Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on March 18, 2009, 07:35:36 AM
-
But of course when the audits and IRS investigation didn't result in anything being found wrong,(proven since by the fact that nothing has had to be corrected/ amended and refiled) or in any charges or indictments you claimed that didn't prove he was innocent of every other allegation...
In these words, Cindy Conard declares that the IRS criminal investigation found nothing wrong in any of 3ABN or Danny's books, yet this has been disproven over and over again. Even Simpson admitted that if the IRS investigation only went back to 2000, the 1998 real estate deal wasn't considered. And no IRS agent is going to say there was nothing wrong with Danny's declaring a donated horse(s) to be cash on his 2003 Schedule A, in blatant violation of the Internal Revenue Code
3ABN and Danny had their opportunity to prove that the IRS investigation really did vindicate them, and they passed up the chance. We wanted to subpoena certain records from the U.S. Attorney which could have helped verify that the IRS had indeed exonerated them, but they fought our request for that subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before the court could resolve the matter.
It is my understanding that the IRS is muzzled statutorily from commenting one way or the other, and if that is so, we have a situation where we have to take the word of liars like Danny, Walt, and Simpson, which would be irresponsible. This is why in our reply memorandum (pp. 4-5) (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-108.pdf) we requested the court to order the plaintiffs to give permission to the IRS to disclose the information requested.
That's what a court did in Hansen Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Jamie E. Frank, No. 99-cv-08097 (E.D.N.Y.). Such an approach takes care of the statutory requirement that government employees only disclose tax return information when authorized by the tax payer.
But I think the bottom line is that Danny and 3ABN chose to dismiss the suit before we could have a chance to verify the IRS exoneration claim. That pretty much nixes all their pretended and bogus claims of exoneration and vindication. If they really had been exonerated, they would have welcomed the opportunity to prove it by having us verify it.
But they are desperately trying to hide something.
-
But of course when the audits and IRS investigation didn't result in anything being found wrong,(proven since by the fact that nothing has had to be corrected/ amended and refiled) or in any charges or indictments you claimed that didn't prove he was innocent of every other allegation...
In these words, Cindy Conard declares that the IRS criminal investigation found nothing wrong in any of 3ABN or Danny's books, yet this has been disproven over and over again.
Bob, Bob, Bob...
This is another example of your misleading statements. It sounds like you are claiming that the IRS did find something wrong and that this has been proven over and over.
Of course I know better than to ask you to prove that it has been proven even one time, as you will just reply in your usual manner with "where did I say that?" and never do so, as if we are all idiots...
This is far from honest. I hope others can see it even if your justifications and arguments prevent you from doing so...
Even Simpson admitted that if the IRS investigation only went back to 2000,
And? So what? The fact that they did that appears to be linked to IRS codes and statutes of limitations. They can go back further but they have to be able to prove wrongdoing to justify that. I am quite sure you or one of your zealous cohorts informed them of your claims, so why didn't they proceed with that?
Could it possibly be because you are uninformed and have not a leg to stand on in regards to the house and horses?
Could it possibly be that myself and others have tried to point you to the facts about the house and how these things work, and that even the chairman of the 3abn board, Dr Thompson explained it all, and explained that a lawyer had overseen it all and drafted the documents, and it was further explained that the auditors had all the info and found it above board and legit, and yet you refused to heed any of that or look into it?
Could it possibly be that even your financial expert "Snoopy" should have known and could have steered you to the correct definitions of revocable trusts, living trusts, donors, trustees and trustors and remainder interests, as well as the criteria and charts used to determine the amounts based on age of trustor, the current equity of home and property etc which would have explained the purchase by Linda and Danny Shelton as above board and legal?
Or could you yourself have looked it up and researched it all way back on BSDA when both FHB and myself posted it all and tried to point this all out to you, or at least give you and others a clue?
Would you then have been able to comprehend that Danny and Linda had a lifetime interest given to them by a donor, (not by 3abn who was the trustee and had been granted the remainder interest also according to the donor)? Would you be able to comprehend that D and L only purchased 3abn's remainder interest which was legally and factually determined to be 6,139 in 1998?
Would you then be able to comprehend that when something is bought, even though with the stated intention of wanting to do so because you are concerned about your own retirement, it can not be afterwords claimed that it was a retirement benefit given by the one you purchased it from, or an excess benefit, as you keep claiming?
I am quite sure that all of this is the case, and you can keep playing your accusations over and over like a broken record till judgment day but it can not, and will not change those facts which the IRS is well aware of even if you are not and refuse to ever acknowledge it.
the 1998 real estate deal wasn't considered. And no IRS agent is going to say there was nothing wrong with Danny's declaring a donated horse(s) to be cash on his 2003 Schedule A, in blatant violation of the Internal Revenue Code
It appears to me on the horse deal you have jumped from the statement that they received a cash receipt to they filed a cash receipt in 2003.... I have never seen proof that they did so offered by you. I have never seen the documentation (even if so) as to what the value of the horses were, how many there were, or what the IRS required back in 2003...
Without that, I can not address this further, nor can you prove anything.... Sorry.
3ABN and Danny had their opportunity to prove that the IRS investigation really did vindicate them, and they passed up the chance.
They didn't need to prove it to you, Bob. It is really quite arrogant and blind of you to keep insisting that they do, and that they are guilty every time you are out of the loop and don't get to see what you want.
As I said it's been quite awhile now, and they have had to file or refile nothing to amend or correct anything with the IRS. There are no charges nor indictments. Their exoneration has been reported in SDA media other than 3abn and by ministries and those in SDA leadership besides those at 3ABN, along with 3abn leadership and attorneys. Most can see this has been proven, even if you and Fran, and a couple of die hards refuse to and keep sounding your offkey and out of tune trumpets in false alarm.
( It has been established in US courts that freedom of speech does not entitle you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire)
We wanted to subpoena certain records from the U.S. Attorney which could have helped verify that the IRS had indeed exonerated them, but they fought our request for that subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before the court could resolve the matter.
It is my understanding that the IRS is muzzled statutorily from commenting one way or the other, and if that is so, we have a situation where we have to take the word of liars like Danny, Walt, and Simpson, which would be irresponsible. This is why in our reply memorandum (pp. 4-5) (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-108.pdf) we requested the court to order the plaintiffs to give permission to the IRS to disclose the information requested.
That's what a court did in Hansen Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Jamie E. Frank, No. 99-cv-08097 (E.D.N.Y.). Such an approach takes care of the statutory requirement that government employees only disclose tax return information when authorized by the tax payer.
But I think the bottom line is that Danny and 3ABN chose to dismiss the suit before we could have a chance to verify the IRS exoneration claim. That pretty much nixes all their pretended and bogus claims of exoneration and vindication. If they really had been exonerated, they would have welcomed the opportunity to prove it by having us verify it.
But they are desperately trying to hide something.
You need to believe that, huh?
I am sorry for you, Bob.
Living Trust
Refers to a revocable arrangement established during lifetime. This method of giving allows donors to make certain provisions for themselves and their families, and thereafter, provide for a benefit to the specified nonprofit or charity to further its programs. While a living trust can be a generic name for any trust which comes into existence during the lifetime of the person or persons creating the trust, most commonly it is a trust in which the trustor(s) receive benefit(s) from the profits of the trust during their lifetimes, followed by a distribution upon the death of the last trustor to die, or the trust continues on for the benefit of others, with profits distributed to them.
Remainder Interest
Related to the right to receive the remaining principal when a trust terminates. A donor gives the designated nonprofit or charity the right to receive that property in the future, after the donor’s death or the death of another person, or after a certain number of years.
Life Estate and Remainder Interest Tables
Purpose: The Life Estate and Remainder Interest Table are used to determine the value of life estate or
remainder interest held in real property.
Instructions:
1. Find the line for the individual’s age as of their last birthday.
2. For the life estate interest, multiply the figure in the life estate column for the individual’s age by the equity
value of the property.
3. For the remainder interest, multiply the figure in the remainder interest column for the individual’s age by the equity value of the property.
Note: Since the value ascribed is based on the changing factors of age and equity value, a new value based on
current information must be determined at the time of each complete eligibility review...
edited to clarify things in a clearer manner to avoid confusion if possible...
-
It sounds like you are claiming that the IRS did find something wrong and that this has been proven over and over.
Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.
But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.
Could it possibly be because you are uninformed and have not a leg to stand on in regards to the house and horses?
Not a chance. At least, no one has provided any information that would allow a reasonable person to conclude otherwise.
I see that in your mass of words you are muddying up the basic facts. Let me repeat them here:
- 3ABN reported on its 1998 Form 990 that it had sold a house at a loss.
- Since Danny was the buyer of that house, that sale constituted a section 4958 excess benefit transaction, since he didn't pay the full price for that house, by 3ABN's own admission.
- Under penalty of perjury, Danny on that Form 990 denied that there had been any such section 4958 excess benefit transactions.
- Walt said that Danny bought that house at such an extreme loss to 3ABN in order to build up equiuty for retirement.
- Danny denied under oath in 2002 that he received any housing or retirement benefits. Caught in a lie again!!!
-
Would you then have been able to comprehend that Danny and Linda had a lifetime interest given to them by a donor, (not by 3abn who was the trustee and had been granted the remainder interest also according to the donor)?
Where did you get this from? The deed says that 3ABN gave Danny the lifetime interest. It says nothing about any donor giving them a lifetime interest. Where did you get this from? (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-real-estate-shenanigans-1.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-real-estate-shenanigans-1.htm))
But you have raised an interesting question. If May Chung gave money to purchase the property, with strings attached that it be used to privately inure Danny and Linda, did May get a tax deduction for the entire donation? It seems that if she did, maybe she needs to return part of whatever tax savings she got.
the 1998 real estate deal wasn't considered. And no IRS agent is going to say there was nothing wrong with Danny's declaring a donated horse(s) to be cash on his 2003 Schedule A, in blatant violation of the Internal Revenue Code
It appears to me on the horse deal you have jumped from the statement that they received a cash receipt to they filed a cash receipt in 2003.... I have never seen proof that they did so offered by you. I have never seen the documentation (even if so) as to what the value of the horses were, how many there were, or what the IRS required back in 2003...
Stick your head in the sand if you wish. It's your choice and prerogative.
- Danny himself admitted reporting the donated horse(s) as cash.
- Danny admitted that reporting it/them this way was better because there was no guarantee what they would appraise for.
- Repeatedly, when Danny has valued his horses, he has valued them at being between about $500 and $5000.
- I filed Danny's 2001 through 2003 tax returns with the court to show that he did indeed, as he admitted, reported donated horse(s) as $20,000 cash in 2003.
- Never once did Danny in our lawsuit deny that he had done this. Not once.
Danny's valuation of his horses can be read at http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-financial-allegations-horse-values.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-financial-allegations-horse-values.htm).
My explanation of his tax returns can be read at http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-and-danny-v-joy-and-pickle-3abn-interrogatories-to-pickle-1-d.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-and-danny-v-joy-and-pickle-3abn-interrogatories-to-pickle-1-d.htm).
Your claims that auditors approved any of these transactions are bogus, since no statement by any auditor to that effect was ever filed in our lawsuit. They wouldn't dare put their careers on the line like that.
-
You need to believe that, huh?
I am sorry for you, Bob.
Living Trust
Refers to a revocable arrangement established during lifetime. This method of giving allows donors to make certain provisions for themselves and their families, and thereafter, provide for a benefit to the specified nonprofit or charity to further its programs. While a living trust can be a generic name for any trust which comes into existence during the lifetime of the person or persons creating the trust, most commonly it is a trust in which the trustor(s) receive benefit(s) from the profits of the trust during their lifetimes, followed by a distribution upon the death of the last trustor to die, or the trust continues on for the benefit of others, with profits distributed to them.
Remainder Interest
Related to the right to receive the remaining principal when a trust terminates. A donor gives the designated nonprofit or charity the right to receive that property in the future, after the donor’s death or the death of another person, or after a certain number of years.
Life Estate and Remainder Interest Tables
Purpose: The Life Estate and Remainder Interest Table are used to determine the value of life estate or
remainder interest held in real property.
Instructions:
1. Find the line for the individual’s age as of their last birthday.
2. For the life estate interest, multiply the figure in the life estate column for the individual’s age by the equity
value of the property.
3. For the remainder interest, multiply the figure in the remainder interest column for the individual’s age by the equity value of the property.
Note: Since the value ascribed is based on the changing factors of age and equity value, a new value based on
current information must be determined at the time of each complete eligibility review...
edited to clarify things in a clearer manner to avoid confusion if possible...
Put the facts out on the table, Cindy. Did May Chung ever own the property in question? I do not believe she ever did. Can you receive a lifetime interest in a piece of property you never owned?
If the transaction was not a section 4958 excess benefit transaction, why did 3ABN report the sale as a loss?
Why did they use the value of the remainder interest at the end of Danny's life? They should have used his age at the time of the transaction in order to come up with the proper value of that remainder interest.
And they planned this whole shenanigan in advance, it would appear.
Can a 501(c)(3) just give away property to whomever it wants through shenanigans like this?
-
It sounds like you are claiming that the IRS did find something wrong and that this has been proven over and over.
Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.
Are you claiming the IRS found and determined this Bob?
I hate to say liar, liar, but if you are really claiming this, that is exactly the case.
But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.
Those are not Duffy's words, they are your interpretation and spin, Bob.
I said your claims are known, and have been reported and yet the IRS chose not to go back that far.
Why is that, Bob?
Could it possibly be because you are uninformed and have not a leg to stand on in regards to the house and horses?
Not a chance. At least, no one has provided any information that would allow a reasonable person to conclude otherwise.
I see that in your mass of words you are muddying up the basic facts. Let me repeat them here:
Yet you think and claim that a title with the trustees name on it indicates they are the ones who granted the lifetime trust to Danny and Linda? and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?
That is false.
Allow me to be very blunt.
If snoopy can't help you get your facts straight then you need to find a new financial expert.
Your repetitious claims and links to where you said the same exact thing b4 do not address what I wrote nor supply any of that info, and so are worthless as a reply here, or to me.
Have a good Sabbath, Bob.
snipped balance...
-
Robert's only bibliographic reference is himself . . . his words, his interpretation. He then expects you to accept that as authoritative. That won't work in the literary or legal world.
-
Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.
Are you claiming the IRS found and determined this Bob?
Danny said he did it, and his tax returns demonstrate that at least on this occasion, Danny told the truth.
But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.
Those are not Duffy's words, they are your interpretation and spin, Bob.
I don't understand your comment.
I said your claims are known, and have been reported and yet the IRS chose not to go back that far.
Why is that, Bob?
Why do you think?
Yet you think and claim that a title with the trustees name on it indicates they are the ones who granted the lifetime trust to Danny and Linda?
Not at all. The deed explicitly says that 3ABN gave the lifetime interest. That's what I am going by.
and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?
That is false.
What I am saying is that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction is one in which a founder or officer or director obtains some of economic value for which he or she did not pay full compensation.
- 3ABN admitted in their 1998 Form 990 that someone bought a house for which they did not pay full compensation for.
- The deed shows that Danny and Linda were the purchasers.
- Danny and Linda were founders or officers or directors.
Thus, Danny lied on the 1998 Form 990 when he claimed that there were no section 4958 excess benefit transactions that year, because he knew there most certainly were.
Your repetitious claims and links to where you said the same exact thing b4 do not address what I wrote nor supply any of that info, and so are worthless as a reply here, or to me.
And how do they not do that?
You forgot to answer the important question, Did May ever own the property in question?
If May never owned it, how could May have ever given Danny and Linda a lifetime estate in that property?
-
Robert's only bibliographic reference is himself . . . his words, his interpretation. He then expects you to accept that as authoritative. That won't work in the literary or legal world.
Then why don't you read the 1998 IRS instructions for Form 990, and then explain to everyone how Danny paid full compensation for the house even though 3ABN claimed that they sold the house at an extreme loss?
And while you're at it, explain to everyone how one can calculate a remainder interest in a house using an age perhaps 30 years older than the age of the person under consideration.
What age did they say Danny was in the calculation they used?
-
Perhaps 3ABN could give a life estate to young Jody or Trinity, a life estate in a property worth $200,000. They could do that this year. Then next year perhaps they could turn around and sell it to Jody or Trinity for what it would be worth at the time of their deaths, estimating their deaths at age 90 years. Would they thus get the house for a measly $10,000 or $20,000?
Did Madoff ever think about a scheme like this? Or Ponzi?
And according to anyman, Cindy, Duffy, and Simpson, there's not a thing wrong with it, legally or, presumably, ethically and morally. Everyone donating to the scheme gets a tax write off, and the Shelton clan gets richer.
Call up your conference auditors, your conference trust services directors, your local IRS agents, and ask them all what they think about this get-rich-quick scheme.
See if Duffy and Simpson will guarantee that you won't get in trouble, or your legal fees, fines, and jail time are all on them. But get it in writing, and don't hold your breath.
-
Let us see. You have made suggestions through the use of a "?" mark. Now you will sit back and let your minions come in and use it progressively turning it from just a "musing" or "question" into fact. You have learned the Jesuit way well.
You have no foundation for any of your suggestive comments. Yes, they are all plausible, but are evidence of another fishing expedition intended to turn falsehood wondering into fact.
You are not an authoritative reference and your instance on using your own voice as a way to substantiate your accusations is not even weak, it is below weak. Your best bud Gailon doesn't even reference your work but simple bellows and assumes the world believes - well, at least he hopes it will.
A curiosity question Robert, what case law are you and Gailon using to give rise to cause for your claims of malicious prosecution? Haven't seen more than one or two citations to case law in all your work here. I am sure you will cover your backside by saying you don't want to reveal your hand, but the time may be very close when all you have is this limited court of public opinion (actually this kangaroo court of a small groups opinion) to make your baseless accusations. Have you stopped even once to wonder how so many people have been made privy to the facts and have come to the opposite conclusion you have? It is growing ever more obvious that the book on you - that you refuse to admit wrong or wrong doing, always working to justify your actions and positions - is rather a spot on analysis.
Robert's only bibliographic reference is himself . . . his words, his interpretation. He then expects you to accept that as authoritative. That won't work in the literary or legal world.
Then why don't you read the 1998 IRS instructions for Form 990, and then explain to everyone how Danny paid full compensation for the house even though 3ABN claimed that they sold the house at an extreme loss?
And while you're at it, explain to everyone how one can calculate a remainder interest in a house using an age perhaps 30 years older than the age of the person under consideration.
What age did they say Danny was in the calculation they used?
-
Give it up! All the accusations that have been laid out here, at BSDA, Maritime, your personal web sites have been forwarded to the attorney(s) . . . as has been pointed out, all of them have been reviewed and your voice is nothing more than a sounding gong. You have been informed, and with authority, that experts were involved in every aspect of these situations, that you are beating into the ground, and not a one found an illegality.
Don't go rambling on about the IRS not looking at one or the other as that argument is moot. Everything that needed to be addressed was and nothing was found amiss. I know, I know, you believe that your amateur analysis is more correct than that of those who make a living, day in and day out, reviewing these type of transactions. You have so internalized your defamation that you truly believe you are better equipped to review the law and the financial aspects of your allegations, than are educated professionals who make a living doing exactly that.
The aspect that is most disturbing is the fact that you continue to manipulate and lead others as far astry as you have gone with no concern for their spiritual lives.
- anyman
Perhaps 3ABN could give a life estate to young Jody or Trinity, a life estate in a property worth $200,000. They could do that this year. Then next year perhaps they could turn around and sell it to Jody or Trinity for what it would be worth at the time of their deaths, estimating their deaths at age 90 years. Would they thus get the house for a measly $10,000 or $20,000?
Did Madoff ever think about a scheme like this? Or Ponzi?
And according to anyman, Cindy, Duffy, and Simpson, there's not a thing wrong with it, legally or, presumably, ethically and morally. Everyone donating to the scheme gets a tax write off, and the Shelton clan gets richer.
Call up your conference auditors, your conference trust services directors, your local IRS agents, and ask them all what they think about this get-rich-quick scheme.
See if Duffy and Simpson will guarantee that you won't get in trouble, or your legal fees, fines, and jail time are all on them. But get it in writing, and don't hold your breath.
-
Any Man;
Bob is not responsible for any one's spiritual life! We have to work out our own spiritual well being. I can read both sites and read all the documentation and decide for myself what I choose to believe. Bob is not brainwashing anyone!
If anyone allows him to hurt them spiritually it is the person's fault, not Bob's!
I chose my truth years before I ever heard of Bob! I read the court documents and saw that 3ABN was depositing other ministries money into 3ABN's income! That was enough for me to have many righteous indignation moments! Yeah, that is the truth! They had posted over $14,000 of some other ministries money in 3ABN's income! How dare they do that! All it did was over state their income statement!
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
Then Jim Gilley announces live on the air that, "They would not be borrowing from Trust Funds ever again!"
Oops! Then they are banned in Washington to write trust funds in that state until the time they had enough money available to cover those trust funds!
IT IS ORDERED and you are hereby notified that pursuant to RCW 48.38.050 Certificate of Exemption No. 294 issued to you to issue charitable gift annuities is hereby SUSPENDED Effective March 14, 2007, until further notice by the lnsurance Commissioner, or for a period of one (1) year, whichever comes first.
This suspension is applicable to the sale, solicitation, or issuance of any new charitable gift annuities in the State of Washington. Provided, however, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC shall remain fully obligated: (1) under its charitable gift annuities in force, and authorized to administer said annuities as well; and (2) to comply with all other provisions of Chapter 48.38 RCW, including but not limited to, reporting requirements and payment of annual and other fees.
THIS ORDER IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
The lnsurance Commissioner of the State of Washington finds that there presently exist conditions precluding THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC from being eligible to hold a Certificate of Exemption to issue charitable gift annuities in this state. Specifically, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC failed to meet the separate reserve and surplus requirements of RCW 48.38.020(3). THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC filed its annual report as of December 31, 2006 and reported a separate reserve fund balance of $7,409,935, which was less than the required minimum of 13,011,079.
Chapters 48.04 and 34.05 RCW provide THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC the right to demand a hearing on this order.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2007.
Now, I am not saying anything that the document does not say. However, it makes me wonder if the $ 5,601,144 difference is the amount they borrowed!
These are the facts that I used to decide where I stand. Then there is eBay sales from 1998-2002. These are the sales they deny making. The purchases I made say that they are lying! Why?
Yes, these are the things that caught my attention and have held it for all these years! Now the documents that Ian has posted herself and the documents set forth on http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ have been my guide! The evidence is there! If people choose not to believe it, that is great. They have stuck their heads in the sand all by themselves! Bob has not touched their spiritual life in one iota!
Let's get real for a change!
-
. . . as has been pointed out, all of them have been reviewed and your voice is nothing more than a sounding gong.
Then why sue, and/or threaten to sue Bob if he's just a sounding gong?
SDAminister
-
Any Man;
Bob is not responsible for any one's spiritual life! We have to work out our own spiritual well being. I can read both sites and read all the documentation and decide for myself what I choose to believe. Bob is not brainwashing anyone!
If anyone allows him to hurt them spiritually it is the person's fault, not Bob's!
I chose my truth years before I ever heard of Bob! I read the court documents and saw that 3ABN was depositing other ministries money into 3ABN's income! That was enough for me to have many righteous indignation moments! Yeah, that is the truth! They had posted over $14,000 of some other ministries money in 3ABN's income! How dare they do that! All it did was over state their income statement!
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
Then Jim Gilley announces live on the air that, "They would not be borrowing from Trust Funds ever again!"
Oops! Then they are banned in Washington to write trust funds in that state until the time they had enough money available to cover those trust funds!
IT IS ORDERED and you are hereby notified that pursuant to RCW 48.38.050 Certificate of Exemption No. 294 issued to you to issue charitable gift annuities is hereby SUSPENDED Effective March 14, 2007, until further notice by the lnsurance Commissioner, or for a period of one (1) year, whichever comes first.
This suspension is applicable to the sale, solicitation, or issuance of any new charitable gift annuities in the State of Washington. Provided, however, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC shall remain fully obligated: (1) under its charitable gift annuities in force, and authorized to administer said annuities as well; and (2) to comply with all other provisions of Chapter 48.38 RCW, including but not limited to, reporting requirements and payment of annual and other fees.
THIS ORDER IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
The lnsurance Commissioner of the State of Washington finds that there presently exist conditions precluding THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC from being eligible to hold a Certificate of Exemption to issue charitable gift annuities in this state. Specifically, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC failed to meet the separate reserve and surplus requirements of RCW 48.38.020(3). THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC filed its annual report as of December 31, 2006 and reported a separate reserve fund balance of $7,409,935, which was less than the required minimum of 13,011,079.
Chapters 48.04 and 34.05 RCW provide THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC the right to demand a hearing on this order.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2007.
Now, I am not saying anything that the document does not say. However, it makes me wonder if the $ 5,601,144 difference is the amount they borrowed!
These are the facts that I used to decide where I stand. Then there is eBay sales from 1998-2002. These are the sales they deny making. The purchases I made say that they are lying! Why?
Yes, these are the things that caught my attention and have held it for all these years! Now the documents that Ian has posted herself and the documents set forth on http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ have been my guide! The evidence is there! If people choose not to believe it, that is great. They have stuck their heads in the sand all by themselves! Bob has not touched their spiritual life in one iota!
Let's get real for a change!
Yes Fran, GET REAL. You read what Tammy Shelton said herself about e-bay but you think you are the ONLY one that knows what you call truth. Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. You refuse to accept the truth simply because you don't want to. It's not any fun right? It's so much more fun to wallow in the juicy tidbits people make up out of a tiny shred of truth and go for it. If those here on AT were telling lies about YOU and your family on a public forum (instead of 3abn and the Shelton familiy), YOU would be furious. And then when you tried to share the truth, to see them not accept it would really be upsetting. Honestly Fran, put yourself in the place of those you are tearing down.
You take a tidbit and blow it up into a huge deal. You take a possible mistake (last time I checked, we are ALL human and subject to make mistakes) and trump it up into a huge lie or something purposefully dishonest.
Honestly, I feel sorry for you and your ilk on this forum. Why don't you find something in your lives that excites you and is productive for good--like giving Bible studies or going as a missionary somewhere instead of TEARING DOWN GOD'S TRUTH and those who work for Him.
-
Nexxxxt Saga please,
Please go into the details now of all the excuses of jets, fuel, rolexs, vacations, sports cars, and cars and cars etc etc. Better yet how about the great cost of VANITY... who can deny that?? Transplants, etc.etc.etc..Just for the records please. OF course there will be no answer to this post. Oh and don't forget the cost of feeding all the :horse: Especially, how most workers at 3abn donated their time as it was well told on tv. Wow, what dedication to the host :rabbit: In the name of what....religion?? or be able to "chow on hay" This Saga of protectors will only ring in the ears of followers of ignorance. What ever is D Batchelor doing these days? I bet at least he is not showing out in vanity!! If anyone was trying to give truth they would be out there waving banners of co-operation to prove anthing at all, instead of someone else fighting His battles. HE is not stupid that all of this is going on. ooooppps there He is hiding behind the front lines. That is all that has to be said. Oh and how romantic to have a lover come for you on a jet plane. IF you have no honey use money!! Pew money will do :hot: No way out folks of this action of facts.
-
Guess its time for me to pull out that disk of information I received from the Washington State Insurance Commissioner's office about 3ABN...
-
Allow me to be very blunt.
If snoopy can't help you get your facts straight then you need to find a new financial expert.
Ha! That's pretty funny! Cindy, do you have a replacement in mind? Maybe you'd like to apply...?? BTW, what ARE you an expert in?? Other than accusations and defamation?? Oops...guess you'll have to allow me to be very blunt as well...
-
Any Man;
Bob is not responsible for any one's spiritual life! We have to work out our own spiritual well being. I can read both sites and read all the documentation and decide for myself what I choose to believe. Bob is not brainwashing anyone!
If anyone allows him to hurt them spiritually it is the person's fault, not Bob's!
I chose my truth years before I ever heard of Bob! I read the court documents and saw that 3ABN was depositing other ministries money into 3ABN's income! That was enough for me to have many righteous indignation moments! Yeah, that is the truth! They had posted over $14,000 of some other ministries money in 3ABN's income! How dare they do that! All it did was over state their income statement!
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
Then Jim Gilley announces live on the air that, "They would not be borrowing from Trust Funds ever again!"
Oops! Then they are banned in Washington to write trust funds in that state until the time they had enough money available to cover those trust funds!
IT IS ORDERED and you are hereby notified that pursuant to RCW 48.38.050 Certificate of Exemption No. 294 issued to you to issue charitable gift annuities is hereby SUSPENDED Effective March 14, 2007, until further notice by the lnsurance Commissioner, or for a period of one (1) year, whichever comes first.
This suspension is applicable to the sale, solicitation, or issuance of any new charitable gift annuities in the State of Washington. Provided, however, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC shall remain fully obligated: (1) under its charitable gift annuities in force, and authorized to administer said annuities as well; and (2) to comply with all other provisions of Chapter 48.38 RCW, including but not limited to, reporting requirements and payment of annual and other fees.
THIS ORDER IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
The lnsurance Commissioner of the State of Washington finds that there presently exist conditions precluding THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC from being eligible to hold a Certificate of Exemption to issue charitable gift annuities in this state. Specifically, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC failed to meet the separate reserve and surplus requirements of RCW 48.38.020(3). THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC filed its annual report as of December 31, 2006 and reported a separate reserve fund balance of $7,409,935, which was less than the required minimum of 13,011,079.
Chapters 48.04 and 34.05 RCW provide THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC the right to demand a hearing on this order.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2007.
Now, I am not saying anything that the document does not say. However, it makes me wonder if the $ 5,601,144 difference is the amount they borrowed!
These are the facts that I used to decide where I stand. Then there is eBay sales from 1998-2002. These are the sales they deny making. The purchases I made say that they are lying! Why?
Yes, these are the things that caught my attention and have held it for all these years! Now the documents that Ian has posted herself and the documents set forth on http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ have been my guide! The evidence is there! If people choose not to believe it, that is great. They have stuck their heads in the sand all by themselves! Bob has not touched their spiritual life in one iota!
Let's get real for a change!
Yes Fran, GET REAL. You read what Tammy Shelton said herself about e-bay but you think you are the ONLY one that knows what you call truth. Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. You refuse to accept the truth simply because you don't want to. It's not any fun right? It's so much more fun to wallow in the juicy tidbits people make up out of a tiny shred of truth and go for it. If those here on AT were telling lies about YOU and your family on a public forum (instead of 3ABN and the Shelton family), YOU would be furious. And then when you tried to share the truth, to see them not accept it would really be upsetting. Honestly Fran, put yourself in the place of those you are tearing down.
You take a tidbit and blow it up into a huge deal. You take a possible mistake (last time I checked, we are ALL human and subject to make mistakes) and trump it up into a huge lie or something purposefully dishonest.
Honestly, I feel sorry for you and your ilk on this forum. Why don't you find something in your lives that excites you and is productive for good--like giving Bible studies or going as a missionary somewhere instead of TEARING DOWN GOD'S TRUTH and those who work for Him.
Junebug;
I did read what Tammy Shelton said about eBay! She lied! She said she had never had a store, yet a document was posted showing that she did have a store! Tammy lied! Why?
Tammy was not at 3ABN during 1998-2002. She and her husband came in 2002. She is not the person to get information for those prior years. I would have to ask Danny! He knows I am right. However, I do not have faith in what he says about anything because he has lied so many times in the past.
Also she laid out the processes that 3ABN used to receipt their donors! Wrong! Donors should have received an IRS Form 8283 at the time of the purchase! Nope, they gave the receipt after the fact by who knows how long after the donation! She told how they sent the financial information to accounting once a month! It should have been daily. Yes, I read every word! There is more, but it is the Sabbath.
Junebug, I am not tearing anyone down. These things are facts! Documented facts! Go back and read what I said. I am not making up those numbers. They are in court documents. They are not small mistakes. They were a reflection of exactly what was happening! I am tearing no one down. They did this all by themselves! Yes, these things I keep "harping" about are the things that they did all by themselves. It is no one else's fault. They brought it on themselves.
Yes, I believe they would like to get me to shut up because it is the naked truth. It lays things out showing others that this is what Danny and 3ABN did that is not honest and it is not right accounting wise either! I could go away, but the facts will remain the same, staring them right in their faces. These are facts that will not ever be erased. They are set in concrete for anyone who wishes may read it and see that what I have said is true.
When I say I have not heard from the IRS telling the investigation is over, it is the truth. It is not over. Sorry, but that is the truth also. Where is your documentation that what I have said is wrong? You say these are mistakes. They have been continuing these mistakes as we speak. They have chosen to continue even though the auditors have repeatedly told them it was not right! That is a mistake by choice. In other words, they choose to ignore the facts and continue to do it "their way", which is wrong and not honest.
I am sorry you feel I should remain quiet and just allow things to remain as they are. I can't. These are not thing that people who are representing my church and my God should be doing. Their behavior should be honest and above board.
I am real and this is truth. I am so sorry you choose to close your eyes to truth. You seem to not be able to see past the earthly sinful man to see what is truthful and factual.
-
Guess its time for me to pull out that disk of information I received from the Washington State Insurance Commissioner's office about 3ABN...
Snoopy;
That would be a great thing to do! I would be happy to know the ins and outs of the events.
Fran
-
Give it up! All the accusations that have been laid out here, at BSDA, Maritime, your personal web sites have been forwarded to the attorney(s)
What was the point of forwarding them? I thought they were already monitoring these sites.
-
Fran, I am NOT closing my eyes to truth--YOU ARE! The IRS has totally found NOTHING out of order with 3abn. Because they haven't informed you means nothing. But of course you were challenged to contact them. What did they say Fran? What did they tell you? I'll be waiting to hear your answer.
And what Tammy Shelton said about e-bay made perfect sense and I happen to know it is the TRUTH.
You say you haven't "torn anyone down" by what you are saying. I don't have time to bring up your past posts to show you but most people who are intelligent can see for themselves how you have torn down 3abn in every way you possibly could along with everyone else against them over and over and over again. It's like you keep saying over and over white is black when in reality it is white. You refuse to see.
Nevertheless, I will be waiting to see what the IRS said to you. I expect to hear this in the next day or two Fran. You said you were going to contact them--so tell us what they said to you.
-
Could it possibly be that even your financial expert "Snoopy" should have known and could have steered you to the correct definitions of revocable trusts, living trusts, donors, trustees and trustors and remainder interests, as well as the criteria and charts used to determine the amounts based on age of trustor, the current equity of home and property etc which would have explained the purchase by Linda and Danny Shelton as above board and legal?
Yeah. OK. Right.
Ian, this might come as a surprise to you, but I was not provided with any relevant documents to review from 3ABN in spite of Bob and Gailon's REPEATED efforts to compel their production. Apparently you don't have a real good understanding of how the legal system works. Maybe you should check with your friend Cindi Randall. No, on second thought, better not!! The way it is supposed to work is that the documents produced during discovery are provided to the relevant expert for review. But in the case of Danny Shelton, he apparently likes to make up the rules as he goes along. Ever played with a kid like that when you were little? Anyway, since Danny is above the law and doesn't play by the rules, he didn't produce anything!! And 3ABN went out of their way to provide a fairly comprehensive collection of their purchase orders for office supplies but completely ignored our requests for RELEVANT documents. Now. The Remnant documents? There is another story. Talk about relevant!! Actually they went beyond relevant to downright damaging! Any competent judge will be able to see that, and I'll bet the State of Illinois will too. It's just a matter of time.
So you might get your pointy little finger out of my face and make some demands of your friend Danny Shelton instead!!!!!!
-
Junebug;
Where is your proof that what I said is wrong? Where is evidence of your truth? You have none!
How can you explain that I made purchases from 3ABN between 1998-2002 from 3ABN eBay and then I made purchases from Tammy and 3ABN after that. I made purchases from Tammy's store that she has never had.
So you say that the facts and figures I have cited are destroying 3ABN? They did it, not me. I just made their practices transparent for all to see. If someone gets destroyed, they brought it on themselves. None of this was my doing.
The IRS is required to tell me when the investigation is over. They have not done that as yet. Junebug, do you believe the IRS follows the laws? Yes, I believe they do. They will do what they say or they are in trouble!
Add to what I have said, add all the findings that Bob and Gailon have uncovered about the finances of Danny Shelton and 3ABN, and you will see these are not actual mistakes, but actions taken deliberately.
I can wait. I am in no hurry for the big reveal. I am so sorry, but all I have cited has already happened. All of the transactions are now historical transactions for all to review.
-
Junebug;
Where is your proof that what I said is wrong? Where is evidence of your truth? You have none!
How can you explain that I made purchases from 3ABN between 1998-2002 from 3ABN eBay and then I made purchases from Tammy and 3ABN after that. I made purchases from Tammy's store that she has never had.
So you say that the facts and figures I have cited are destroying 3ABN? They did it, not me. I just made their practices transparent for all to see. If someone gets destroyed, they brought it on themselves. None of this was my doing.
The IRS is required to tell me when the investigation is over. They have not done that as yet. Junebug, do you believe the IRS follows the laws? Yes, I believe they do. They will do what they say or they are in trouble!
Add to what I have said, add all the findings that Bob and Gailon have uncovered about the finances of Danny Shelton and 3ABN, and you will see these are not actual mistakes, but actions taken deliberately.
I can wait. I am in no hurry for the big reveal. I am so sorry, but all I have cited has already happened. All of the transactions are now historical transactions for all to review.
See, Fran, you don't understand. Anything potentially damaging to Danny or 3ABN is either irrelevant or actually never really happened.
-
Why don't you find something in your lives that excites you and is productive for good--like giving Bible studies or going as a missionary somewhere instead of TEARING DOWN GOD'S TRUTH and those who work for Him.
Is it God's truth that if the minor was consenting, that somehow makes a difference regarding the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton?
You keep avoiding my questions about that. I'm sure many have noticed. Until you deal with such a basic, common sense, biblical, spirit of prophecy, community standard issue, who is going to take you seriously when you speak of truth or Bible studies or conservatism?
Christ is coming. The hour is late. Do not delay.
-
Allow me to be very blunt.
If snoopy can't help you get your facts straight then you need to find a new financial expert.
Ha! That's pretty funny! Cindy, do you have a replacement in mind? Maybe you'd like to apply...??
Not interested.
-
The IRS has totally found NOTHING out of order with 3abn.
That's a bald face lie. You do know that lying is a sin, don't you? And that it can keep you out of heaven?
-
Snoopy, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what supplying definitions of terms to Pickle in sync with the real estate deeds he has copies of, has to do with discovery materials you either saw or didn't see from 3abn....
I was refering to what you yourself discovered, explained and billed Pickle and Joy for as their "financial expert":
Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 132-2 Filed 11/13/2008
Lynette Rhodes, CPA, CFE
*****
****, *****
September 30, 2007 Invoice # 1350
Attn: Bob Pickle
*****
****, ****
Re: Case No. 07?40098 FDS
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc
and Danny Lee Shelton v.
Gailon Arthur Joy and Robert Pickle
Professional services rendered through September 30, 2007:
Hours
9/4/2007 Telephone call to GAJ 0.88
9/5/2007 Email exchange with BP regarding Franklin County Research. 0 .25
9/6/2007
Franklin County Courthouse research and
telephone calls to GAJ 4 .00
9/7/2007
Summarize and email Franklin County
findings to BP/GAJ 1 .00
9/7/2007 Telephone call to Franklin County Clerk 0.20
9/12/2007
Telephone calls to BP regarding real
estate deeds 1 .28
9/13/2007
Telephone call to BP regarding real estate
deeds 0 .22
TOTAL HOURS 7.83
Hourly rate $ 175.00
Professional services billed 1,370.83
Expenses incurred:
9/6/2007 Document copies ? Franklin County 26.75
TOTAL DUE: $ 1,397.58
and so on... totaling $ 20,342.32
The above was on Pickle's website this morning http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/ as Document 132 exhibit A , but first that was deactivated or stopped working and now exhibit B and C are as well. Pickle you really might want to fix this problem your website is having, it appears to be ongoing...
In the meantime all wanting to check the exhibits for themselves will have to go to the other forum and read it in the PACER Documents subforum, in the "Massachusetts Motion to dismiss lawsuit" topic.
Just click on the following there:
Document 132 11 13 08.pdf
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT PICKLE
& ATTACHED EXHIBITS
Could it possibly be that even your financial expert "Snoopy" should have known and could have steered you to the correct definitions of revocable trusts, living trusts, donors, trustees and trustors and remainder interests, as well as the criteria and charts used to determine the amounts based on age of trustor, the current equity of home and property etc which would have explained the purchase by Linda and Danny Shelton as above board and legal?
Yeah. OK. Right.
Ian, this might come as a surprise to you, but I was not provided with any relevant documents to review from 3ABN in spite of Bob and Gailon's REPEATED efforts to compel their production. Apparently you don't have a real good understanding of how the legal system works. Maybe you should check with your friend Cindi Randall. No, on second thought, better not!! The way it is supposed to work is that the documents produced during discovery are provided to the relevant expert for review. But in the case of Danny Shelton, he apparently likes to make up the rules as he goes along. Ever played with a kid like that when you were little? Anyway, since Danny is above the law and doesn't play by the rules, he didn't produce anything!! And 3ABN went out of their way to provide a fairly comprehensive collection of their purchase orders for office supplies but completely ignored our requests for RELEVANT documents. Now. The Remnant documents? There is another story. Talk about relevant!! Actually they went beyond relevant to downright damaging! Any competent judge will be able to see that, and I'll bet the State of Illinois will too. It's just a matter of time.
So you might get your pointy little finger out of my face and make some demands of your friend Danny Shelton instead!!!!!!
-
And I fail to see how what I myself discovered and what communications I may or may not have had with Bob and Gailon could possibly be any of your business! Again, let me help you with the legal process. Bob and Gailon are representing themselves as their own attorneys which makes any communications I have had with them privileged. Do you get that?
If you must know the details of what I saw at 3ABN you might check with Cindi Randall because I confided in her when I thought she was an attorney and would keep my communications with her in confidence... I, however, owe you no answers!!
-
And I fail to see how what I myself discovered and what communications I may or may not have had with Bob and Gailon could possibly be any of your business! Again, let me help you with the legal process. Bob and Gailon are representing themselves as their own attorneys which makes any communications I have had with them privileged. Do you get that?
If you must know the details of what I saw at 3ABN you might check with Cindi Randall because I confided in her when I thought she was an attorney and would keep my communications with her in confidence... I, however, owe you no answers!!
Snoopy I quite understand the confidentiality aspect, I have no need to hear the details from you or any other, nor have I ever received, or even asked for any.
I was simply posting to Bob due to his lack of understanding, before you came jumping in here and accused me of sticking my pointy little finger in your face, and suggesting to him that in your role as financial expert you should have been able to help him understand the issues and definitions involved in the house deal (in a "private communication") and suggesting if you still can not? (in private if you prefer) suggesting he might want to consult another "professional" ( in private and confidential communication"")
who can help him do so.
capiche?
toodles...
Snoopy, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what supplying definitions of terms to Pickle in sync with the deeds he has, has to do with discovery materials you either saw or didn't see from 3abn....
-
Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.
Are you claiming the IRS found and determined this Bob?
Danny said he did it, and his tax returns demonstrate that at least on this occasion, Danny told the truth.
No he didn't say that, Bob. You say he said that.
Danny Shelton said, and I quote from your save3abn website:
I just remembered that ****** just gave us a donation of $20,000 last year. It did not mention horses.
And you did not answer my questions, and I told you without those answers I can't reply and neither can you claim you have proved anything... Certainly to claim the IRS did is a blatant lie.
Here's another question Do you know if the ministry which the horses were donated to sold them and then gave them a cash receipt for that amount?
All of these things are important Bob, you can't just jump from A to Z and say "aha! I see an amount which could include that receipt for horses on the tax filing, therefore it is, and Danny said that's what he filed with the IRS!"
But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.
Those are not Duffy's words, they are your interpretation and spin, Bob.
I don't understand your comment.
You are spinning what he said, and reinterpreting it and putting your words in his mouth instead, here's what Duffy really said, and again I quote from his letter ( see attached document):
"As you know the Internal Revenue Service and the United Sates Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois asked to review all of the financial records of 3ABN for the period of 2000-2006 as part of an inquiry into allegations made against Danny Shelton. Danny Shelton, the outside auditor for 3ABN and other parties were likewise requested to produce financial information relating to Danny Shelton." .... "The offer by the investigating agencies to destroy all the copies produced brings closure to the investigation in a manner favorable to 3ABN and Danny Shelton. Contrary to statements made by enemies of 3ABN and Danny Shelton's ministry no adverse actions either civil or otherwise have resulted from the inquiry..."
I said your claims are known, and have been reported and yet the IRS chose not to go back that far.
Why is that, Bob?
Why do you think?
It is obvious to most, if there was grounds to justify it they would have, Bob.
Yet you think and claim that a title with the trustees name on it indicates they are the ones who granted the lifetime trust to Danny and Linda?
Not at all. The deed explicitly says that 3ABN gave the lifetime interest. That's what I am going by.
NO it doesn't, Bob. 3ABN acting as the trustees granted it.
AGAIN I quote from your save3abn website:
(please notice the words I have underlined and bold texted)
It was voted to convey a life estate to Danny L. Shelton, Linda S. Shelton and May Chung, or the survivors and/or survivor of them, on the property located at Route 3, Box 10, in Thompsonville, as provided in the original gift that provided for the purchase of the property, and to authorize the officers to sign the deed for conveyance purposes
And:
WARRANTY DEED
THE GRANTOR, Three Angels Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
3391 Charley Good Road
West Frankfort, Illinois 62896-0220,
for and in consideration of Six thousand one hundred thirty nine and no/100 ($6,139.00) Dollars, O.V.C. Dollar in hand paid, Grantor conveys and warrants to Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, husband and wife, all of Grantor's interest in the following described real estate:
Lot Six (6) in Surveyor's Plat of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township Seven (7) South, Range Four (4) East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the coal, oil, gas and other minerals underlying the same, situated in the County of Franklin, and State of Illinois,
(Note: This deed is given for the purpose of the Grantor conveying its remainder interest in said property to the Grantees herein, Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, who at the date of this transfer have a life estate in said property.)
hereby further releasing and waiving all rights in and under by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of this State.
Dated 9/25 ,1998.
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.
By: [Signed]
Danny L. Shelton, President
By:
[Signed]
Linda S. Shelton, Secretary
Attested By:
[Signed]
Walter C. Thompson
Chairman of the Board of Directors
and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?
That is false.
What I am saying is that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction is one in which a founder or officer or director obtains some of economic value for which he or she did not pay full compensation.
See that's your problem Bob. That didn't happen. You just won't accept that all 3abn had to sell was the remainder interest which would belong to the ministry after the death's of Linda and Danny who had the life estate.
Linda and Danny paid them exactly what that was legally determined to be worth.
As far as the original Granter goes and your questions go, you really need to read up on a revocable trusts and how those are set up, and how they have to be documented and reported and what does not, and about trustees.
Then, and only then ask or have someone else ask May Chung your questions and listen to what is said looking to find the truth rather than just looking to support your own preconceived ideas and conclusions, and maybe then you will be able to understand the answers.
I am done trying once again to discuss all this with you, your claims above and my quotes prove that "you can not handle the truth" even when you have it in your hand, and a financial expert retained to explain it to you if you just bothered to ask her.
-
Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.
Are you claiming the IRS found and determined this Bob?
Danny said he did it, and his tax returns demonstrate that at least on this occasion, Danny told the truth.
No he didn't say that, Bob. You say he said that.
No, Cindy, you are flat out wrong. Danny said that he did that in 2003.
If you don't know that basic fact by now, you are utterly unqualified to be giving any opinions about any of this. You are unqualified on the basis of knowledge, comprehension, or integrity. Which is it?
For a refresher, available at http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-financial-allegations-horses-cash-receipt.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-financial-allegations-horses-cash-receipt.htm) is Danny's April 2005 email which says the following about his 2003 tax return:
Ms. Shelton
I tried to call you to explain the horse deductions. I just remembered that ****** just gave us a donation of $20,000 last year. It did not mention horses. That is much better than all the other rig a ma role.
I have no idea if that's even close to spelling that word, but it seemed to fit.
So, I have left a message that he has not returned yet. Hopefully, you will just get a tax donation report from his ministry showing that you gave $20,000 to his ministry. That's the way he chose to do it.
I should get one too. I guess he's counting it the same as a cash donation.
Happy Dan
ps. I think he's willing to give us a $10,000 donation for 2005 ($5,000 @), if we donate our black 3 yr. old stud. I can't really use him to breed any more of our horses or they will all be the same blood line.
If this is ok with you please let me know in writing and I'll try to make it happen. He's hurt his foot really bad by kicking in his stall. I hope it heals ok.
Danny Shelton
-
And you did not answer my questions, and I told you without those answers I can't reply and neither can you claim you have proved anything...
What questions are you referring to? And what specifically are you saying has not yet been proven?
Here's another question Do you know if the ministry which the horses were donated to sold them and then gave them a cash receipt for that amount?
No idea. And how is that relevant?
Danny donated a horse or horses, and was supposed to file Form 8283 with required appraisals. He instead reported the horse(s) as donated cash instead of donated property, thus blatantly violating the IRS's regulations.
What Stephen Lewis did with the horses is totally irrelevant.
All of these things are important Bob, you can't just jump from A to Z and say "aha! I see an amount which could include that receipt for horses on the tax filing, therefore it is, and Danny said it!"
You are spinning what he said, and reinterpreting it and putting your words in his mouth instead, here's what Duffy really said, and again I quote from his letter ( see attached document):
"As you know the Internal Revenue Service and the United Sates Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois asked to review all of the financial records of 3ABN for the period of 2000-2006 as part of an inquiry into allegations made against Danny Shelton. ..."
And anyone who can read can see that I wasn't spinning anything. If Duffy is correct that the records sought only went back to 2000, then there is no possible way that the IRS exonerated either Danny boy or 3ABN over that unethical, 1998 real estate deal.
Danny ought to pay 3ABN back every last red cent of the money he got from that unethical real estate deal, which he used to line his pockets with nearly $129,000 of donor money entrusted to 3ABN.
And Walt Thompson should be held accountable by the 3ABN Board for his participation is that despicable scheme.
-
Yet you think and claim that a title with the trustees name on it indicates they are the ones who granted the lifetime trust to Danny and Linda?
Not at all. The deed explicitly says that 3ABN gave the lifetime interest. That's what I am going by.
NO it doesn't, Bob. 3ABN acting as the trustees granted it.
AGAIN I quote from your save3abn website:
(please notice the words I have underlined and bold texted)
It was voted to convey a life estate to Danny L. Shelton, Linda S. Shelton and May Chung, or the survivors and/or survivor of them, on the property located at Route 3, Box 10, in Thompsonville, as provided in the original gift that provided for the purchase of the property, and to authorize the officers to sign the deed for conveyance purposes
And:
WARRANTY DEED
THE GRANTOR, Three Angels Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
3391 Charley Good Road
West Frankfort, Illinois 62896-0220,
for and in consideration of Six thousand one hundred thirty nine and no/100 ($6,139.00) Dollars, O.V.C. Dollar in hand paid, Grantor conveys and warrants to Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, husband and wife, all of Grantor's interest in the following described real estate:
Lot Six (6) in Surveyor's Plat of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township Seven (7) South, Range Four (4) East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the coal, oil, gas and other minerals underlying the same, situated in the County of Franklin, and State of Illinois,
(Note: This deed is given for the purpose of the Grantor conveying its remainder interest in said property to the Grantees herein, Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, who at the date of this transfer have a life estate in said property.)
hereby further releasing and waiving all rights in and under by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of this State.
Dated 9/25 ,1998.
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.
By: [Signed]
Danny L. Shelton, President
By:
[Signed]
Linda S. Shelton, Secretary
Attested By:
[Signed]
Walter C. Thompson
Chairman of the Board of Directors
Cindy, where above does it say that 3ABN as Trustee granted that lifetime interest? Where?
Nowhere.
It doesn't even mention a trust anywhere. But I'm unsure how that would affect the fact that 3ABN admitted selling the property at an extreme loss, Danny falsely denied that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction had taken place, and 3ABN used a bogus age for Danny and Linda by which to calculate the sales price.
-
and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?
That is false.
What I am saying is that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction is one in which a founder or officer or director obtains some of economic value for which he or she did not pay full compensation.
See that's your problem Bob. That didn't happen. You just won't accept that all 3abn had to sell was the remainder interest which would belong to the ministry after the death's of Linda and Danny who had the life estate.
Linda and Danny paid them exactly what that was legally determined to be worth.
They DID NOT pay what the charts showed the remainder interest would have been had they died in 1998. On what basis did they use any other age than their ages in 1998 for the calculation?
Then, and only then ask or have someone else ask May Chung your questions and listen to what is said looking to find the truth rather than just looking to support your own preconceived ideas and conclusions, and maybe then you will be able to understand the answers.
How about laying out before the average 3ABN donor this whole despicable scheme, and ask them if they think this is something Danny should have done even if it was 100% legal?
Legality isn't the only issue here. Some things are legal in men's courts but contrary to God's counsels and commands.
Was there anything illegal about AIG execs getting bonuses? Even if legal, it was wrong.
-
and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?
That is false.
What I am saying is that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction is one in which a founder or officer or director obtains some of economic value for which he or she did not pay full compensation.
See that's your problem Bob. That didn't happen. You just won't accept that all 3abn had to sell was the remainder interest which would belong to the ministry after the death's of Linda and Danny who had the life estate.
Linda and Danny paid them exactly what that was legally determined to be worth.
They DID NOT pay what the charts showed the remainder interest would have been had they died in 1998. On what basis did they use any other age than their ages in 1998 for the calculation?
Forgetful, you appear to be.
http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=20348&view=findpost&p=238302
-
And your point is?
-
Yoda:
Invest some money and time in accounting principles classes!
********************************************************************************
For every one's information: The legal way to handle the horses is as follows:
1. Danny gives the horses to a ministry.
2. The ministry gives Danny and Linda an 8283 with the value left blank!
3. Danny and Linda enter the official appraised value of the gift in on the 8283. (Not a personal value or the givers value, but the official appraised value)
4. They deduct their appraisal of the horses on their tax return and submit the 8283 to the IRS!
End of the transaction for Danny & Linda.
********************************************************************************
The ministry is not supposed to know what value Danny & Linda applied to the assets given away. Period.
1. The Ministry receives the horses and uses their copy of the 8283 to enter their official appraisal of the horses as assets. (Not a personal value or the givers value, but the official appraised value)
2. The horses are sold.
3. The ministry will take a gain or loss on the sell of those assets depending on the official appraised value.
Story over.
Danny and Linda get their own outside official independent appraisal for their IRS form 8283.
The ministry gets their own outside official independent appraisal for their IRS form 8283.
********************************************************************************
So Ian, the details you have outlined are not legal or honest since there were horses given away and not cash! If done correctly, the IRS would have been looking for the 8283's.
However, since Danny deducted $20,000 as a cash donation, they will be looking for a check written from Danny or Linda to the ministry, plus a coordinating cash/check deposit over at the ministry!
Good luck on that one, it does not exist!
********************************************************************************
I brought this forward because Junebug and Ian are trying their best to hide the truth in the form of documented FACTS. I am waiting to see what else they will do to hide the truth again. I will be watching to see if we need to bring it forward again.
Bob is not responsible for any one's spiritual life! We have to work out our own spiritual well being. I can read both sites and read all the documentation and decide for myself what I choose to believe. Bob is not brainwashing anyone!
If anyone allows him to hurt them spiritually it is the person's fault, not Bob's!
I chose my truth years before I ever heard of Bob! I read the court documents and saw that 3ABN was depositing other ministries money into 3ABN's income! That was enough for me to have many righteous indignation moments! Yeah, that is the truth! They had posted over $14,000 of some other ministries money in 3ABN's income! How dare they do that! All it did was over state their income statement!
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
Then Jim Gilley announces live on the air that, "They would not be borrowing from Trust Funds ever again!"
Oops! Then they are banned in Washington to write trust funds in that state until the time they had enough money available to cover those trust funds!
IT IS ORDERED and you are hereby notified that pursuant to RCW 48.38.050 Certificate of Exemption No. 294 issued to you to issue charitable gift annuities is hereby SUSPENDED Effective March 14, 2007, until further notice by the lnsurance Commissioner, or for a period of one (1) year, whichever comes first.
This suspension is applicable to the sale, solicitation, or issuance of any new charitable gift annuities in the State of Washington. Provided, however, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC shall remain fully obligated: (1) under its charitable gift annuities in force, and authorized to administer said annuities as well; and (2) to comply with all other provisions of Chapter 48.38 RCW, including but not limited to, reporting requirements and payment of annual and other fees.
THIS ORDER IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:
The lnsurance Commissioner of the State of Washington finds that there presently exist conditions precluding THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC from being eligible to hold a Certificate of Exemption to issue charitable gift annuities in this state. Specifically, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC failed to meet the separate reserve and surplus requirements of RCW 48.38.020(3). THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC filed its annual report as of December 31, 2006 and reported a separate reserve fund balance of $7,409,935, which was less than the required minimum of 13,011,079.
Chapters 48.04 and 34.05 RCW provide THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC the right to demand a hearing on this order.
SIGNED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2007.
Now, I am not saying anything that the document does not say. However, it makes me wonder if the $ 5,601,144 difference is the amount they borrowed!
These are the facts that I used to decide where I stand. Then there is eBay sales from 1998-2002. These are the sales they deny making. The purchases I made say that they are lying! Why?
Yes, these are the things that caught my attention and have held it for all these years! Now the documents that Ian has posted herself and the documents set forth on http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ have been my guide! The evidence is there! If people choose not to believe it, that is great. They have stuck their heads in the sand all by themselves! Bob has not touched their spiritual life in one iota!
Let's get real for a change!
-
Fran,
I'm sorry but as usual it looks to me like you are making stuff up, and I don't understand half of what you are excited about.
I would just like to clarify for the readers.
It has not been established that Danny and Linda filed cash receipts for donated horses with the IRS as Bob claims.
and for you:
It also might be helpful to take what Danny Shelton said about receiving a cash receipt from the Stephen Lewis foundation in context, and consider that due to that ministry being Canadian, it is under different tax laws and guidelines involving all this than the U.S. is.
Does that make sense to you?
Anyway sorry to interrupt, carry on..
..ian
-
It has not been established that Danny and Linda filed cash receipts for donated horses with the IRS as Bob claims.
On what basis do you say that? Are you suggesting that Danny didn't claim them at all? Or are you suggesting that he claimed them as donated property?
What exactly are you proposing?
It also might be helpful to take what Danny Shelton said about receiving a cash receipt from the Stephen Lewis foundation in context, and consider that due to that ministry being Canadian, it is under different tax laws and guidelines involving all this than the U.S. is.
You state this as absolute fact, without providing any proof whatsoever. On what basis are you saying that Danny donated to a Canadian organization?
And how does that make a difference in how Danny is required to report things on his Schedule A?
-
Don't be ignorant, Ian. This is a public forum! I am certainly entitled to respond when you are challenging my professional expertise. CAPICHE?? Maybe you should spend a little more time worrying about your own numerous issues instead of trying to advise Bob how to handle his own litigation, which, by the way, has nothing to do with you!!
Toodles back at ya...
-
Ian;
I can appreciate how you feel and about not understanding. We all have something in some area we do not understand. There are many things I do not understand. God has provided us ways to gain new knowledge everyday! He is so good.
I have worked in accounting for a very long time. However, I have had many non-accountants work with me, especially in non-profit accounting. It is out there all by itself! I always kept a small book on hand to give to each worker. It is a reference book and can be read quickly to catch a glimpse of the whole picture. I would recommend it to any reader on this forum.
I always got mine from Amazon.
Publisher: Prentice Hall
Title: Run Your Own Business; Day-To-Day Business Accounting
Author: Arlene K Moss, John Jackson, Gary Downs
Every one I gave it too was very appreciative and understood what was it had to say. I believe you would easily understand everything it says. I had many come to me and say, "Hey, I think I finally got it!" I have given it to many, many people. I give it away like I give out the Desire of ages, & Great Controversy. Many church members in our churches don't understand anything except that they get a piece of paper saying they can deduct their donations.
To be able to understand how things happen between business to business you may need to do an in depth study at a university and get a degree. However, the items I have addressed should be easier to understand. Thus I recommend this book and the IRS books tax information.
I feel you could turn your understanding around fairly quickly.
-
Ian;
I want to remind you that the book is for regular business and not for specifically for non-profits, but the accounting principles are the same. They must product financial statements just and regular businesses do. However, there are several more that are required from non-profits. One of those is the IRS Form 990. You have heard a lot about those.
To understand non-profit accounting, I would suggest you go to IRS.gov and read the directions for form 8283. This will help you better understand why the horse deal may not have been conducted as the law requires. Any non-profit is required to follow those instructions. The form is only used when donations come in that are not cash, check or credit card. It is a safe guard that is required when land, jewelry, antiques, motor homes, ... are donated. This requirement was set in place to prevent transactions like the alleged horse deal.
The fastest way to clear that transaction up is for Danny Shelton to produce the cancelled $20,000.00 check as evidence that he made a cash donation to the said ministry. If he has misplaced the cancelled check, his bank can help him get a copy. Then this cancelled check will matched up to the Lewis ministry's deposits. The donation would be posted and receipted, and there will be a deposit that contained that check.
This cannot happen if Danny side stepped a required 8283.
I wanted to mention this so you will not have to rely on my word or Bob & Gailon's word. Once you read more information you will understand at least the way it should have been done. It is by learning what is true and required that you will be able to spot things, in a moments glance, that are just not quite right.
In a day or two, I will come back with suggested reading about the correct was to get appraisals on items that are received as a donation and how to handle Trust Funds and the many different types of trust funds. I hope this helps you in a small way. One step at a time is the best way.
-
Any Man;
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
So Fran what does that mean? was it the constant stating of accrual funds disagreement that happens so often with auditors? Was it funds hiding illegal?
Was it items that should have been receipted in one year and was put in the next year?
Was their fraud involved? Was it clerical errors? Were the corrections done? Where their offsetting expenses also posted in error in the same year? Was Danny in Charge of the Accounting department as well? I am asking that one because I do not know.
???
-
When I was there Larry Ewing reported to Danny.
-
Was Larry the Treasurer, or similar title? that would make sense to report to the president, but I was wondering if Danny had given a lot of direction to each of the accounting staff, things like how to receipt income and where it was allocated or what codes to be put on every invoice, that kind of thing..
-
From what I observed, Danny's influence was alive and well in the accounting department. I'll leave it at that.
-
ok Thanks... :)
-
ok Thanks... :)
I want to welcome you to AT, Stan! I'm glad you (the godfather of SDA chat) are here and look forward to seeing some great discussions. I hope you enjoy your time here!
-
Can I be a GodFather if I am Danish?
;)
-
Can I be a GodFather if I am Danish?
;)
But of course! You must say, "You neva come to me and say 'Godafadda.' you don't invite to yoa house for a 'Danish.'" (instead of 'coffee.')
Also remember to say "Leave da gun, take da Danish." ;)
-
If you haven't watched "The Godfather" you wont get any of that. Just so ya know.
-
It means that Fran is still living in another reality. She has only her skewed interpretations to base her accusations upon. She denies facts in favor of her own theories. Facts have proven her accusations false, but that is of no account to her.
Any Man;
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
So Fran what does that mean? was it the constant stating of accrual funds disagreement that happens so often with auditors? Was it funds hiding illegal?
Was it items that should have been receipted in one year and was put in the next year?
Was their fraud involved? Was it clerical errors? Were the corrections done? Where their offsetting expenses also posted in error in the same year? Was Danny in Charge of the Accounting department as well? I am asking that one because I do not know.
???
-
If you haven't watched "The Godfather" you wont get any of that. Just so ya know.
I should watch it sometime, :) i have never seen the star wars movies either.
-
If you haven't watched "The Godfather" you wont get any of that. Just so ya know.
I should watch it sometime, :) i have never seen the star wars movies either.
laugh, laugh Years ago when the first commercials came on of the Star Wars and I saw the stupid hairdos and futuristic non reality clothes I just figured people quite reading the comics and it picked up from there. I never really read the comics, because I felt it just idiot stuff. except for one that I would venture to and that was Blondi and Dagwood. With tv it was the I love lucy show, Laural & Hardy. Now when it comes to the "Godfather". I did do that one. Sometimes I had to shut my eyes to parts. It is really hard core. But after reading the Great Controversary and knowing the time the Godfather was about I ventured into that one. To my amazement the core of the story (not at first) but towards the end show the connection of mob to the church and how long it has never changed. Exactly all the reasoning and raw details that EGW describes in GC in dramatic details to the T.
It gave more then great understanding why and how the mob did the acts and then went to confessions.
My poor beautiful good mother never knew she married one of those until too late. As he also was a hard worker in the steel industry. It was hidden from me until years later and I lost my father very early. All I knew is that he did not come home anymore and romp room to room with the puppy. I have never understood why I was born into this pattern as I watched all my new rural friends in first grade and up with all having their mothers and fathers and happy farm families like in the 40's and 50's. My memories are my daddy had great big laugh beautiful teeth and dimples. Good looking and almost a twin to Clark Gable. Proud of me and showed me off to everyone. Always white polished shoes and dressed handsome and was. My mother said I had over 150 little dresses on my first birthday. I knew he loved me.
I attached very quickly knowing that I really did have a "Father in Heaven" for me to survive. Yes, I ventured into the "Godfather" It was horrific reality. So you see I have extra Bond with my "Father in Heaven" and I feel so imperfect to have Him. The Godfather will take a whole day to watch in 4 parts. Memory brings tears all my life.
Guess that is why I really mouth off on the sin that these documents, actions and extravaganza that is and was in plain sight that have been brought into view. The reality of it all is History of facts. It has happened to all our dismay. Why should it be hidden so the mob can continue?? What difference is there here of the continuing same pattern of the "Godfather" ????? The money pattern!!!! Soon it shall be gone in an hour and Eternity lost.
-
It means that Fran is still living in another reality. She has only her skewed interpretations to base her accusations upon. She denies facts in favor of her own theories. Facts have proven her accusations false, but that is of no account to her.
How then do you explain that she was correct in what she said about Tammy having a store? That right there proves that Fran is right at least some of the time, if not most of the time.
-
It means that Fran is still living in another reality. She has only her skewed interpretations to base her accusations upon. She denies facts in favor of her own theories. Facts have proven her accusations false, but that is of no account to her.
How then do you explain that she was correct in what she said about Tammy having a store? That right there proves that Fran is right at least some of the time, if not most of the time.
It is obvious that these vast "adversarial" discussions require "resolution". 3ABN had a chance and watched the evidence erode their entire case into the gutter as truth revealed itself ever more frequently WHILE the discovery built heavilly against the liars and the pilferer at 3ABN. THEY PROMPTLY DISMISSED TO AVOID THE TRUTH and this after devisive board meetings regarding accountability and governance. This after IRS and Remnant REVELATIONS...don't you just love REVELATIONS!!!!
THEREFORE: It is clear that there is a need for the reviving of the adversarial forum in courts of competent jurisdiction. THE PROPER HOME FOR "ADVERSARIAL" PROCESS!!! The time is ripe and the essential events are nearly fulfilled.
Let the truth be discovered!!! Let the litigation be resurrected!!! Here, Here!!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Any Man;
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
So Fran what does that mean? was it the constant stating of accrual funds disagreement that happens so often with auditors? Was it funds hiding illegal?
Was it items that should have been receipted in one year and was put in the next year?
Was their fraud involved? Was it clerical errors? Were the corrections done? Where their offsetting expenses also posted in error in the same year? Was Danny in Charge of the Accounting department as well? I am asking that one because I do not know.
???
Fran I am still waiting for your self proclaimed expert opinion on this question.
There are several organizations that say, "we will wait for the auditors to make the accrued adjustments on income and expenses"
Please respond to my questions.
-
Any Man;
Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted! Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted! This is not good!
So Fran what does that mean? was it the constant stating of accrual funds disagreement that happens so often with auditors? Was it funds hiding illegal?
Was it items that should have been receipted in one year and was put in the next year?
Was their fraud involved? Was it clerical errors? Were the corrections done? Where their offsetting expenses also posted in error in the same year? Was Danny in Charge of the Accounting department as well? I am asking that one because I do not know.
???
Fran I am still waiting for your self proclaimed expert opinion on this question.
There are several organizations that say, "we will wait for the auditors to make the accrued adjustments on income and expenses"
Please respond to my questions.
:ROFL: :ROFL: I'm thinking you might want to re-read the standard audit report!! Hhmm - who exactly is responsible for those financial statements anyway...?? Hhmm... Could it be...the auditors?? Hhmm... Could it be...the Director of Finance?? Hhmm... Could it be...MANAGEMENT?? Hhmm...
-
Snoopy
What kind of financial/treasury experience do you have?
-
For some reason I just don't feel compelled to answer that. But if you look around here real close I'll bet you can figure it out...
-
Snoopy
What kind of financial/treasury experience do you have?
STAN;
For your edification, Snoopy was a member of the forensic accounting team that was assembled to review the auditors records. The team that was scheduled to review, scan and watermark evidence that was vetoed at the last minute by 3ABN Counsel and lead to the head-on collision to enforce the subpoena to produce the auditor records in US District Court in Southern Illinois. When it became clear 3ABN was not going to prevent the review and production of the auditors records, amongst other documents, Simpson filed his motion to dismiss the very next day.
So, Stan, if you need a real audit...call SNOOPY, otherwise, do what 3ABN did, avoid an outside audit review!!!! Never know what those forensic accountants can find!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Snoopy
What kind of financial/treasury experience do you have?
STAN;
For your edification, Snoopy was a member of the forensic accounting team that was assembled to review the auditors records. The team that was scheduled to review, scan and watermark evidence that was vetoed at the last minute by 3ABN Counsel and lead to the head-on collision to enforce the subpoena to produce the auditor records in US District Court in Southern Illinois. When it became clear 3ABN was not going to prevent the review and production of the auditors records, amongst other documents, Simpson filed his motion to dismiss the very next day.
So, Stan, if you need a real audit...call SNOOPY, otherwise, do what 3ABN did, avoid an outside audit review!!!! Never know what those forensic accountants can find!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Excuse me? 3ABN gets "real audits" all the time - just because it didn't involve you doesn't mean it wasn't a "real" audit. ::)
-
Snoopy
What kind of financial/treasury experience do you have?
STAN;
For your edification, Snoopy was a member of the forensic accounting team that was assembled to review the auditors records. The team that was scheduled to review, scan and watermark evidence that was vetoed at the last minute by 3ABN Counsel and lead to the head-on collision to enforce the subpoena to produce the auditor records in US District Court in Southern Illinois. When it became clear 3ABN was not going to prevent the review and production of the auditors records, amongst other documents, Simpson filed his motion to dismiss the very next day.
So, Stan, if you need a real audit...call SNOOPY, otherwise, do what 3ABN did, avoid an outside audit review!!!! Never know what those forensic accountants can find!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Excuse me? 3ABN gets "real audits" all the time - just because it didn't involve you doesn't mean it wasn't a "real" audit. ::)
Ah- JuneBUG... Since you are such an expert, why don't you enlighten us as to just what a "real audit" entails?
-
I wonder why Junebug didn't reply to Snoopy's question?