tendency did not begin with either Bob, Gailon, or you, and that perhaps what was inaccurate and misleading before your involvement has also been believed?
Before you entered the scene this same claim was made by Danny Shelton, Kay Kuzma, Brenda Walsh, Pastor Lomacang, and the 3ABN board, and chairman... as they tried to help her and the list goes on...
I believe it is possible that just as in your case, they allowed her to make her own choices, but could not continue with them, or her, although wishing her well and still caring about her.
Personally I see no end to all of this. I applaud your attempt at such, as a come let us reason together approach works among brethren, but I have never noticed it works with the unreasonable, or those bent on vengeance, or at taking offense, and causing it. One reason this lawsuit was inevitable I believe.
So -- I'll return to lurk mode and return the conversation and discussion back to you all now.
Go with God.
-
I believe the record is fairly clear that these folks did not simply let her make her own choices.
Consider carefully that the way Walt Thompson botched up the investigation into the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton suggests a tendency to arrive at desired conclusions rather than to objectively look at the situation. What would make you think that the way Linda was handled was different?
It to this day makes no sense to replace an alleged adulteress with an alleged pedophile, even if Linda was difficult to work with.
If she was difficult to work with, why not fire her? Why instead accuse her of having an affair and then replace her with an alleged pedophile?
-
And I know how totally "off topic" this may be but can't help myself. http://youtube.com/watch?v=CT7x3VnrqbA
I'm so filled with hope when I see youth taking back the arts for God I want to stand up and applaud.
Please enjoy and think on things that are really important.
Maxey
Amazing....
First you bring tears of Joy with "Free Hugs", now Hope with youthful hands pointing to what really matters.
Off topic? Hardly! It is THE most important topic.
Thank You.
-
[b]AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE[/b]. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!
None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.
As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Please don't force me to go copy and paste from the savenot sight. Does the name Gerry Spence ring a bell. Ding a ling???? I remember well all the hoopla you wrote about how he was an "old friend" and he was a mover and shaker and you had written him about possibly helping you????
Then we come to Laird Heal.....a force to be reckoned with. Heal wasn't scared to take on anyone..even judges. Things were really going to explode when he came in the picture.
Truth is, Spence never even answered your letter and Linda didn't win one motion in the marital property case with Laird at the helm. First he is working for Linda. Then he is helping you and Pickle. But since he was representing you in your bankrupcty case, there was a conflict of interest. (which you would think Laird would know??)So Pickle get's thrown under the bus and that leaves just you and Laird on the bankruptcy case where your combined motions have sunk like a torpedoed ship. Then Linda fires Heal as she is getting nowhere with the "mover and shaker".
Who knows what all you have said behind the scenes to GM or anyone else but considering the outcome, you publically made a complete fool out of yourself concerning the "help" you didn't receive from Laird and Spence.
[/quote]
-
Go ahead and copy whatever you want. His letter to Gerry Spence (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-corruption-litigation-gerry-spence-01.htm) does not ask for assistance in Gailon's case, of which there wasn't such a case at the time.
Gerry Spence did answer Gailon. What makes you think he didn't?
You are incorrect regarding why I went pro se.
-
In the case of Linda’s relationship in regard to any association to Joy and Pickle, by Linda’s own words, I believe that is what you and a small group of individuals, in a combined effort, attempted. Although your attempt in “helping Linda” failed, it had the appearance of taking advantage of a known weakness and exploiting it. Had it achieved the desired results, Linda would have been lead to make a statement on the internet that broke any association with Joy and Pickle and would have resulted in you being the spokesperson for Linda. In my opinion that is manipulation, not counseling.
Sister, I have decided to respond to the above comment of yours.
1) You mention an attempt to help Linda which failed:
Linda came to us (three people) and requested some very specific help in regard to relationships that she had with certain people. [NOTE: I am not going to go into detail as to the specifics of the help that she requested. It should be noted that your comment is not totally accurate as to the people involved.] She outlined a plan and asked for our help. I considered the request and decided that I would have nothing to do with it. One major reason for my decision was that, as I told Linda, she did not need our help as she was competent to achieve her objectives without our help.
The plea for our involvement continued after my refusal to participate. My wife came into agreement and she encouraged me to re-think my position. [NOTE: Linda was well aware that I kept my wife informed in regard to what was happening with Linda and what Linda wanted of us.] I re-thought my position and I stated that I would respond to the plea for help from Linda if three specific conditions were met. I was very clear that all three conditions had to be met and that I would not participate if any of the three were not met. I was told that all three would be met, and I agreed to respond positively to Linda's request for help.
Hours before the plan was to be put into action, in a conversation with Linda, I was informed that two of my conditions were no longer a part of the plan. I immediately called the operation off. Linda had made her choice and that was O.K. with me. As I had told Linda in the beginning, she was competent to achieve her objectives without our invnolvement. She is/was competent and she had the power to do so. She had the ability to accomplishe everything that she wanted to do without the intervention of any of us. With this change in what she wanted to accomplilsh I was no longer going to be a part of it.
2) I assume that you have a copy of an e-mail that I sent to Linda on the morning of April 18, 2008. I shall quote my Beginning and closing sentences:
"God has intervened. God has moved upon the situation in a manner that you are free to disassociate yourself from . . .." and "Remember, God has accomplished for you today much of what we wanted to accomplish in the plans that were stopped earllier this week."
In my second paragraph I stated: "Linda you have a decision to make. The choice is yours. . . . No one can make this decision for you."
3) I am not going to get into a specific discussion, at this time, of what Linda wanted to accomplish or of the people involved. Your reference to Gailon and Bob is partial, it is incomplete and it has some implied inaccuracies. But, I am not going to correct you.
4) I would not charactereze the plan to help Linda as a failure. We responded, after much discussion, to Linda's request for help. We did not initiate that plan. In fact, I and another person strongly suggested that there was another way for Linda to achieve her objectives. The plan came to an end when I called it off because Linda had changed her mind as to what she wanted to accomplish. That was O.K. with me and the others. She had been told she could achieve her goals without us. She had made her decision and she was not manipulated by any of us in regard to the decision that she made at any time. With this change in her goals I was no longer going to be involved.
5) As I stopped from the role that I had filled for several years I left with nothing but best wishes for Linda. I continue to support her, but I do not do it in the same manner that I had done so for several years. I have continued to state that I do not believe that: a) she gave her husband Biblical grounds for the divorce and b) that 3-ABN treated her fairly in her termination.
Linda is a competent person, well able to make decisions for herself (and to accept the consequences of those decisions) and I support her in the right to do so, whatever those decisions are that she makes.
-
The one problem, Rick, is that I'm not the one who sued, so it isn't my choice to stop or even draw back. As long as they continue this suit, it can't be over.
According to their own time table, today they are 11 months late giving us a demand to settle. 11 months late!
Bob,
It has been my experience that in all matters, if there be the desire, backchannels can be used to work things out and to smooth and prepate the way for a solution to come about no matter the circumstances. I think the time has come for all parties to the fullest extent possible, begin working to facilitate closure on this sad state of events at 3ABN. It is a absolute black mark against everyone involved, it gives others outside of the church, reason to find fault or demure about looking at much less joining the Adventist faith, and makes members hesitate about sharing or telling others about 3ABN. Evil has scored on every level on this as bad news has a way of traveling much faster than good, and continues to wreak havoc on what once was spreading the Adventist message in a bright and shinning manner, now it has a dark underside if not sad reputation...
Rick
-
See what backchannels you can find.
Last year I spoke with Walt Thompson prior to the lawsuit. I recall asking him if we could come and speak with the board to share our concerns. He told me it was too late for that. Of course, he never wanted that to begin with. It was always too late.
Now if he is having second thoughts, let me know.
-
Rick,
I think it is important that proper apologies are made to those that have been wronged. Walt could start by contacting Duane and Roger Clem, and Brad Dunning, and a few others, and tell them he's sorry he didn't contact them sooner. He could listen to their story.
It's so simple and biblical.
Bob
-
Please don't force me to go copy and paste from the savenot sight.
While you're copying and pasting, why don't you copy and paste what I asked for as well? Does it even exist? Did you try to mislead others?
-
No, it doesn't mean that at all. While it could be over it very well might not be over.
Gerald Duffy came out with a letter last Friday in which he makes pretty clear that the IRS has not said that the investigation is over. Rather, since the IRS allegedly asked whether 3ABN wanted documents returned or destroyed, 3ABN and company are assuming that the investigation is over.
Duffy also makes clear that the timeframe for the documents in question is 2000 to 2006, thus excluding the 1998 real estate deal.
Moreover, for Doug to assert that there was no infraction or discrepancy suggests that he thinks that the IRS will not consider to be an infraction or a discrepancy the cash receipting of a donation of property. But I highly doubt that either the IRS or the Amazing Facts business office will agree with him on that one.
If you don't believe me, call up Amazing Facts' business office and offer to donate a $5000 car or horse or whatever on condition that they give you a $20,000 cash receipt that you can then deduct off your taxes. I am certain that the AF business office will tell you that there is no way they are going to do that. And you can call up the IRS and they will confirm that such a maneuver is either an infraction or discrepancy.
Bob quit wasting your time looking for an official notification other than a copy of a "No Change Letter" from a District Director of the IRS. It would be simple enough to honestly publish a copy showing the tax year with the taxpayer's name edited to some extent. There is too much funny-talk about returning copies of records to taxpayer etc for me to even believe some of the averments attributed to even alleged preachers. My 25 years never found me with the need to return one document to a taxpayer other than a document needing the ink to be "dated!"
-
This has always been my understanding too. Thank you for your post.
-
This has always been my understanding too.
of course it is...
Fran you mentioned in another post.. well let me quote you:
Just Checking in. I have NOT heard ANYTHING about everything being over. I haven't heard from the IRS in over a week. In my opinion, it is not "completely" over. Just my $ .02.
Surely if you hadn't heard from the IRS in over a week before your post (aprox July 22?) you heard from them then as they had something to say??? and surely you must have asked some questions???
Can you share that with us?
If not? well then I am wondering why not?!?
Thank you in advance for your clarification and answer here.
Thank you for your post.
-
Ian;
A company I was the CFO of had 8 businesses. Prior to my arrival things were very bad. I began the gigantic task of starting to correct the wrongs. It took me over 2 years!
Then there was an IRS Criminal Investigation. They came with Guns! They were ambidextrous; they keyed the calculator with the left hand and wrote with their right hand. Needless to say, they could chew bubble gum and walk at the same time. At the beginning of the audit, they had their guns on the table next to them. I told them to let me show them the facility and show where the firearms were on the premises. My boss agreed to lock them up when the auditors were there, if they would leave their guns in the car! They agreed
The owner of the businesses was a colorful fellow to say the least! My x returns hitting the IRS correcting prior year returns sent red flags everywhere! That is why they were there. They went through hours and hours of investigation. I was present every second of the time. They audited my corrections and the current return just filed. That was 3 years. The first year had an amount due of $1,000 and $500. They netted out to be $500.00 due to the IRS. My next two years were clean as you say. They don't say "Clean". They took a check I wrote for $500.00 and just left! No letters.
Now my boss gave me a very large bonus and $750.00 for my church. Soon after that we moved and left the country. He paid for my flight back and gave me a car, gas and a hotel room, however, I chose to stay with very good friends. I stayed working 14-18 hour days cleaning up messes and then I filed taxes again for that last year ended. He wanted my signature on the line for the IRS to see! He was so funny.
3ABN's was off site. They should have stayed on site.
I still haven't heard anything. Silence is golden sometimes. Once I hear, I will not say a word about it!
3ABN say that no money was paid by Danny and 3ABN. This brings to question if "Mr Ubiquitous Money" paid the price??
-
This has always been my understanding too.
of course it is...
Fran you mentioned in another post.. well let me quote you:
Just Checking in. I have NOT heard ANYTHING about everything being over. I haven't heard from the IRS in over a week. In my opinion, it is not "completely" over. Just my $ .02.
Surely if you hadn't heard from the IRS in over a week before your post (aprox July 22?) you heard from them then as they had something to say??? and surely you must have asked some questions???
Can you share that with us?
If not? well then I am wondering why not?!?
Thank you in advance for your clarification and answer here.
Thank you for your post.
Ian, I can only speculate that Fran used the wrong preposition, anything from rather than anything about, unless her personal tax return was being examined. Is Fran in a "representative" position for the taxpayer with the IRS as a professional? I doubt it as she wouldn't need to disclose IRS communication facts.
Let me be succinct as a tax professional with you, I see this whole IRS matter as more about SDA integrity to the "shareholder in the pew" rather than "additional taxes" which even a No Change Letter will not fully address, stranger than fiction to all except this tax professional. Even the "possibility of being informed on" does wonders for taxpayer integrity when you understand that the US taxpayers voluntarily acknowledge 97% of their tax liability on the filing of their returns with only 3% being asessed by the Examination Division of the IRS, a pretty high standard for even a practicing SDA!
Since I have never lost a penny in this semi-independent ship and I will never accept its version of spiritual adultry, my total interest here seems to be the financial integrity of some of my fellow church members concerned about the moral integrity of some of their investment vehicles. I find spiritual adultry moreso in all the independent religious publications with my correct address not having been furnished by me which go straight to my trash can even to those having to do with the Ten. I have no problem with any of the Ten since I have always accepted them as Promises rather than Demands so I intentionally avoid independents and let them independently live in confusion, some with a firey end!
-
Well said, irspro. You cut right through the mess and red tape and hit the nail on the head. It is about integrity and doing the right thing, both of which the world needs more of, in my opinion. Thank you for being here!
Ian, I can only speculate that Fran used the wrong preposition, anything from rather than anything about, unless her personal tax return was being examined. Is Fran in a "representative" position for the taxpayer with the IRS as a professional? I doubt it as she wouldn't need to disclose IRS communication facts.
Let me be succinct as a tax professional with you, I see this whole IRS matter as more about SDA integrity to the "shareholder in the pew" rather than "additional taxes" which even a No Change Letter will not fully address, stranger than fiction to all except this tax professional. Even the "possibility of being informed on" does wonders for taxpayer integrity when you understand that the US taxpayers voluntarily acknowledge 97% of their tax liability on the filing of their returns with only 3% being asessed by the Examination Division of the IRS, a pretty high standard for even a practicing SDA!
Since I have never lost a penny in this semi-independent ship and I will never accept its version of spiritual adultry, my total interest here seems to be the financial integrity of some of my fellow church members concerned about the moral integrity of some of their investment vehicles. I find spiritual adultry moreso in all the independent religious publications with my correct address not having been furnished by me which go straight to my trash can even to those having to do with the Ten. I have no problem with any of the Ten since I have always accepted them as Promises rather than Demands so I intentionally avoid independents and let them independently live in confusion, some with a firey end!
-
[b]AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE[/b]. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
Please don't force me to go copy and paste from the savenot sight. Does the name Gerry Spence ring a bell. Ding a ling???? I remember well all the hoopla you wrote about how he was an "old friend" and he was a mover and shaker and you had written him about possibly helping you????
Then we come to Laird Heal.....a force to be reckoned with. Heal wasn't scared to take on anyone..even judges. Things were really going to explode when he came in the picture.
Truth is, Spence never even answered your letter and Linda didn't win one motion in the marital property case with Laird at the helm. First he is working for Linda. Then he is helping you and Pickle. But since he was representing you in your bankrupcty case, there was a conflict of interest. (which you would think Laird would know??)So Pickle get's thrown under the bus and that leaves just you and Laird on the bankruptcy case where your combined motions have sunk like a torpedoed ship. Then Linda fires Heal as she is getting nowhere with the "mover and shaker".
Who knows what all you have said behind the scenes to GM or anyone else but considering the outcome, you publically made a complete fool out of yourself concerning the "help" you didn't receive from Laird and Spence.
[/quote]
Please do copy from the save-not sight so we can see just who is the "complete fool". Jerry did respond and his dean of the college was most helpful in finding counsel in Southern California and some references for certain other potential litigants. There were no graduates in Southern Illinois and that has been a severe handicap to the potential litigants there. Seems there is not much real high caliber litigation talent in Southern Illinois.
Jerry Spence is at best an aquaintance from the Island Pond case many years ago. But he has a great Trial Lawyers College and I would consider most graduates from that program as very competent counsel for litigation issues. I also happen to enjoy reading most of what he has written, and have on occasion commented to him on my view of the issues or the book content. Let me simply say that when Jerry Spence speaks, I listen.
We never have asked for a referral for the Worcester, Mass case for either Bob or myself. We discovered quite quickly that we were comfortable managing the pre-trial portion of the case ourselves.
We have had offers for assistance and they are appreciated and will be used as required.
As to Heal, well, let just say that discovery is re-opened in Shelton v Shelton and depositions are pending on a case that was supposed to be ready for trial. Wonder what happened that it is now re-opened? Wonder what will be discovered? Wonder what it will cost Danny Lee Shelton to close that chapter? Want to comment, SAM?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
As to Heal, well, let just say that discovery is re-opened in Shelton v Shelton and depositions are pending on a case that was supposed to be ready for trial. Wonder what happened that it is now re-opened? Wonder what will be discovered? Wonder what it will cost Danny Lee Shelton to close that chapter? Want to comment, SAM?
Gailon Arthur Joy
I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A
Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.
-
Here strikes another id attack from the "healing broken people." Right on que too. And this against someone who has never been on these threads. Go ahead Kill his reputation and id too and continue to reveal your christian character to all of the world!
May God forgive you.
-
I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A
Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.
Bringing up things in someone's past in an attempt to discredit. The Sheltons are well known for this.
-
I find it amazingly sad that when you were asked to comment you chose to make a false accusation. If you had gone to check out the court document you would have found that it was a court decision made in the first half of this year.
-
I wonder if 3ABN and Danny could get in similar trouble over not producing documents in response to our discovery requests. That would be interesting if it could get dismissed with prejudice, just like in that case.
-
I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A
Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.
Simple response: "Indeed, rather than turn his full attention to providing such responses, plaintiffs' counsel took on a new criminal case pro bono. Although plaintiffs' counsel asked the court to permit plaintiffs to obtain substitute counsel, there is no evidence of any attempt to do so."
Apparently the criminal case took precedence. It is not the Attorney's problem to obtain new counsel for the plaintiffs.
As to the Embezzlement case, that was cited in Vermont and the judge was clearly a great jurist but has since deceased in the intervening 24 years.
Let me point out that we did not challenge the facts but rather the application of the statute. Given the rather unusual application you could conjecture that a spouse who simply took the money out of the checking account on its way out the door could be prosecuted for embezzlement. But then that might make some very happy!!! For example, if Danny Lee Shelton failed to disclose and divide the earned income from royalties or publishing books that were obviously joint property, under the firm name D&L publishing, clearly a marital partnership, then if you applied the Vermont Statute you could argue that he could be prosecuted under that statute. But, he is in Illinois.
The point is, we were clearly guilty of embezzlement under the satute, but that does not make one a liar. For Danny to file an affidavitt with a divorce
court and claim this is all there is and fail to disclose earned income from royalties and book publishing...I believe that leaves one in a position to be
seen as perjurious.
Now tell me the IRS exonerated him from this little jewel!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Another question asked and not answered . . . I didn't ask anything specific about Atty. Heal's time management skills, what was asked is if you can explain his admission that he was inexperienced in practicing law. Seems there was a similar comment in the settlement case as well. A reoccurring pattern from your closest legal ally?
BTW Mr. Duane Clem, as was pointed out this case is certainly not in the past it occurred right in the midst of the current situation, January 2008 to be exact. Now if it had occurred twenty or so years ago and restitution had been made and accepted you might be right - but this is current and evidences characteristics of the efforts of Mr. Gailon Arthur Joy and Mr. Robert Pickle - after all there has been a close association between the three for quite some time now.
So, Mr. Gailon Arthur Joy, your simple response does not address the question but attempts to skirt it and redirect in another direction before anyone can see through the thin veil. Are you going to answer?
In response to Mr. Robert Pickle, IMO there is a much greater chance of a summary judgment against you, than there is a chance the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Oh yes, one more question, this one for you Fran . . . are you afraid to share what you find out from the IRS contact? Or did you overstep your bounds in asking, or did they tell you it was privileged information and they might lose their job if they were discovered to have shared information with you . . . I am going with, you don't want to share it because it puts to rest the argument over the results of the investigation and in favor of 3ABN/Danny Shelton.
I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A
Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.
Simple response: "Indeed, rather than turn his full attention to providing such responses, plaintiffs' counsel took on a new criminal case pro bono. Although plaintiffs' counsel asked the court to permit plaintiffs to obtain substitute counsel, there is no evidence of any attempt to do so."
Apparently the criminal case took precedence. It is not the Attorney's problem to obtain new counsel for the plaintiffs.
As to the Embezzlement case, that was cited in Vermont and the judge was clearly a great jurist but has since deceased in the intervening 24 years.
Let me point out that we did not challenge the facts but rather the application of the statute. Given the rather unusual application you could conjecture that a spouse who simply took the money out of the checking account on its way out the door could be prosecuted for embezzlement. But then that might make some very happy!!! For example, if Danny Lee Shelton failed to disclose and divide the earned income from royalties or publishing books that were obviously joint property, under the firm name D&L publishing, clearly a marital partnership, then if you applied the Vermont Statute you could argue that he could be prosecuted under that statute. But, he is in Illinois.
The point is, we were clearly guilty of embezzlement under the satute, but that does not make one a liar. For Danny to file an affidavitt with a divorce
court and claim this is all there is and fail to disclose earned income from royalties and book publishing...I believe that leaves one in a position to be
seen as perjurious.
Now tell me the IRS exonerated him from this little jewel!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Another question asked and not answered . . . I didn't ask anything specific about Atty. Heal's time management skills, what was asked is if you can explain his admission that he was inexperienced in practicing law. Seems there was a similar comment in the settlement case as well.
Pardon? Where did you quote such an admission on his part?
I'm not saying he didn't say it. I'm just saying that you haven't quoted what he said.
BTW Mr. Duane Clem, as was pointed out this case is certainly not in the past it occurred right in the midst of the current situation, January 2008 to be exact.
Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?
In response to Mr. Robert Pickle, IMO there is a much greater chance of a summary judgment against you, than there is a chance the case will be dismissed with prejudice.
Pardon? On what basis? It's the plaintiffs that haven't been producing, not us.
And on what basis would there be summary judgment? What specific statements have I made that have been proven to be false and recklessly or maliciously made?
-
Bringing up things in someone's past in an attempt to discredit. The Sheltons are well known for this.
Duane, shall we start a list of people who Bob, Gailon and their assistants, have brought up and are even still bringing up things from their pasts in an attempt to discredit? Some of these things are not even based upon fact, just conjecture, and yet they continue.
Fran, those who you so staunchly support and who feel they have been anointed to remove sin from the 3ABN camp have, on a continual basis, attacked many who have never been here on Adventtalk. Who can forget the shockingly short-lived youtube video that stated in part "Um, well in early May, somebody thought 'Well wait a minute. So and so was talking to Danny's...[censored by GrandmaNettie to respect the individual's privacy]'ah, and da, you know there was some talk about o**l *** ". The person Bob was referring to has never been on this forum and yet he was doing his level best to tarnish the reputation of this sweet person to further paint Danny as a lacivious man.
To those of us who have been paying attention to the allegations being raised, there are many instances of this here on Adventtalk, both early on and quite recently. Gailon is now trying to act like Sam's ID is a multipersonality ID, with both Danny and the couple from a ministry in Thompsonville taking turns on the keyboard. Yes, I have done some checking and am confident that Gailon is quite factually challenged in this regard.
This is not to claim that the Danny Shelton supporters have always behaved themselves. That has not been the case, but it has been to a far less degree than what I have witnessed from the Gailon and Bob supporters.
I believe that both sides have some positions of merit and some positions that are factually challenged. Neither side is either fully right or fully wrong, and to characterize it any other way is folly.
-
Anyman is clearly having delusions of grandeur again.
I would like to see that Motion for Summary Judgement!!! Are you preparing it, ANYMAN? Or will it come from your Ohio connections? Is so what is your factual basis? Or are going to "wing it"?
You did know that you need a FACTUAL basis for a Motion for Summary Judgement, didn't you? Factually challenged claims are difficult to support in such an effort and would likely be viewed as a waste of the Courts' time. But, we will be up to the challenge!!
By the way, do you need a reading class? The appeal arises from a dismissal against the Plaintiffs in November 2006 and is a case dating back to mid 2005.
It will please you to know the Plaintiff's are still reposing in their home. And I took the response from the Appellate brief.
And what is the matter with my previus response? Gee, I thought it was a very pertinent example!!! Danny's affidavitt is certainly relevant, isn't it? Did the IRS exonerate him on this as well???
Me thinks not!!! Alas, yet another little problem that one is left to wonder the implications.
Well ANYMAN, I leave you to your Christ-like Character and the most important task of burying issues so you can get the message to the world.
Hypocrisy so becomes the the message you promote!!!
As to that apology, I await 3ABN's admission of facts and their heart-felt apology to so many victims (with restitution) so we can forgive, forget and move on. It will come in time or their efforts will be for naught...
And I still await that Notice of closed file!!! I hope I don't have to wait as long as we waited for those phone records...get what I mean? An eternity is a long time!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
"shall we start a list of people who Bob, Gailon and their assistants, have brought up and are even still bringing up things from their pasts in an attempt to discredit? Some of these things are not even based upon fact, just conjecture, and yet they continue." Grandma Nettie
List, Please, Grandma...I really need to address it?.
And who are my assistants?
Since you have checked it out and are so certain of the factuality of your statements and your sources then you must have the identity of the real SAM, that would certainly be the only way you could be so sure...or are you sure?... if so, why don't you enlighten us...best way to discredit factually challenged statements is with FACTS!!!
If you think I believe you or your sources, guess again!!! Are they as credible as the IRS has exonerated 3ABN and Danny Shelton Statements and the IRS found absolutely nothing statements?
Of course, it will also give us full opportunity to conduct comparative analysis.
SAM is such an interesting personality. Any psychologists like to give us "assistance"???
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?
Well, you sure love to tilt at trivialities don't you . . . I said the document is from January 2008 making it very current. It matters not if the words were uttered in late 2007 or 2005. It isn't the first time he said it and it was his admission the judge referenced. The fact remains that Atty. Heal, your ally in all of this, has admitted that he is an inexperienced practitioner of the law to more than one judge.
The points to be considered, setting aside your valiant, though misguided effort to divert from the salient considerations:
A. I would expect that you read the document linked to earlier in this thread.
B. It appears that you missed the following words from the judge:
"Perhaps most significant, plaintiffs proffered no legitimate excuse for the delay. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel attributed the delay to his inexperience practicing law, the incompetence of his support staff, and his own deliberate decision to direct his attention to cases of paying clients instead of this pro bono matter."
C. Are you calling the judge who wrote the document a liar? It is clear he doesn't consider the words of Atty. Heal to be very wise. It would seem as if you would want to not appear like someone who regularly attacks judges and attorney's.
-
Duane, shall we start a list of people who Bob, Gailon and their assistants, have brought up and are even still bringing up things from their pasts in an attempt to discredit?
Any examples?
Some of these things are not even based upon fact, just conjecture, and yet they continue.
Any examples?
Who can forget the shockingly short-lived youtube video that stated in part "Um, well in early May, somebody thought 'Well wait a minute. So and so was talking to Danny's...[censored by GrandmaNettie to respect the individual's privacy]'ah, and da, you know there was some talk about o**l *** ". The person Bob was referring to has never been on this forum and yet he was doing his level best to tarnish the reputation of this sweet person to further paint Danny as a lacivious man.
Not at all. One can honestly tell the facts as they are without trying to tarnish someone's reputation.
The facts are the facts. Someone remembered those conversations which resulted in the rediscovery of those emails, which included emails about horse donations. The facts are the facts.
This is not to claim that the Danny Shelton supporters have always behaved themselves. That has not been the case, but it has been to a far less degree than what I have witnessed from the Gailon and Bob supporters.
My, what an extreme statements! Have you forgotten all the ridiculous stuff the Danny clones have posted?
-
Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?
Well, you sure love to tilt at trivialities don't you . . . I said the document is from January 2008 making it very current. It matters not if the words were uttered in late 2007 or 2005. It isn't the first time he said it and it was his admission the judge referenced. The fact remains that Atty. Heal, your ally in all of this, has admitted that he is an inexperienced practitioner of the law to more than one judge.
The points to be considered, setting aside your valiant, though misguided effort to divert from the salient considerations:
A. I would expect that you read the document linked to earlier in this thread.
B. It appears that you missed the following words from the judge:
"Perhaps most significant, plaintiffs proffered no legitimate excuse for the delay. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel attributed the delay to his inexperience practicing law, the incompetence of his support staff, and his own deliberate decision to direct his attention to cases of paying clients instead of this pro bono matter."
C. Are you calling the judge who wrote the document a liar? It is clear he doesn't consider the words of Atty. Heal to be very wise. It would seem as if you would want to not appear like someone who regularly attacks judges and attorney's.
I guess you have pinpointed a major difference between you and me. You are willing to take someone else's word for something without trying to go back to the original source, and then draw conclusions about a topic, and I am not.
That doesn't mean that I am calling into question what the judge said. But it does mean that I am reluctant to conclude that Heal wrote that when the judge did not say that Heal was the one that wrote that. And there is always the possibility that the context of the statement will limit the meaning in some way which would make your application of the judge's statement go beyond the judge's intended meaning.
So go ahead and dig up what Heal really did say, and post it here for all to see.
-
Pardon? Are you saying Heal made that admission in January 2008? If so, where did you get that date from?
Well, you sure love to tilt at trivialities don't you . . . I said the document is from January 2008 making it very current. It matters not if the words were uttered in late 2007 or 2005. It isn't the first time he said it and it was his admission the judge referenced. The fact remains that Atty. Heal, your ally in all of this, has admitted that he is an inexperienced practitioner of the law to more than one judge.
The points to be considered, setting aside your valiant, though misguided effort to divert from the salient considerations:
A. I would expect that you read the document linked to earlier in this thread.
B. It appears that you missed the following words from the judge:
"Perhaps most significant, plaintiffs proffered no legitimate excuse for the delay. Rather, plaintiffs' counsel attributed the delay to his inexperience practicing law, the incompetence of his support staff, and his own deliberate decision to direct his attention to cases of paying clients instead of this pro bono matter."
C. Are you calling the judge who wrote the document a liar? It is clear he doesn't consider the words of Atty. Heal to be very wise. It would seem as if you would want to not appear like someone who regularly attacks judges and attorney's.
I guess you have pinpointed a major difference between you and me. You are willing to take someone else's word for something without trying to go back to the original source, and then draw conclusions about a topic, and I am not.
That doesn't mean that I am calling into question what the judge said. But it does mean that I am reluctant to conclude that Heal wrote that when the judge did not say that Heal was the one that wrote that. And there is always the possibility that the context of the statement will limit the meaning in some way which would make your application of the judge's statement go beyond the judge's intended meaning.
So go ahead and dig up what Heal really did say, and post it here for all to see.
:ROFL: :ROFL: Oh Bob C'mon. This is too much for even you.
-
I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A
Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.
Bringing up things in someone's past in an attempt to discredit. The Sheltons are well known for this.
Maybe we should listen here as you would be an expert in bringing up someone's past to descredit them.
The Shelton's....again??? Acting as if they are one person instead of 40+? When you do that you are trying to discredit the whole entire family on your opinion alone.
-
I guess you have pinpointed a major difference between you and me. You are willing to take someone else's word for something without trying to go back to the original source, and then draw conclusions about a topic, and I am not.
That doesn't mean that I am calling into question what the judge said. But it does mean that I am reluctant to conclude that Heal wrote that when the judge did not say that Heal was the one that wrote that. And there is always the possibility that the context of the statement will limit the meaning in some way which would make your application of the judge's statement go beyond the judge's intended meaning.
So go ahead and dig up what Heal really did say, and post it here for all to see.
:ROFL: :ROFL: Oh Bob C'mon. This is too much for even you.
It's what I've tried to do throughout this scandalous saga. So show some integrity and dig up what he really did write and post it for all to see. Don't just assume.
-
Hey Sammy,
The Duffy letter seems to have disappeared from the 3ABN.org website. Any idea why? Or by whom?
Anybody have a copy of it??
Hasn't been shared with the world? Wrong as usual. It has been on the 3abn website for about 5 days now. It was also spoken to the world on the LIVE by Jim Gilley. I'm sure it will be mentioned several more times before it's all said and done. I hear it was also spoken about (to the world) on a today program with Danny & John L. Don't know if that one has aired yet, but, it will.
You also failed to mention that the letter by Duffy was written in conjunction with the law firm that handled the IRS. That makes it totally credible and valid.
I agree with Maxey. It's a done deal. You are just grasping at straws.
-
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
-
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
:ROFL: at those who keep calling it an "IRS letter."
-
Still can't find it. When I last saw it there was a large, obvious banner at the top of the home page proclaiming the "good news". Now that banner is gone and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter").
Could you please provide the link?
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
-
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
:ROFL: at those who keep calling it an "IRS letter."
Ooooh. Those who call it a letter from the IRS, are they suggesting that the author of the letter was working for the IRS at the time he wrote the letter? If so, how can a lawyer represent a client while working for the other side at the same time?
I suggest that everyone cease calling it an IRS letter.
Still can't find it. When I last saw it there was a large, obvious banner at the top of the home page proclaiming the "good news". Now that banner is gone and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter").
Could you please provide the link?
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
I can't find it either.
-
Still can't find it. When I last saw it there was a large, obvious banner at the top of the home page proclaiming the "good news". Now that banner is gone
: :scratch:
*************
It says this:
Newsflash
News: AToday Article "3ABN EXONERATED BY IRS INVESTIGATION"
It leads to the article by AToday.
and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter").
You mean there hasn't yet been a letter written by an IRS agent...
Could you please provide the link?
Certainly, thanks for asking. The IRS letter is here:
Also in case you lost this too. Here is a link to the announcement by Jim Gilley on the 3abn Live program:
Have a nice day. :)
Snoopy, I am not "Sammy" (nor is Sam) but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
[ :ROFL: at those who keep calling it an "IRS letter."
Ooooh. Those who call it a letter from the IRS, are they suggesting that the author of the letter was working for the IRS at the time he wrote the letter? If so, how can a lawyer represent a client while working for the other side at the same time?
I suggest that everyone cease calling it an IRS letter.
I can't find it either.
============
Edited by Artiste to remove inappropriate content
-
I understood the question to be where is the letter on the 3abn.org page. The letter was there a couple of days ago and I can't find it this AM, either. And I do see it on the 3abntalk site, but that isn't the question.
-
Hey Sammy,
The Duffy letter seems to have disappeared from the 3ABN.org website. Any idea why? Or by whom?
Anybody have a copy of it??
It is still on the 3abn website, but it is clearly a conspiracy, as their webmaster seems to have an agenda to keep the News updated, and so he bumped it right off the homepage in favor of ASI announcements...
Here's your link:
http://www.3abn.org/pdf/3abn_irs.pdf
Hasn't been shared with the world? Wrong as usual. It has been on the 3abn website for about 5 days now. It was also spoken to the world on the LIVE by Jim Gilley. I'm sure it will be mentioned several more times before it's all said and done. I hear it was also spoken about (to the world) on a today program with Danny & John L. Don't know if that one has aired yet, but, it will.
You also failed to mention that the letter by Duffy was written in conjunction with the law firm that handled the IRS. That makes it totally credible and valid.
I agree with Maxey. It's a done deal. You are just grasping at straws.
[/quote]
-
I understood the question to be where is the letter on the 3abn.org page. The letter was there a couple of days ago and I can't find it this AM, either. And I do see it on the 3abntalk site, but that isn't the question.
Thanks. I may have misunderstood , as I never saw "a large, obvious banner" on 3abn.org. All I saw was a news link to the IRS letter, which was moved when the announcements and new were updated :)
-
Oh good grief...
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
:ROFL: at those who keep calling it an "IRS letter."
Ooooh. Those who call it a letter from the IRS, are they suggesting that the author of the letter was working for the IRS at the time he wrote the letter? If so, how can a lawyer represent a client while working for the other side at the same time?
I suggest that everyone cease calling it an IRS letter.
Still can't find it. When I last saw it there was a large, obvious banner at the top of the home page proclaiming the "good news". Now that banner is gone and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter") [GN asks: Which Duffy letter? The one regarding the IRS investigation, the one regarding the Cease and Desist or one of the many others Mr. Duffy has written in his capacity as an attorney in this matter?].
Could you please provide the link?
Snoopy, I am not Sammy but I can help you. The letter is still there where it has been since first posted. Go to 3ABN News and Articles and there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN.
I can't find it either.
...
And did Gerry Duffy know that common law copyright hasn't existed on the federal level since the 1830's, and on the state level since 1978, when he appealed to common law copyright in his cease and desist letter of January 30, 2007?
...
The original complaint included allegations regarding Tommy Ray Shelton and the board at the end of February ordered the complaint redrafted to eliminate all the allegations relating to the Tommy Ray Shelton, a clear dichotomy from the cease and desist letter from Duffy.
...
Gailon Arthur Joy
...
Sometimes, we just cannot escape our past, good, bad or indifferent.
Can't wait to read his cease and desist letter!!! Yes, he got one too!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Oh good grief...
I don't understand your point. What do cease and desist letters sent by Duffy to Gailon and Nick have to do with not finding a link on 3ABN's home page to Duffy's letter about the IRS investigation?
I understood the question to be where is the letter on the 3abn.org page. The letter was there a couple of days ago and I can't find it this AM, either. And I do see it on the 3abntalk site, but that isn't the question.
Thanks. I may have misunderstood , as I never saw "a large, obvious banner" on 3abn.org. All I saw was a news link to the IRS letter, which was moved when the announcements and new were updated :)
Moved where? Old news is still on the announcement page, but that item is gone. Can you show where there is a link on 3ABN's site to that web page?
-
It's about time somebody actually admitted to that!!
You mean there hasn't yet been a letter written by an IRS agent...
...nor will there be...
-
Well, good grief yourself, GrandmaNettie.
Just how many of those other letters you noted were posted on the 3ABN.org website??
Just shaking my head!!!
Oh good grief...
Still can't find it. When I last saw it there was a large, obvious banner at the top of the home page proclaiming the "good news". Now that banner is gone and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter") [GN asks: Which Duffy letter? The one regarding the IRS investigation, the one regarding the Cease and Desist or one of the many others Mr. Duffy has written in his capacity as an attorney in this matter?].
-
Why thank you, Ian! I do appreciate that, as I needed a copy of it.
It does seem a bit strange, though, that a letter whose arrival was anticipated with a great deal of fanfare would suddenly get "buried" on the 3ABN.org website. And not only did it get buried, the bright yellow banner annouoncing it on the 3ABN.org home page has vanished into thin air! It would seem to me that "folks" would still want that so-called "exoneration letter" to be clearly available to anyone who might be interested. It sure does look like a conspiracy all right!! Or damage control.
I wonder if there is any big discussion about it at the ASI convention? Being such big news and all, I would expect it to be a hot topic down there. Anyone heard anything about it?
Hey Sammy,
The Duffy letter seems to have disappeared from the 3ABN.org website. Any idea why? Or by whom?
Anybody have a copy of it??
It is still on the 3abn website, but it is clearly a conspiracy, as their webmaster seems to have an agenda to keep the News updated, and so he bumped it right off the homepage in favor of ASI announcements...
Here's your link:
http://www.3abn.org/pdf/3abn_irs.pdf
Hasn't been shared with the world? Wrong as usual. It has been on the 3abn website for about 5 days now. It was also spoken to the world on the LIVE by Jim Gilley. I'm sure it will be mentioned several more times before it's all said and done. I hear it was also spoken about (to the world) on a today program with Danny & John L. Don't know if that one has aired yet, but, it will.
You also failed to mention that the letter by Duffy was written in conjunction with the law firm that handled the IRS. That makes it totally credible and valid.
I agree with Maxey. It's a done deal. You are just grasping at straws.
[/quote]
-
I see the link supplied by Ian to the pdf page containg the Duffy letter, but there does not seem to be any place on the actual 3ABN.org site that links to this letter--I can't find it under news or anywhere else.
Why would this be?
-
Oh good grief...
I don't understand your point. What do cease and desist letters sent by Duffy to Gailon and Nick have to do with not finding a link on 3ABN's home page to Duffy's letter about the IRS investigation?
Bob if you can't understand the simple point I was making, what does that say about your understanding of the other "evidence" you have reviewed? What does that say about your conclusions?
Several members went on a tangent about Child of God referring to the supposedly missing letter written by Mr. Duffy as "there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN".
Duane started the little diversion first:
:ROFL: at those who keep calling it an "IRS letter."
You, Bob, jumped on the bandwagon in classic Bob style and said:
Ooooh. Those who call it a letter from the IRS, are they suggesting that the author of the letter was working for the IRS at the time he wrote the letter? If so, how can a lawyer represent a client while working for the other side at the same time?
Obviously, Child of God was not representing that the letter was from the IRS but that it was the letter dealing with the subject of the IRS investigation, whose whereabouts were being discussed.
You took it one step further and said:
I suggest that everyone cease calling it an IRS letter.
Why? That is clearly what the content of the letter in question was about.
Then Snoopy joined in with:
Now that banner is gone and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter")
So I interjected:
[GN asks: Which Duffy letter? The one regarding the IRS investigation, the one regarding the Cease and Desist demand or one of the many others Mr. Duffy has written in his capacity as an attorney in this matter?].
Actually, there was indeed an "IRS letter". It was written by Gerald Duffy.
It is not unusual for a letter from someone to be referred to by the content of the letter rather than the author. The Bible has many books referred to in just that way; ie Hebrews, Corinthians, Galations, Acts, etc.
I added the quotes from you and Gailon referring to Gerald Duffy's cease and desist letter in the way that you did to demonstrate that you had referred to one of Gerald Duffy's letters by its content (cease and desist) just as Child of God did (IRS).
Do you understand my point now?
-
Oh for pete's sake. You know Grandma, you are a great one to call others "condescending" and then you come up with something like this. But for you and the other nitpickers, let me rephrase my original question so you all can understand exactly what I meant:
"The Duffy letter LETTER WRITTEN BY ATTORNEY DUFFY WITH REGARD TO THE IRS seems to have disappeared from the 3ABN.org website. Any idea why? Or by whom?"
Oh good grief...
I don't understand your point. What do cease and desist letters sent by Duffy to Gailon and Nick have to do with not finding a link on 3ABN's home page to Duffy's letter about the IRS investigation?
Bob if you can't understand the simple point I was making, what does that say about your understanding of the other "evidence" you have reviewed? What does that say about your conclusions?
Several members went on a tangent about Child of God referring to the supposedly missing letter written by Mr. Duffy as "there you will find IRS Letter 3ABN".
Duane started the little diversion first:
:ROFL: at those who keep calling it an "IRS letter."
You, Bob, jumped on the bandwagon in classic Bob style and said:
Ooooh. Those who call it a letter from the IRS, are they suggesting that the author of the letter was working for the IRS at the time he wrote the letter? If so, how can a lawyer represent a client while working for the other side at the same time?
Obviously, Child of God was not representing that the letter was from the IRS but that it was the letter dealing with the subject of the IRS investigation, whose whereabouts were being discussed.
You took it one step further and said:
I suggest that everyone cease calling it an IRS letter.
Why? That is clearly what the content of the letter in question was about.
Then Snoopy joined in with:
Now that banner is gone and I cannot find the Duffy letter (as Duane pointed out, there was never an "IRS letter")
So I interjected:
[GN asks: Which Duffy letter? The one regarding the IRS investigation, the one regarding the Cease and Desist demand or one of the many others Mr. Duffy has written in his capacity as an attorney in this matter?].
Actually, there was indeed an "IRS letter". It was written by Gerald Duffy.
It is not unusual for a letter from someone to be referred to by the content of the letter rather than the author. The Bible has many books referred to in just that way; ie Hebrews, Corinthians, Galations, Acts, etc.
I added the quotes from you and Gailon referring to Gerald Duffy's cease and desist letter in the way that you did to demonstrate that you had referred to one of Gerald Duffy's letters by its content (cease and desist) just as Child of God did (IRS).
Do you understand my point now?
-
Snoopy, to clarify.... I was not nitpicking your original question about where the letter written by Gerald Duffy about the IRS investigation has gone. I was addressing Bob's lack of understanding of the point I was attempting to make about the nitpicking by Duane, Bob and you over the manner in which Child of God referred to Gerald Duffy's IRS letter.
-
It isn't like "the IRS letter" is the only thing that suggests that the letter is an official communication from the IRS. 3ABN's home page said, "Great NEWS for 3ABN from the IRS!"
So again I want to ask, Does Duffy work for the IRS? According to Duffy's letter, the only "news" from the IRS was, "Do you want these back?" That's hardly "news," let alone "Great NEWS."
Thus, the only way that the note on 3ABN's home page seems to make sense as is is if Duffy works for the IRS, and what he says is news from the IRS.
And of course, that can't be.
As to GN's point which I did not get since it wasn't explicitly stated (I am a man after all), I would think that if you use a term as a modifier that can't possibly author a letter, it would be commonly understood that that modifier would refer to the topic of the letter. And if the modifier could be an author, the modifier would be the author, not the topic.
Thus the 2003 Dryden letter is the letter written by Dryden rather than the 2003 letter written by Riva to Dryden. And the quasi-confession letter is the letter written by Tommy to Duane, not a letter written by someone named quasi-confession.
-
Snoopy asked the following:
I wonder if there is any big discussion about it at the ASI convention? Being such big news and all, I would expect it to be a hot topic down there. Anyone heard anything about it?
Well, the answer is a resounding, "No." I asked a friend last night, who is attending the ASI convention and very familiar with 3ABN, if there is any talking about the IRS investigation publically or around the 3ABN booth. He said, "As far as the IRS situation with 3ABN I have heard absolutely nothing, in fact it is so silent you can hear the crickets chirping all the way north from T'ville..."
-
Ah, Sister...
How very interesting! Doesn't that seem ever so strange? Here a potentially HUGE problem for 3ABN has been "resolved"..."completely"...and nobody is talking about it? Tax-exempt status hangs in the balance and NOBODY is talking about it?? Good grief.
I'd think all would be THRILLED and singing from the rooftops!! Maybe they are just confused.
Here Elder Gilley broadcast to the world that the investigation was over but Danny and his lawyer said there was NO investigation.
But then another lawyer IN THE SAME FIRM as the lawyer who thought there was no investigation wrote a letter stating the (non-existent) investigation was over. So that long awaited letter was given prominent billing on the 3ABN.org home page for...what...two weeks? Only to be replaced and pushed to the depths of the website with narry a link to it...TO MAKE ROOM FOR NEW NEWS????
I guess it is no wonder nobody is talking about it - they don't even know if it happened or not!! How can one stand on the side of truth when they don't even know what the truth is?
There are three types of people in the world
- those who make things happen,
- those who watch things happen, and
- those who WONDER WHAT HAPPENED!!
Snoopy asked the following:
I wonder if there is any big discussion about it at the ASI convention? Being such big news and all, I would expect it to be a hot topic down there. Anyone heard anything about it?
Well, the answer is a resounding, "No." I asked a friend last night, who is attending the ASI convention and very familiar with 3ABN, if there is any talking about the IRS investigation publically or around the 3ABN booth. He said, "As far as the IRS situation with 3ABN I have heard absolutely nothing, in fact it is so silent you can hear the crickets chirping all the way north from T'ville..."
-
Snoopy asked the following:
I wonder if there is any big discussion about it at the ASI convention? Being such big news and all, I would expect it to be a hot topic down there. Anyone heard anything about it?
Well, the answer is a resounding, "No." I asked a friend last night, who is attending the ASI convention and very familiar with 3ABN, if there is any talking about the IRS investigation publically or around the 3ABN booth. He said, "As far as the IRS situation with 3ABN I have heard absolutely nothing, in fact it is so silent you can hear the crickets chirping all the way north from T'ville..."
Ah, Sister...
How very interesting! Doesn't that seem ever so strange? Here a potentially HUGE problem for 3ABN has been "resolved"..."completely"...and nobody is talking about it? Tax-exempt status hangs in the balance and NOBODY is talking about it?? Good grief.
I'd think all would be THRILLED and singing from the rooftops!! Maybe they are just confused.
I consider it more likely that all who were concerned or knew about it,already heard the news, talked about it a bit, rejoiced, and have now moved on.
Only here, does it seem that there is a need to keep regurgitating, chewing on, objecting to, and obsessing about it.
Not healthy imo.
Jax
-
I consider it more likely that all who were concerned or knew about it,already heard the news, talked about it a bit, rejoiced, and have now moved on.
Only here, does it seem that there is a need to keep regurgitating, chewing on, objecting to, and obsessing about it.
Not healthy imo.
Jax
Jack Indabocks
Full Member
Offline
Posts: 45
The IRS Investigation
on: July 03, 2008, 12:48:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Just posted the following to Gailon:
Hey Gailon,
How sure are you?
What do you think the chances are that 3ABN will produce the Exoneration letter from the IRS?
50/50? 20/80 ?
Since this is such a hot topic lately I thought it would be both interesting and fun to take a poll and get the consensus here.
The poll only lasts for 7 days so get your vote in on time and make it count.
Same as I wondered I guess when I saw you open this up. Why not just move on? Without the very willing feeding of the goldfish here by DS defender's this would have had some comments and dissipated . Is this to make sure the fire doesn't go out??
edited to correct formatting
-
The only person that has exonerated 3ABN is ATTY Gerald Duffy!!! Obviously not an IRS specialist as he would most certainly not have needed co-counsel. And we know very well that 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton cannot be exonerated...IMPOSSIBLE!!! VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE and Duffy should know that!!!
And sister is right, not a single reference or copy of the Duffy Letter at the ASI convention. On the other hand, the huge booth with a live broadcast truck included was a big hit and Elder James Gilley clearly a hit every time he was on the convention floor or in the 3ABN Booth. They also got top billing and prime time space on stage as well.
And did everyone see McNeilus step out from behind the curtain and promote the church building campaign!!! Word is he is a new man with a new agenda and a new perspective and deeply committed to the project. Committed enough to step out and promote it himself. And he is promoting the building of seventh-day Adventist conference churches, not independent ministriy efforts. Do we see a new wind blowing in this man's retirement years?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Breezy is still in denial over there on 3ABNtalk.
Breezy says the horse shenanigan never happened because Danny checked it out with an accountant, even though it has repeatedly been pointed out that Danny in April 2005 said he had already done that shenanigan on his 2003 tax return. He had already falsified a figure on his 2003 tax return. He had already reported a donation of a horse or horses as cash on his 2003 tax return.
Yet Breezy still wants to deny that it ever happened.
-
Would it be a non-issue for some as this would have had to include DS and LS personal income tax file.
Were they personally audited or just 3ABN
-
According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated as well.
-
According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated today.
Do you mean he has a personal audit? If it is the same as used to be a audit can only go back three years I think,unless it is a criminal investigation.
-
His affairs were investigated today? Investigated by whom? The IRS? Today? It only took a day?
According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated today.
-
His affairs were investigated today? Investigated by whom? The IRS? Today? It only took a day?
According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated today.
We had a simple audit, the general run of the mill. It only took about three hours at the IRS office. I did not take anyone with me as ours was pretty straight forward at the time.
Depends on the type of audit and how comples the personal finances
=====
Edited to separate original post from quoted posts.
-
Dumb typo. :oops: I changed "today" to "as well."
His affairs were investigated today? Investigated by whom? The IRS? Today? It only took a day?
According to both Duffy and Gilley, Danny's personal affairs were investigated today.
-
The only person that has exonerated 3ABN is ATTY Gerald Duffy!!! Obviously not an IRS specialist as he would most certainly not have needed co-counsel. And we know very well that 3ABN and Danny Lee Shelton cannot be exonerated...IMPOSSIBLE!!! VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE and Duffy should know that!!!
And sister is right, not a single reference or copy of the Duffy Letter at the ASI convention. On the other hand, the huge booth with a live broadcast truck included was a big hit and Elder James Gilley clearly a hit every time he was on the convention floor or in the 3ABN Booth. They also got top billing and prime time space on stage as well.
And did everyone see McNeilus step out from behind the curtain and promote the church building campaign!!! Word is he is a new man with a new agenda and a new perspective and deeply committed to the project. Committed enough to step out and promote it himself. And he is promoting the building of seventh-day Adventist conference churches, not independent ministriy efforts. Do we see a new wind blowing in this man's retirement years?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Hardly. Mr. M has been building churches in far away countries as long as I can remember. He is especially excited to be able to build such affordable churches. It will not take a rich person to be able to sponsor these structures which means more new churches than ever before.
Grasping at straws to think because of his endorsements of these buildings he is turning away from 3abn. Quite the contrary. I saw Danny and Mr. M. having quite a time on Mr. M's Hoveround! Playing like kids together.
You are correct that 3abn had quite a booth and a prime spot. Enormous and eye catching globe spinning above the booth. Danny and Jim were busy shaking hands and doing Live interviews. Many well known 3abn people were there. Several board members stopped by. Every person I spoke with had already heard about the IRS clearance and were very happy about the situation.
-
Any official notices of tax examinations, audits, or criminal aspects must be issued by the District Director of IRS of the taxpayer's domicile even though the tax returns may be filed on a regional basis in accordance with the administrative handling of returns filed with or without tax payments enclosed other than estimated taxes. A federal district court attorney would not need to become involved until a presentment to a federal grand jury was necessary for a finding on criminal allegations. Any mention of a US Attorney being involved spooks even me understanding older standard operating procedures having no need to be drastically changed.
Any taxpayer with the capability of documenting a letter from a lawyer alleging certain tax examination\investigation events with a "pdf" file should have a copy of a NO CHANGE letter and Powers of Attorney, simply stated as the best evidence without a doubt! I have several in my files as part of the mandatory integrity program over the signature of the District Director of my domicile at examination even though some of the initial 3 may have been filed in a different district when I was in graduate school as Official Notice against subsequent examinations of the same tax years. I'll not make a federal case out of that aspect where additional subsequent disclosures may present themselves.
The Internal Revenue Code, regulations, court cases, and the Internal Revenue Manual can be researched if one has any doubts. Don't depend on internet message boards for either your facts or law!
Any notice of criminal investigation cessation is not esentially equivalent to the further examination of the "civil" aspects of the matter where the Revenue Agent has the responsibility of finishing the tax eamination of the case after withdrawal of the Criminal Investigator.
-
It has dawned on me that Duffy's letter indicates that he reviewed both Danny's and 3ABN's records, but he only speaks favorably of 3ABN's records. Why didn't he say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic that everything would turn out all right during the IRS investigation?
"Both the undersigned and Max Carr-Howard of the firm Husch Blackwell Sanders represent 3ABN and recommended complete cooperation with the inquiry. Upon this recommendation, 3ABN and Danny Shelton did provide complete cooperation and full access to their records. Our review of 3ABN’s financial records, as well as numerous interviews of 3ABN employees and members of your Board of Directors, made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
See what I mean? Why didn't Duffy say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic?
-
It has dawned on me that Duffy's letter indicates that he reviewed both Danny's and 3ABN's records, but he only speaks favorably of 3ABN's records. Why didn't he say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic that everything would turn out all right during the IRS investigation?
"Both the undersigned and Max Carr-Howard of the firm Husch Blackwell Sanders represent 3ABN and recommended complete cooperation with the inquiry. Upon this recommendation, 3ABN and Danny Shelton did provide complete cooperation and full access to their records. Our review of 3ABN’s financial records, as well as numerous interviews of 3ABN employees and members of your Board of Directors, made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
See what I mean? Why didn't Duffy say that a review of Danny's records made him feel optimistic?
Prime example of your selective vision. Did you completely miss the final sentence? Take the whole unedited statement for once! Stop being dishonest in your presentation of the facts! It is clear, when reading the entire statement, that the review included all relevant documents from 3ABN and Mr. Shelton and following the review they were "optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
-
Now anyman, don't be so biased in your reactionary statements.
"Our review of 3ABN’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
Why didn't Duffy say, "Our review of Danny’s financial records," or "Our review of Danny and 3ABN’s financial records"? Why did he only say, "Our review of 3ABN’s financial records"?
Be a man (if you aren't a woman) and admit that I made a valid point.
-
Please disregard
-
Your point wouldn't hold up in even the most rudimentary debate. The statement makes the following points clear:
1. 3ABN records and the records of Mr. Danny Shelton were reviewed
2. The review had access to all records
3. The results of the review resulted in optimism about BOTH 3ABN and Mr. Shelton's outcome.
Thereby rendering your point invalid and wrong.
Att'y Duffy didn't have to be specific the way you are demanding he should have been - he made it clear that his optimism was inclusive of 3ABN and Mr. Shelton by is final statement. You are the one choosing to disregard the final statement and inject your own desire to disparage Mr. Shelton into an interpretation of the remainder of the statement issued.
By the way, your condescension is needless - my statement is not reactionary, it rather, seeks to clarify the misrepresentation you are trying to foist on readers and present an honest analysis of the statement.
Now anyman, don't be so biased in your reactionary statements.
"Our review of 3ABN’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
Why didn't Duffy say, "Our review of Danny’s financial records," or "Our review of Danny and 3ABN’s financial records"? Why did he only say, "Our review of 3ABN’s financial records"?
Be a man (if you aren't a woman) and admit that I made a valid point.
-
I see that nothing has changed, and that you remain unwilling to acknowledge a valid point.
Duffy said, "Our review of 3ABN’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
Duffy did not say, "Our review of Danny’s financial records ... made us optimistic that the inquiry would be resolved favorably to 3ABN and Danny Shelton."
It appears to me that Duffy is saying that if the IRS looked at 3ABN's records, everything might turn out all right, but if they looked at Danny's records, it might not.
And Duffy made that statement in the context of an apparent acknowledgment that he had reviewed both sets of records.
-
The blind still leading the blind I see. Mr. Pickle I almost feel sorry for you.
-
Please explain precisely where you see that my question is in error.
But I realize that that is something you struggle with. Kind of like showing outrage over Danny Shelton covering up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton.
-
Anyman;
Do you have a vested interest in this lawsuit? Did you verify this information with Duffy? I would really like him to tell us exactly what he meant. It seems he is the only one with the correct information. Can you get that information from him. I would sure appreciate it since there is a question.
You have told us many words, but have never put forth the evidence needed to accompany your information. It is clear that you are not Danny. Your written sentence structure and vocabulary far exceeds that of Danny's. Therefore, I can not help but question your authority in these matters.
I also know that many professionals word their statements in such a manner as to get something said, but still leave room to squirm to make it not mean what they previously implied.
I clearly see what Bob has said. I saw it and took it the same way he did. Since Danny's personal affairs were foreign to 3ABN, it would be hard for the 3ABN legal team to vouch for Danny's personal affairs and private matters. (example: 3ABN was not informed of the income Danny was receiving on the sale of his books) Nick Miller told me in 2005 that Danny did not receive royalties except for a one time payment of $20.00. They did not realize his relationship with DLS or D&L Publishing. Oops!
I still have not heard that the IRS investigation is complete. They very well could have finished a part of the investigation. It takes time to investigate all of these other corporations and enterprises started by Danny. Those may take a long time.
-
Fran, your own words betray you.
1. You do not have an inside track with the IRS (that you led us to believe)--otherwise you would know the CASE for 3ABN (and Danny) has been completed.
2. Danny's "personal affairs" were closely examined by the same one and only IRS (that you and Pickle turned in to the IRS)
I mean really--think abou it. Fran and Bonnie and Joy and Pickle turn 3abn and Danny Shelton in to the IRS. (You all know that the IRS pays squeelers 10% of the booty right? up to around 5 million dollars!!! They thought they could make some big money!! ). The IRS looked at what they presented and decided to do an inquisition not only of 3abn but also Danny Shelton. And 3abn and Danny complied since they had NOTHING to hide. ALL Danny's personal financial dealings were closely examined as only the IRS can do--obviously they had to find something for their troubles.
And what do you know! Nothing illegal turned up!! NOTHING.
No matter how you all want to spin it--and lie about it--the truth is there for you to see IF you want to see it. But you don't want to see it--so you will continue to spin and spin and spin more. Like this little hamster going in circles :hamster:
So carry on with your spinning. You are going nowhere like all spinners do. :hamster: :hamster: :hamster: :hamster:
-
Junebug, since you have failed to produce any evidence to support your mere assertions, I think you are the one who is spinning.
Think about it: Do you really think Kristin Kingsbury would falsely indicate on Sept. 10 that 100,000 pages of documents were still in the IRS's possession if they really were destroyed like Danny Shelton claimed?
And do you really want to insult the dedicated men and women who serve in the IRS by claiming that they didn't think Danny's falsification of a figure on his 2003 tax return was a violation?
-
For those inclined to make a determination yourself, you can read a copy of the actually letter, unedited, sans commentary at the following link: http://is.gd/38Sw this supports all of Junebug's claims - and there is no doubt, should be none, that you have a copy of this letter in your possession Mr. Pickle.
Mr. Pickle, post the exact document, in .pdf or .jpg format indicating you have not altered it in any way, by Att'y Kingsbury so that context can be understood. Your claiming that a statement was made and that it was made in the way you insinuate is not substantial because it, more than likely, is based on your strategic manipulation of her words. There is no credibility to your claims any more, if there ever was.
It would appear as if, by the statement of a licensed, practicing attorney who, if his claims were false risks disbarment, your last comment is fallacious. Junebug insults no one, in fact I would suspect she applauds them for a job well done. Since, according to the above referenced letter from Att'y Duffy indicates that documents from both 3ABN and Danny spanning a six year period, 2000 - 2006 were part of the investigation. His final paragraph is rather definitive:
"The results speak loudly to how well managed 3ABN is and to the dedication of its employees and your Board of Directors. It also speaks loudly to the diligence Danny Shelton uses in conducting his own personal affairs."
Your final claim maybe due to your lack of expertise and understanding of tax law, which is understandable since you are not a tax attorney. The facts of the matter seem to indicate that this issue was investigated and were found to be in order. Why don't you contact the lead investigator and see if she can clear it up for you.
Junebug, since you have failed to produce any evidence to support your mere assertions, I think you are the one who is spinning.
Think about it: Do you really think Kristin Kingsbury would falsely indicate on Sept. 10 that 100,000 pages of documents were still in the IRS's possession if they really were destroyed like Danny Shelton claimed?
And do you really want to insult the dedicated men and women who serve in the IRS by claiming that they didn't think Danny's falsification of a figure on his 2003 tax return was a violation?
-
anyman, anyone reading the letter can see that I quoted it correctly.
If you want to read Kingsbury's statement, have a look at PACER. If you want to read our response, it's there too.
Your final comment is utterly ludicrous. Danny claimed that he had reported a donation of a horse or horses as $20,000 in cash on his 2003 Schedule A, and that is a violation, clear and simple. For you to assert otherwise is utterly ludicrous.
Or are you asserting that horses are cash, and that you can go down to the grocery store, buy some things, and the cashier will say, "That will be 5% of a horse please," and then you slice a 20th off your horse and give it to her, and then you head over to the gas station to fill up your car and ....
By the way, once your horse is missing a couple legs and such, how do you haul the rest of the carcass around? And do you have to spend it all before it decays? Or do you use a special preservative? Or can you only spend your cash horse on high ticket items, like new cars or down payments on homes or TV stations?
-
I mean really--think about it. Fran and Bonnie and Joy and Pickle turn 3abn and Danny Shelton in to the IRS. (You all know that the IRS pays squealers 10% of the booty right? up to around 5 million dollars!!! They thought they could make some big money!! ). The IRS looked at what they presented and decided to do an inquisition not only of 3abn but also Danny Shelton. And 3abn and Danny complied since they had NOTHING to hide. ALL Danny's personal financial dealings were closely examined as only the IRS can obviously they had to find something for their troubles.
And what do you know! Nothing illegal turned up!! NOTHING.
JuneBug Think about it is good advice for you before you start throwing names around as if you actually know what you are talking about. The lawsuit was well in progress before I had much of an interest. I did not turn 3ABN into the IRS.
You seem to think that you can call the IRS and accuse someone or a business or other entity of wrongdoing. I have no information other than what has been posted. The IRS would have shrugged off any complaint I would have made had I done so.
The IRS has to have some pretty good information before they begin a very expensive investigation. The fact that they did have an investigation means they either had questions on their own or whoever pursued this complaint had some information that looked credible. I had none. You have nothing to base your accusation on that I was somehow involved in this. Do I believe DS was honest. NO!!!!!!!!!! Do I believe he was ignorant of what he was asking LS and the recipient of the horses to do NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some of you seem to like to throw around names without having the slightest idea of what you are talking about. Is this the type of accurate information you typically provide??
Had I had credible information concerning DS or his financial dealings of 3ABN,I would have turned him in and you and everyone else would have known I had done so.
I do not hide behind anonymity, nor would I have done so for any reward you say "squealers get".
No matter how you all want to spin it--and lie about it--the truth is there for you to see IF you want to see it. But you don't want to see it--so you will continue to spin and spin and spin more. Like this little hamster going in circles :hamster:
So carry on with your spinning. You are going nowhere like all spinners do.
Perhaps you have a space reserved for yourself for those going nowhere. Seems you don't worry about accuracy which is what you accuse others of
-
I mean really--think about it. Fran and Bonnie and Joy and Pickle turn 3abn and Danny Shelton in to the IRS. (You all know that the IRS pays squealers 10% of the booty right? up to around 5 million dollars!!! They thought they could make some big money!! ). The IRS looked at what they presented and decided to do an inquisition not only of 3abn but also Danny Shelton.
The more I read this the less respect I have for anything you have ever posted.
As for me thinking I would make big money,you are laughable and not truthful. That seems to be the ping pong ball tossed back and forth between the two sides. I saw nothing of substance in what you posted. I saw no reason to believe you were above what you were accusing others of. Quite frankly there are elements on both sides that flat out deserve each other.
You are completely ignorant when you say the "IRS looked" and decided to do an inquistion. They don't decide unless they see something of substance. Then they do something called an audit or investigation. Nor do they apologize for conducting an investigation. That is their job. That was another totally ignorant statement or a deliberate untruth. Nor can they or do they demand silence from the taxpayer concerning his own financial affairs. That is another untruth.
I do believe there was a resolution but not quite the way DS described.
If the IRS has an IQ that reaches double digits of course they would or will investigate DS personal finances.
Just make sure when you decide to speak for me or tell me and the online community what I have done,you make some attempt at confirming before you run off at the mouth. You won't need to guess, say something that is not true.
I would tell you if you had the integrity to ask before you accuse
-
Had I had credible information concerning DS or his financial dealings of 3ABN,I would have turned him in ....
Makes sense to me. In fact, Harold Lance told me that some of these matters are things the authorities are supposed to deal with, not us. What he meant was that we shouldn't be talking about the child molestation allegations, if I recall correctly. I didn't agree with him on that, for I feel we should express our concerns.
But others have told me that the way the mess was going to have to be cleaned up was for the authorities to do it. No one else has any real authority except the Board, and they have had problems doing what needs to be done.
-
It appears that they have had problems just knowing what is going on... :dunno:
Makes sense to me. In fact, Harold Lance told me that some of these matters are things the authorities are supposed to deal with, not us. What he meant was that we shouldn't be talking about the child molestation allegations, if I recall correctly. I didn't agree with him on that, for I feel we should express our concerns.
But others have told me that the way the mess was going to have to be cleaned up was for the authorities to do it. No one else has any real authority except the Board, and they have had problems doing what needs to be done.
-
Bonnie, I never got the impression from anything you have posted that you turned 3ABN in to the IRS. I understood you to have had your own experience with the IRS that you shared with us, along with your obvious expertise with horses and barns and the business side of all that, which I have found very enlightening. But nothing like what you have been accused of. Maybe Junebug could post a link to where she came up with that one.
The more I read this the less respect I have for anything you have ever posted.
As for me thinking I would make big money,you are laughable and not truthful. That seems to be the ping pong ball tossed back and forth between the two sides. I saw nothing of substance in what you posted. I saw no reason to believe you were above what you were accusing others of. Quite frankly there are elements on both sides that flat out deserve each other.
You are completely ignorant when you say the "IRS looked" and decided to do an inquistion. They don't decide unless they see something of substance. Then they do something called an audit or investigation. Nor do they apologize for conducting an investigation. That is their job. That was another totally ignorant statement or a deliberate untruth. Nor can they or do they demand silence from the taxpayer concerning his own financial affairs. That is another untruth.
I do believe there was a resolution but not quite the way DS described.
If the IRS has an IQ that reaches double digits of course they would or will investigate DS personal finances.
Just make sure when you decide to speak for me or tell me and the online community what I have done,you make some attempt at confirming before you run off at the mouth. You won't need to guess, say something that is not true.
I would tell you if you had the integrity to ask before you accuse
-
Bonnie, I never got the impression from anything you have posted that you turned 3ABN in to the IRS. I understood you to have had your own experience with the IRS that you shared with us, along with your obvious expertise with horses and barns and the business side of all that, which I have found very enlightening. But nothing like what you have been accused of. Maybe Junebug could post a link to where she came up with that one.
Facts are not necessary by some. Accusations are made without any regard for facts. Or facts or statements are twisted into shape by some that excel in wordsmithing. Unfortunately I have seen both sides do this.
Since I have not participated in the 3AN forums recently, it has been interesting to watch those that like to give this topic a little kick to wake it up and keep it going. All the pious handwringing about gossip is pretty much said for effect.
I am firmly convinced that DS has an ego the size of Texas and needs to be fed. No matter how or what is said if it is about him it serves his purpose. If not he would make it known to the "faithful DS followers" that their participation in this ugly mess souled cease. By doing so much of what the anti -DS crowd presents would fall on deaf ears. Without someone to carry the next round,it wold stop. All the so-called anti gossip crowd would be instrumental in shutting the gossip down. Both sides enjoy it to much to restrict their role and put a stop to it
I don't think DS minds what he refers to as gossip. Rather I think he is delighted when faithful followers accommodate his wishes. Nor do I think that is one sided.
-
anyman, anyone reading the letter can see that I quoted it correctly.
Let's be clear here, I did not accuse you of misquoting, but rather manipulating the quote to say something it does not. You are reading intent, suggesting you know what the writer "meant to say" when in fact you don't and are merely offering an analysis that, though incorrect, you use to justify your insinuation.
If you want to read Kingsbury's statement, have a look at PACER. If you want to read our response, it's there too.
Interesting that you are so demanding when it comes to evidence and always attempt to ring yourself around the mulberry bush when someone challenges you to do the same. I posted a link to the full text of the letter referenced by you and Junebug. There it is for all to see. You come along and refuse to document your claims with anything other than an "I said so . . ." Not very convincing, not convincing at all.
Your final comment is utterly ludicrous. Danny claimed that he had reported a donation of a horse or horses as $20,000 in cash on his 2003 Schedule A, and that is a violation, clear and simple. For you to assert otherwise is utterly ludicrous.
Well, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on since the IRS, that agency charged by the Federal Government to check out any potential wrongs in the tax system, didn't find anything wrong. If there was a violation made in any of the tax filings of 3ABN or Danny (and since you have recently focused so much of your time and energy on Danny it appears this has become personal) they would have done something about it. No IRS action = No violations. Again, I think your mistakes here are due to the lack of expertise on the subject and in this area of tax law - again understandable since you haven't trained for it are coming at it from a amateur/novice stand point.
-
There it is for all to see. You come along and refuse to document your claims with anything other than an "I said so . . ." Not very convincing, not convincing at all.
You do exactly the same thing,or quote DS's denial. If you cannot prove outside of that why do you insist others offer more than you can or are willing to do. I am not a cheerleader for Gailon and Bob,however what I would demand from them should also include the same demand to you
Well, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on since the IRS, that agency charged by the Federal Government to check out any potential wrongs in the tax system, didn't find anything wrong. If there was a violation made in any of the tax filings of 3ABN or Danny (and since you have recently focused so much of your time and energy on Danny it appears this has become personal) they would have done something about it. No IRS action = No violations. Again, I think your mistakes here are due to the lack of expertise on the subject and in this area of tax law - again understandable since you haven't trained for it are coming at it from a amateur/novice stand point.
You and Bob seem to be trying to stand on the same leg. There are some that claim a great deal of expertise when it comes to the IRS. I do not have that expertise, but during a very lengthy and not very cordial audit my tax attorney (former IRS agent who had conducted many audits) explained some of the rule book an auditor goes by. They are very good at what they do. Some that circumvent the rules are also quite good at what they do.
As to DS personal audit, you can say what you wish and demand people believe you. Unless there were a trial, no one is going to know what took place. DS is also very good at reasons he can't be more forth coming in this. After all the IRS demanded DS maintain secrecy. That is the biggest whooee that the Pro-3ABN crowd have used to date.
Ranking right behind that is an aopolgy from the IRS for doing their job.
No one is going to know what DS's private finances showed.
No IRS action = No violations. Again, I think your mistakes here are due to the lack of expertise on the subject and in this area of tax law - again understandable since you haven't trained for it are coming at it from a amateur/novice stand point.
Am I to understand that you have this expertise on the subject. Please elaborate because as far as I know you do not.
If that is so, then might someone say to you that you have not been trained in this area of law??
Other than a few words by supposedly reputable people on your side of the aisle, nothing of substance has been offered as far as proof.
We have DS praising DS.We have the attorneys praising DS and 3ABN,we have Doug Batchelor praising DS and 3ABN, we have several names here doing same.
Can you offer what you demand of others? I would believe the way you take after others you certainly have the proof and are just waiting for someone to ask politely.
I am sure there are others that would join me in saying ,PLease can you show proof of your claims and DS claims
-
Junebug, since you have failed to produce any evidence to support your mere assertions, I think you are the one who is spinning.
Think about it: Do you really think Kristin Kingsbury would falsely indicate on Sept. 10 that 100,000 pages of documents were still in the IRS's possession if they really were destroyed like Danny Shelton claimed?
And do you really want to insult the dedicated men and women who serve in the IRS by claiming that they didn't think Danny's falsification of a figure on his 2003 tax return was a violation?
Bob,
Take satisfaction that we have the evidence that will clarify all and puts 3ABN and DLS in defensive mode. Corruption, is corruption. The only remaining issue is just how deep we bury them!!! About 6000 feet down would be good. Don't want any chance these miscreants ever rise to corrupt again!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Anyman,
THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE is simply not that incompetent!!!The issues are now so blatant and such a violation of law, they would have had to work with blinders to be that incioompetent. YOU ARE PATHETICALLY
DELUSIONAL!!!
Be careful, or your wife may have to contribute to this debate!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
anyman, anyone reading the letter can see that I quoted it correctly.
Let's be clear here, I did not accuse you of misquoting, but rather manipulating the quote to say something it does not. You are reading intent, suggesting you know what the writer "meant to say" when in fact you don't and are merely offering an analysis that, though incorrect, you use to justify your insinuation.
If you want to read Kingsbury's statement, have a look at PACER. If you want to read our response, it's there too.
Interesting that you are so demanding when it comes to evidence and always attempt to ring yourself around the mulberry bush when someone challenges you to do the same. I posted a link to the full text of the letter referenced by you and Junebug. There it is for all to see. You come along and refuse to document your claims with anything other than an "I said so . . ." Not very convincing, not convincing at all.
Your final comment is utterly ludicrous. Danny claimed that he had reported a donation of a horse or horses as $20,000 in cash on his 2003 Schedule A, and that is a violation, clear and simple. For you to assert otherwise is utterly ludicrous.
Well, you don't seem to have a leg to stand on since the IRS, that agency charged by the Federal Government to check out any potential wrongs in the tax system, didn't find anything wrong. If there was a violation made in any of the tax filings of 3ABN or Danny (and since you have recently focused so much of your time and energy on Danny it appears this has become personal) they would have done something about it. No IRS action = No violations. Again, I think your mistakes here are due to the lack of expertise on the subject and in this area of tax law - again understandable since you haven't trained for it are coming at it from a amateur/novice stand point.
-
You do exactly the same thing,or quote DS's denial. If you cannot prove outside of that why do you insist others offer more than you can or are willing to do. I am not a cheerleader for Gailon and Bob,however what I would demand from them should also include the same demand to you
I posted a link to an unedited document that contained no analysis. It wasn't from Mr. Shelton, it was from Att'y Duffy. Following that, Mr. Pickle made a reference to comments made by another attorney - without even so much as a link to an article that could be read. Why you ask? I am guessing because Mr. Pickle has taken the attorney's words out of context and presented them as saying what they do not - he has done it time and again for two years now. Mr. Pickle knows it is too dangerous to allow his followers to read the documents because they may arrive at a different understanding and that wouldn't be beneficial to his keeping his followers talking on point - to hard to manage the propaganda machine if you allow them to read and think for themselves.
Am I to understand that you have this expertise on the subject. Please elaborate because as far as I know you do not.
If that is so, then might someone say to you that you have not been trained in this area of law??
No, I am not certified in tax law and code. However, I do believe the statements made by Att'y Duffy - I have no reason to disbelieve him and no reason to believe Fran or Mr's Joy or Pickle. Fran's inside contacts have failed her and she seems to have not been able to get the IRS to return her calls. We'll see what the judge says about the subpoena to the IRS and if the IRS will comply should the judge approve. Don't hold your breath, I am sure the judge is getting rather tired of the misuse of process being foisted on the system with Mr's Joy and Pickle's endless antics. Thus feel no concern making the statement that the IRS levied no fines, filed no suit, and cleared both 3ABN and Danny Shelton of the accusations against them.
-
I posted a link to an unedited document that contained no analysis. It wasn't from Mr. Shelton, it was from Att'y Duffy. Following that, Mr. Pickle made a reference to comments made by another attorney - without even so much as a link to an article that could be read. Why you ask? I am guessing because Mr. Pickle has taken the attorney's words out of context and presented them as saying what they do not - he has done it time and again for two years now. Mr. Pickle knows it is too dangerous to allow his followers to read the documents because they may arrive at a different understanding and that wouldn't be beneficial to his keeping his followers talking on point - to hard to manage the propaganda machine if you allow them to read and think for themselves.
Those that follow Mr Pickle are going to do so in spite of what you say. The few on either side that has sincere interest for the right reasons will have already formed their opinion.
Many lawyers do not give me the warm fuzzies or instill a great deal of confidence as to their integrity.
After six years and watching the attorney's for our denomination spin many things to their advantage until they could no longer do so. Ending with the attorney for the denomination speaking to the media had this to say "It is their time, L and D are in love".
No, I am not certified in tax law and code. However, I do believe the statements made by Att'y Duffy - I have no reason to disbelieve him and no reason to believe Fran or Mr's Joy or Pickle. Fran's inside contacts have failed her and she seems to have not been able to get the IRS to return her calls. We'll see what the judge says about the subpoena to the IRS and if the IRS will comply should the judge approve. Don't hold your breath, I am sure the judge is getting rather tired of the misuse of process being foisted on the system with Mr's Joy and Pickle's endless antics. Thus feel no concern making the statement that the IRS levied no fines, filed no suit, and cleared both 3ABN and Danny Shelton of the accusations against them.
That is your problem, one among other things. You do not have first hand information,you are basing what you say because of a faith in the attorney. So what?? Others do not give him much credit because he is the counsel for 3ABN. Would they lie,probably not. Would they spin, most assuredly.
Give the first hand account of anyman of what you say. You would never know what the outcome of any personal audit of DS was. Nor if he was fined would you be made aware.
-
I am firmly convinced that DS has an ego the size of Texas and needs to be fed.
You sure have a way with words!
-
anyman, I'm told it is bad form for us as parties or pro se attorneys to post court documents. That's why you haven't seen me posting them.
So if you what to read what Kingsbury said, get the document from PACER or from someone with a PACER account.
-
anyman, I'm told it is bad form for us as parties or pro se attorneys to post court documents. That's why you haven't seen me posting them.
So if you what to read what Kingsbury said, get the document from PACER or from someone with a PACER account.
This is the kind of ducking and dodging that drives me nuts. If you are not prepared to back something up with your own personal knowledge(both sides) maybe you shouuld keep it to yourself.
One thing our family was instructed pretty quickly on is make sure what you say is the truth,AND BE PREPARED TO BACK IT UP.
If you cannot back it up, both sides why do you expect others to believe . Especially when so much of it is by anonymous postings
-
anyman, I'm told it is bad form for us as parties or pro se attorneys to post court documents. That's why you haven't seen me posting them.
So if you what to read what Kingsbury said, get the document from PACER or from someone with a PACER account.
This is the kind of ducking and dodging that drives me nuts. If you are not prepared to back something up with your own personal knowledge(both sides) maybe you shouuld keep it to yourself.
One thing our family was instructed pretty quickly on is make sure what you say is the truth,AND BE PREPARED TO BACK IT UP.
If you cannot back it up, both sides why do you expect others to believe . Especially when so much of it is by anonymous postings
But I did back it up, in a court document filed last week on Tuesday. See p. 8 of #108 of the docket. Kingsbury's comment can be found on p. 5 of #97.
-
But I did back it up, in a court document filed last week on Tuesday. See p. 8 of #108 of the docket. Kingsbury's comment can be found on p. 5 of #97.
My apologies if you did back it up with out playing wordsmith. It did not seem so when suddenly it seems you remembered it bad form to post certain things.
Not that it is important in the scheme of things I don't think this....... I'm told it is bad form for us as parties or pro se attorneys to post court documents. That's why you haven't seen me posting them
Is quite why you may refuse to post certain things
-
This has now been moved back here into the 3ABN forum where it belongs. :wave:
-
Fran's inside contacts have failed her and she seems to have not been able to get the IRS to return her calls.
i never said they did not return my calls. I did not say they were "inside contacts". They are the actual IRS agents. I am not an insider to them. They WILL contact me when they are finished and all is complete. Please be careful in what you say.
I just wanted to clarify that or some may be led to believe the IRS is corrupt. I don't believe that to be the case.
-
ADMIN HAT ON
I have NEVER seen Fran insinuate that she has inside contacts at the IRS. Anyman, you are making a very serious accusation here against the integrity of a government agency. Please post a link to where Fran has ever made such a statement. If you cannot do that within 30 minutes, I will delete this post and initiate a cooling off ban on your access here. I will also lobby strongly to have it extended.
ADMIN HAT OFF
POST DELETED.
Fran's inside contacts have failed her and she seems to have not been able to get the IRS to return her calls.
i never said they did not return my calls. I did not say they were "inside contacts". They are the actual IRS agents. I am not an insider to them. They WILL contact me when they are finished and all is complete. Please be careful in what you say.
I just wanted to clarify that or some may be led to believe the IRS is corrupt. I don't believe that to be the case.
-
Anyman;
You are correct. I have had past contacts with the IRS. Those are personal contacts, not investigators of Danny Shelton and 3ABN or any other 501 c 3. That is a special unit I believe. There are many employeed by the IRS that are NOT agents or investigators.
I have never had contact with the IRS that is/has conducting/conducted the investigation of Danny or 3ABN. I have a contact person that I do not know, that I can continue (as in the present) to provide information to. Sorry.
I don't have a clue what this person has to do with the investigation if any, but this person can contact the investigators. I have had NOTHING to do with the IRS Investigators dealing with 3ABN or any of the Shelton's or any of the board of directors or Brenda Walsh..... !
There was enough information received back in October of 2004 that caused them to assign a case number as far back as January of 2005. Are you surprised? When was it that you thought the investigation began?
It has been far more than 1 year. No, I do not believe it is over. I cannot say something I do not truthfully know and believe. I have no reason to believe Duffy when information I have is contrary to that stated. I will have to wait to hear from the IRS. That is just the way it is.
I heard Jim say today that they had to send a vehicle to pick up an enormous amount of coins. I wonder if those are the ones hid in Danny's safe? If so, remember that Linda gets 1/2 since 3ABN is a closely held family for-profit business. I have a reason for asking.
I am also waiting for someone to tell me how a person making $60,000 per year can save $170,000 and successfully hide it from his spouse.
edited to correct order of wording in a sentence.
-
Snoopy;
I believe what Anyman is referring to is some comments I made about my having government contacts way back in 2004/2005 posted on Club Adventist. It is impossible, I have been told, to link to those files. (I believe they are still hanging around.)
I believe time and memory have led him to believe something I did not say. I have many contacts with government agencies because I have worked with many. I am proud of that fact. I was privileged to be a part of the big changes in Government under, yes, Bill Clinton. However, it was not Clinton, but Al Gore that brought the miraculous transformation about.
Many laugh at a comment made by Al Gore about him inventing the Internet! It was grossly mis-stated. It was Al Gore that opened the government up to the use of the Internet. before this began, I had long been on the Internet and was always upgrading to keep up with the changes. This fact gave me the cutting edge of the changes being made. I worked closely with the IT group. I was the one to tweak the databases put together to provide information. I was in on programming design and making them user friendly. Then I wrote the user manuals. Al Gore did that for the US economy. He should have been elected as president! He has done more for the government, economy and our environment than any other person I know.
The government now operates with all technology that is available. I was there before, during and after. It was very exciting! I made a difference in all I did. I am very proud of that fact.
Time can do things to our memories. I am sure Anyman just thought that was what I had previously stated.
-
Snoopy;
I believe what Anyman is referring to is some comments I made about my having government contacts way back in 2004/2005 posted on Club Adventist. It is impossible, I have been told, to link to those files. (I believe they are still hanging around.) I believe time and memory have led him to believe something I did not say....Time can do things to our memories. I am sure Anyman just thought that was what I had previously stated.
Hmmm...
You and Snoopy, as well as others may be interested in a post on 3abnTalk which has this same title.
I know your forum rules forbid it so am not providing the link, but am sure anyone who wants to can find it.
Jax
-
Naw - thanks, Jax, but there is nothing interesting there.
Hmmm...
You and Snoopy, as well as others may be interested in a post on 3abnTalk which has this same title.
I know your forum rules forbid it so am not providing the link, but am sure anyone who wants to can find it.
Jax
-
But I did back it up, in a court document filed last week on Tuesday. See p. 8 of #108 of the docket. Kingsbury's comment can be found on p. 5 of #97.
Has this been posted anywhere? I do not have a pacer account, but would like to read it.
-
Looks like 3ABNtalk has 97 at http://3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=595#p595 (http://3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=595#p595) and 108 at http://3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=596#p596 (http://3abntalk.com/viewtopic.php?p=596#p596).
-
Thank you Bob.
-
today'sFUNNY===========================
"Hello, is this Father O'Malley?"
"It is."
"This is the IRS calling. Can you help us?"
"I can."
"Do you know a Ted Houlihan?"
"I do."
"Is he a member of your congregation?"
"He is."
"Did he donate $10,000 to the church?"
"He will."
[forwarded by Gretchen Patti]
today'sTHOT============================
What doesn't kill you will still definitely bum you out.
=======================================
PASS IT ON!
Yeah, you can send this Funny to anybody you want. And, if you're REAL nice, you'll tell them where you got it! www.mikeysFunnies.com
===============================
-
:ROFL: :usa: :thumbsup: