Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Cindy on March 22, 2010, 12:51:13 PM
-
Gailon Joy wrote:
I have a riddle for you: We have a 2008 IRS Form 990 filed with Illinois and indicates the 48 acres across from Linda’s old Homestead was gifted by 3ABN to Danny Lee Shelton. We have another 990 that does not seem to disclose the Schedule J...
As to the credibility of witnesses, can you explain to me which one is lying?
Gailon, the 990 filed with the IRS has a Schedule J, but Part III is blank.
The part in navy above is correct. It says:
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."
That Form 990 was filed with the states of Oregon and Illinois.
And I have figured out part of this already. In regards to credibility of witnesses you are both WRONG here.(see red font above)
I suggest you look at your IRS pdf file again. Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of the pdf file. ( It says 13 of 15 on the page) edited to add: on the IRS form it is schedule J part II
Here's your link to it:
http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2008-irs.pdf
What do you see, gentlemen?
I will address more of this confusion and error on Bob's new thread later...
-
I suggest you look at your IRS pdf file again. Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of the pdf file. ( It says 13 of 15 on the page)
Here's your link to it:
http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2008-irs.pdf
What do you see, gentlemen?
I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.
Perhaps the "additional data table" referred to is what is on page 15 of 15, and there is nothing about land on that page either.
Why don't you ask 3ABN if they are going to refile, and thus end up with 4 versions of the 2008 Form 990 instead of 3?
-
Cindy, I have spoken with law enforcement, and I will do so again.
You can claim that you didn't have names if you want to, but your claim is false.
I am quite sure you have spoken with law enforcement - now-- and I am also quite sure you will try and ride this and be somebody and try and get in the news for as long as you can. I am not impressed with that, Bob, nor your false accusations.
I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.
It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000. One day somebody is going to pop you right upside your little head for your shenanigans , and pardon me if I can't stop laughing even while I ask you if you are all right...
-
I am not impressed with that, Bob, nor your false accusations.
Are you asserting that the child molestation allegations are false?
Someone called me amazed at how much rage they think you are manifesting. They thought you might want to offer your services to Nancy Pelosi as a sort of Rahm Emanuel.
I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.
It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000.
The 2008 Form 990 filed with the state of Illinois and Oregon also lists $96,000 under "other reportable compensation" in Part II of Schedule J. The point is that on two versions it is admitted that land was given, and on the version filed with the IRS there is no such admission. Why not? Why is Part II filled out in all three versions, but Part III is blank only on the version filed with the IRS.
-
You know Bob, there is a difference between anger and rage which I do not expect you to admit to understanding but that's ok because I know that "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day."
So, moving on to part two and your next error/ falsehood
In reporting about all this on your website, and trying to promote this as a huge problem, Bob Pickle says:
"But on January 24, 2008, court documents were filed by which 3ABN asserted that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000. So which was it? Did Danny Shelton pay 3ABN $96,000 for the land, or did the 3ABN Board gift to Danny that 48 acres?"
Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf
What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.
It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"
Now straighten up and get right, Bob!
That's just what they reported:
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."
and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.
-
Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf
What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.
It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"
Now straighten up and get right, Bob!
The Save 3ABN article (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-brandy-files-for-divorce.htm) is correct. See line 11 on page 4 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf) which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."
and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.
My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.
Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.
And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits.
-
Helps with understanding when you can see documents. The word "consideration" in legal document
a [u]recompense or payment, as for work done; compensation.[/u]
6.
importance or consequence.
7.
estimation; esteem: He is held in great consideration by the community.
8.
Law.
a.
something that suffices to make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in exchange for the promise.
Whats the promise??? Maybe none just transfer of assests of 3abn to DS.
Just like I thought in simplicity before even seeing documents.. DS is given $96,000 (all land has value) worth of land and the claimer of $1.00 makes it a sale where he bought it. Good deal. Now builds a house on it. He did not have to pay the estabished value. The land was actually donated in beginning ...for this purpose?? Would be very interesting now the can of worms of the contollers of 3abn Stenson and Gilly. But now the whole scam seems worse. Not so sure of titles here.
Should not all be held accountable for the giving to "individual assets" intended for non-profit "evangelisim" from the Adventist unknowlingly to non-denomenational off shoots. I sure did not know it..until all came to surface. Just like the rest will too. If all was pure, good and honest none of the above would be in question.
Yes Ian, Bob is right. Your given something of high value for $1.00 for legal sale to say something that is not true. and that is the side you stand on.
-
Helps with understanding when you can see documents. The word "consideration" in legal document
a [u]recompense or payment, as for work done; compensation.[/u]
6.
importance or consequence.
7.
estimation; esteem: He is held in great consideration by the community.
8.
Law.
a.
something that suffices to make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in exchange for the promise.
Whats the promise???...
Thank you. The promise was a A non compete employment agreement. You could maybe look that up too as that is very helpful to anyone reading here and trying to understand all this.
" Form 990 Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."
As that also says, he is no longer President and is at present a trustee and consultant. As such his salary has dropped to about 1/2 of what it was before he stepped down as President and signed the non-compete agreement. That is revealed in the financial part of the dissolution of marriage Papers Bob published if you want to look that up too.
It also appears that that all total DS received about 100,000 dollars less than LS received when she signed the separation agreement between she and 3abn. (She was given just under 250,000)
The main point here is that it was all reported by 3abn as "other reportable compensation" to DS given to him in addition to his salary that year as part of the non compete agreement they signed, so it is above board and legal and there are no IRS problems and no funny business going on here.
-
Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf
What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.
It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"
Now straighten up and get right, Bob!
See line 11 on page 4 of which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.
Yes, that is the taxes part and what it is worth, and that worth was deeded to Danny by 3abn. (other reportable compensation, 96,000) Moving on...
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."
and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.
My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.
Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.
I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans..
Moving on...
And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits.
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.
A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits.
Which brings us to your last error/falsehood in your little scenario, and Gailon's riddle. He posted:
Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.
That agreement also doesn't say what you claim it does..
It says:
The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.
Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land.
So let's recap. Danny paid Linda 150,000 for her part of their house making it all his.
Next the house is too big for him and he sells it to Jim Gilley.
Then he takes the money from that sale and builds the house he wants and adds what he wants to the land which was deeded to him as part of the non-compete agreement.
Real estate definition according to the legal dictionary:
real estate
n. land, improvements and buildings thereon, including attached items and growing things. It is virtually the same as "real property," except real property includes interests which are not physical such as a right to acquire the property in the future.
Riddle over. No one is a false witness here, except you and Gailon. I know you could not possibly be deliberately or knowingly doing that, so you must have misunderstood, and made a mistake and that is why you were in error.
But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.
Because to not do so will be to continue bearing false witness, knowingly and deliberately, and I know God's people would NEVER do that, or continue to argue, justify and excuse that kind of thing.
So where do you stand, and what will you do, Bob? Who are you going to be?
-
As that also says, he is no longer President and is at present a trustee and consultant. As such his salary has dropped to about 1/2 of what it was before he stepped down as President and signed the non-compete agreement. That is revealed in the financial part of the dissolution of marriage Papers Bob published if you want to look that up too.
False. There is nothing that says that Danny's salary from 3ABN dropped 50% when he allegedly stopped down from being president.
The main point here is that it was all reported by 3abn as "other reportable compensation" to DS given to him in addition to his salary that year as part of the non compete agreement they signed, so it is above board and legal and there are no IRS problems and no funny business going on here.
Stop the spin and distortion. The point is that there are at least three different versions of 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 floating around out there, and the one filed with the IRS omits the fact admitted on the other versions, that 3ABN gave $96,000 to Danny Shelton.
It is funny business for the 3ABN Board to continue facilitating Danny Shelton's looting of 3ABN through alleged non-compete agreements. Why would they need to do any such agreement with him? They didn't do one with Linda, did they?
Did 3ABN enter into any such agreements with Derrell Mundall, Ervin Thomsen, Kathy Bottomley, Trenton Frost, Oriana Frost, Tommy Shelton, Joan Russell, Pete Crotser (sp?), the Greers, or any other former employee/founder?
Danny and Walt Thompson should have been booted out the door, clear and simple, when it was discovered that they covered up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. But the board chose to sue us instead, and thus at that point it became clear that the board needed to be booted out the door with Danny and Walt. But since 3ABN's board is self-perpetuating and answers to no one, including to its donors, there was no one to hold the board accountable.
And that is wrong.
-
I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans..
That specific transaction was one that we were looking for in discovery, and the fact that the 990 filed with the IRS omits those words suggests to me that 3ABN/Danny may have been trying to hide the evidence.
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.
A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits.
That line of questioning by Nick Miller was trying to show that Danny and Linda weren't profiting from their 3ABN activities. When Danny answered those questions he lied, since Walt Thompson said that Danny had asked to be almost given a house in 1998 so that he could build up equity for retirement.
They can call the gift of land anything they want: The onlooker is still going to think that that gift is akin to a housing benefit.
The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.
Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land.
Yes it does. The agreement says that Danny was building a home on real estate he bought. Danny wasn't building a home on top of a shopping mall, or on top of a house. He was building a home on top of land. Thus the agreement is very clearly saying that Danny bought land when he didn't buy it at all.
But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.
What false claims have I made that I need to correct? Be specific.
-
Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf
What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.
It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"
Now straighten up and get right, Bob!
See line 11 on page 4 of which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.
Yes, that is the taxes part and what it is worth, and that worth was deeded to Danny by 3abn. (other reportable compensation, 96,000) Moving on... Not so fast here as still questions remain. What right did the board have to give away $96,000 of donors money to individual assets?
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."
Non-Compete Contracts
Non-compete agreements are becoming an increasingly popular way for employers to try to limit employees and former employees from working for a competitor, or from divulging trade secrets or other proprietary data.
Contrary to common misperceptions, courts will uphold non-compete clauses if they comply with acceptable standards. Enforcement against an employee can be both by damages and by an injunction that prohibits the employee from engaging in conduct that violates a non-compete clause.
An employer also can be held liable for hiring an employee who violates a non-compete agreement with a previous employer. In some cases, employers can recover damages from both the former employees and their new employers who collaborate with them in the transgressions.
However, some states impose substantial restrictions on the enforceability of non-compete clauses. In California, for example, they may not be enforceable at all. In New York, their enforceability is quite limited.
Most non-compete agreements are entered into with little, if any, negotiation between the employer and the employee. They usually are signed at the outset of an employment relationship where the employee may have very little bargaining power and when the employee is generally not too concerned about limitations on future employability when beginning a new job.
But when an employee decides to leave a job, the non-compete agreement may be a significant impediment to future employment or may prevent employees from becoming self-employed.
Although the laws differ from state to state, general principles apply to non-compete contracts in most jurisdictions. Here are some considerations to keep in mind:
Rule of Reasonableness: In order to be valid, a non-compete agreement must be reasonable. Courts recognize that employers have a legitimate interest in protecting the time, investment, and other resources they have invested in employees, but that interest must be balanced against an employee's job mobility in a free enterprise system. Courts generally will scrutinize non-compete agreements carefully to make sure that they are geared to protect the reasonable business interests of an employer without unduly limiting an employee's other work opportunities. Therefore, these arrangements must usually be tailored narrowly to restrict truly competitive activities without forbidding an employee from working in the same industry or profession in a way that is not competitive.
Independent Consideration: In many states, a non-compete agreement is valid if entered into at any time after an employment relationship begins. But in some states, courts will not enforce non-compete agreements unless the employee gets what is termed "independent consideration" - in other words, if they get something in exchange for signing the agreement. If this principle applies in your state, a non-compete agreement will be valid only if it is signed at the time employment commences, or at a later date if the employer gives you some additional benefits such as increase in salary, promotion, or other items of value.
Duration: In order to assure that these contracts are not too stifling, courts will generally require that they only last for a limited amount of time. The duration depends upon a number of circumstances, including how long it will take to train another employee to take over the position being vacated. Generally, non-compete agreements one or two years in length will be valid, and longer time periods may be suspect. Courts generally will permit longer non-compete periods in connection with a sale of a business when a new buyer insists that the old owner refrain from competing for a prescribed period of time. In these situations, courts reason that the parties should be permitted to negotiate whatever time frame they want since the exchange is less coercive than it is in an employer-employee relationship.
Distance: In addition to duration, a non-compete agreement often must have reasonable geographic limits. In today's global economy, the distance factor is less significant than it has been in the past. But if an employer has a particular market area, courts may refuse to enforce non-compete agreements that extend beyond that. For instance, a cosmetology business that draws most of its customers from a radius of 10 or 15 miles probably couldn't limit a former employee from working in the cosmetology business outside of that market area.
Blue Pencil Rule: Many courts follow the "blue pencil" rule, which means if an agreement is too restrictive, the courts can modify it and then enforce it. But in some states, the "blue pencil" rule is prohibited, and courts must either uphold non-compete agreements as drafted or invalidate them entirely.
New Employer Liability: In many states, employers who lose an employee to a competitor in violation of a non-compete agreement can sue the new employer, as well as the old employee. In these states, employers are reluctant to hire away employees who have non-compete agreements. The best approach for employees in these states is to let their prospective new employer know about the non-compete so that the employer is not later "surprised" with a lawsuit by the old employer. The new employer may decide that the non-compete agreement is invalid, or may be willing to assist the employee, including payment of legal expenses, in the event of a lawsuit by the former employer.
An employer should keep these principles in mind when hiring employees - both in terms of looking out for agreements that employees may have signed at their old jobs and with regard to negotiating non-compete agreements for their new jobs. Such clauses can be a very effective way to protect valid business interests, but they should be drafted with the assistance of legal counsel in order to provide assurances that the language used will be enforceable.
Questions for Your Attorney
Does an employer have the ability to force all of its employees to sign a non-compete agreement that lasts for life? What about 20 years?
Even if an employee signs a non-compete agreement, can he still compete against the employer if he thought he was wrongfully fired?
If I sign a non-compete contract, can I still work for a competitor if the new job is different than my old job?
and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.
My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.
Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.
I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans.. It sure does make a difference what the donor intended!
Moving on...
And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits. But He received donor assets voted by the board and there is nothing right about this.
I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.
A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits. Maybe not directly but eventually as a house is being built on it while still taking assets when "volunteer work was claimed" but most evident that was a lie.
Which brings us to your last error/falsehood in your little scenario, and Gailon's riddle. He posted:
Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.
Now is that the actual truth and where is money transaction available?
That agreement also doesn't say what you claim it does..
It says:
The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.
So how did he pay Linda and pay for property too out of the $96,000 when it said that the sale was done for $1.00. Seems like a good deal for Gilly too. You need to expand more as you have started here and continue.
Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land. I agree he did not pay for the land
So let's recap. Danny paid Linda 150,000 for her part of their house making it all his.
Next the house is too big for him and he sells it to Jim Gilley.
Then he takes the money from that sale and builds the house he wants and adds what he wants to the land which was deeded to him as part of the non-compete agreement.
Real estate definition according to the legal dictionary:
real estate
n. land, improvements and buildings thereon, including attached items and growing things. It is virtually the same as "real property," except real property includes interests which are not physical such as a right to acquire the property in the future.
How does this work with your definition of "The promise" according to the non complete employments that you suggest the meaning of??
Riddle over. No one is a false witness here, except you and Gailon. I know you could not possibly be deliberately or knowingly doing that, so you must have misunderstood, and made a mistake and that is why you were in error.
But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.
Because to not do so will be to continue bearing false witness, knowingly and deliberately, and I know God's people would NEVER do that, or continue to argue, justify and excuse that kind of thing.
So where do you stand, and what will you do, Bob? Who are you going to be? Board uses same tactics with funds and votes on things that should not have been done.
-
For what it is worth: I am both amazed and appalled here. You are standing here looking naked and without excuse, Robert Pickle. You should be ashamed as even I, after reading all, am embarrassed for you. You appear to me to be seared to the core. A man who can not choose to do the right thing is no man as far as I am concerned.
May God have mercy on your soul.
-
For what it is worth: I am both amazed and appalled here. You are standing here looking naked and without excuse, Robert Pickle. You should be ashamed as even I, after reading all, am embarrassed for you. You appear to me to be seared to the core. A man who can not choose to do the right thing is no man as far as I am concerned.
May God have mercy on your soul.
??? :scratch:
-
Tinka posted:
"Not so fast here as still questions remain." " What right did the board have to give away $96,000 of donors money to individual assets?
"It sure does make a difference what the donor intended!" "But He received donor assets voted by the board and there is nothing right about this." "Board uses same tactics with funds and votes on things that should not have been done."
3ABN is a Non profit organization. That means it is owned by none, and ran by a board of directors/trustees, ( who are elected) but they have to abide to the organizations by laws. They receive money from donors, yes, but the 3ABN organization also receive money from a variety of other sources such as sales of airtime, sales of books, DVDs, CDs , equipment, investments ect... . No one but the board of directors/trustees has any right to say where the money from the 3ABN organization goes, EXCEPT when it comes to the donors. Donors have the right to earmark, and say where their donated money goes according to law, or to stop donating and even file a complaint if they believe their wishes are not being followed. Donors can express their views but do not have the right to file a complaint about where other money is spent, or used, ( unless it is used illegally) but they do retain their right to no longer donate money if they disagree with the actions of the organizations board of Directors.
Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.
Now is that the actual truth and where is money transaction available?
GOOD QUESTION, Tinka! But, is that really the truth???Ask Gailon Joy, for he it is he who said that and falsely claimed that without any proof. Follow through on these kind of questions as they always lead to the truth of a situation and help us learn.
-
You are standing here looking naked and without excuse, Robert Pickle. You should be ashamed as even I, after reading all, am embarrassed for you. You appear to me to be seared to the core. A man who can not choose to do the right thing is no man as far as I am concerned.
Talk to Danny about it. He's the one who 3ABN gave the land to, not me.
No one but the board of directors/trustees has any right to say where the money from the 3ABN organization goes, EXCEPT when it comes to the donors.
False. The U.S. Government has such a right because 3ABN is a non-profit organization. Further, 3ABN's corporate documents forbid 3ABN from facilitating Danny in engaging in private inurement.
And God has such a right as well. It is simply wrong for 3ABN to solicit money from the public, and then turn around and pour it into Danny's pockets.
Remember why that 1998 house deal occurred instead of simply paying Danny housing and retirement benefits? Because they didn't want to make it look like Danny and Linda were making a lot of money, because that wouldn't sit well with donors.
-
Nosir Myzing,
Whether you want to recognize this fact or not it remains to this extent.
What you have in 3abn is this:
1. Many baptized SDA's focusing on business of an idea that DS came up with.
2. Many contributors, did not know that they claim non-denominational for the record and still don't.
3. Why?.. so they are not affiliated with the church to answer what they do with the money as you state.
4. This way they controll the money "mind you" using the people of the Seventh Day Adventist church when they have the gall not to be associated with. How sweet it is to be able to outsmart for "nobodies business" what they do with these ill gotten funds.
5. That is fraudulent ways and means. Politically correct in the field of business and TV personalities, but against the SP of church ethics.
6. Bob and Gailon have every right to bring this to the focus of the SDA people and protect the fraudulent taking of the pew money. In this manner they found also criminal coverings, accusations, false statements in the reporting of funds made within and used for nonprofit. while, adultery, fornication's, divorces,smoking, molesting & call what may was going on under the banner of SDA...and for public view.
7. You see 3abn stand on a line of business as usual using fraudulent statements of "all volunteer" for "evangelism" to the public and Bob & Gailon stand on the principles of SDA and SP to the protection of the Devil's folly in so many confusing ways 3abn took to protect every aspect of business as usual.
8. In fact now because of the non-complete employment and non- complete real estate clause
It is obvious how DS got Brandy to sign a prenuptial. The Board just could not take a chance and made it easy for DS as his excuse to her. (laugh) They weren't going to let his shenanigans jeopardize all the rest of the :horse: feed. I am glad now they are found out not to be of the church but impostors with SDA baptismal credentials that are denied for the sake of assets in their own pockets.
9. And how did you expect this to last? Before all greed was found out?? This was abuse to the honest funds provided by SDA people. and that is what Bob and Gailon are standing up to and for and nothing more.
-
In case you want to do further research on what has been posted on this subject, Ian thinks you may want to consider these posts as well:
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23192.html#msg23192
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23193.html#msg23193
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23194.html#msg23194
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23195.html#msg23195
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23196.html#msg23196
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23197.html#msg23197
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23198.html#msg23198
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23208.html#msg23208
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23210.html#msg23210
-
In case you want to do further research on what has been posted on this subject, Ian thinks you may want to consider these posts as well:
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23192.html#msg23192
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23193.html#msg23193
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23194.html#msg23194
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23195.html#msg23195
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23196.html#msg23196
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23197.html#msg23197
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23198.html#msg23198
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23208.html#msg23208
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23210.html#msg23210
And I agree with ian, if she even said this (?) as I see nothing here about it. So do you agree or not Johann? If you do why didn't you just move those posts here along with the rest? seems weird to me as they don't belong in the other thread anymore and don't make sense. But, much is strange here in my opinion. and you do here as you think makes sense. so carry on..
-
I like your positive attitude - thank you. I was just too lazy to move them all - too much work. With your graceful remark we can manage these discussions.
In case you want to do further research on what has been posted on this subject, Ian thinks you may want to consider these posts as well:
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23192.html#msg23192
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23193.html#msg23193
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23194.html#msg23194
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23195.html#msg23195
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23196.html#msg23196
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23197.html#msg23197
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23198.html#msg23198
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23208.html#msg23208
http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,1820.msg23210.html#msg23210
And I agree with ian, if she even said this (?) as I see nothing here about it. So do you agree or not Johann? If you do why didn't you just move those posts here along with the rest? seems weird to me as they don't belong in the other thread anymore and don't make sense. But, much is strange here in my opinion. and you do here as you think makes sense. so carry on..
-
Get out of your ditch, Ms/Mr. Nosi! Your verbiage is challenging.
For what it is worth: I am both amazed and appalled here. You are standing here looking naked and without excuse, Robert Pickle. You should be ashamed as even I, after reading all, am embarrassed for you. You appear to me to be seared to the core. A man who can not choose to do the right thing is no man as far as I am concerned.
May God have mercy on your soul.
-
Bob,
I agree with you! I think Ian needs to learn to give respect where it is due. Her attitude with you is disrespectful and UN-Christ like! She is the one standing naked before the world. She is quite transparent with her motives. I will have to really pray for Ian. She has been so deceived.
There is enough proof against Danny for her to see the light. Yet, she continues not see that Danny is not representing God in his motives and actions.
Bob, thank you for sticking in with the truth. I have been sick and not able to read and post. But this needs a comment.
-
Fran,
How good to hear from you again on here, Wonder and Think about you much and pray for your health.
-
Girl, because I am laughing at the very thought! LOL!!
It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000. One day somebody is going to pop you right upside your little head for your shenanigans , and pardon me if I can't stop laughing even while I ask you if you are all right...
MODERATOR HAT ON
Warning! Disrespect to the degree that these posts suggest will not be tolerated on this site.
MODERATOR HAT OFF
-
di,
yes I am laughing too, did you go back far enough to see and read that Bob is now the "Pope" :ROFL:
-
Girl, I saw that!
di,
yes I am laughing too, did you go back far enough to see and read that Bob is now the "Pope" :ROFL:
-
Now that everyone has had fun tearing that apart, go to the Divorce Docs and let's take a look at the disclosure relating to the sale of the Danny & Linda Estate to Gilley and how the proceeds are now disclosed to the court for the purchase of the 48 acres. Is this designed to make the property exempt from the divorce estate?
Thank-you, IAN, for clarifying so nicely the tax return issues...now explain this cute little discrepancy.
Your ardent advocacy is unequalled...wish the lawfirm and the foundation had a couple more lawyers like that!!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Bob,
I agree with you! I think Ian needs to learn to give respect where it is due. Her attitude with you is disrespectful and UN-Christ like! She is the one standing naked before the world. She is quite transparent with her motives. I will have to really pray for Ian. She has been so deceived.
There is enough proof against Danny for her to see the light. Yet, she continues not see that Danny is not representing God in his motives and actions.
Bob, thank you for sticking in with the truth. I have been sick and not able to read and post. But this needs a comment.
You forgot to add "in my opinion", Fran.
And if you are wrong in your judgments about either Bob or myself? How will the Lord regard your prayers?
All I ask here is that you think about that...
-
Now that everyone has had fun tearing that apart, go to the Divorce Docs and let's take a look at the disclosure relating to the sale of the Danny & Linda Estate to Gilley and how the proceeds are now disclosed to the court for the purchase of the 48 acres. Is this designed to make the property exempt from the divorce estate?
Thank-you, IAN, for clarifying so nicely the tax return issues...now explain this cute little discrepancy.
...
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Your welcome and thanks for not getting bent out of shape about it. ;)
I can't really answer here yet and am not sure if I will even be able to, as I am not sure what you are asking above.
I do want to say here to start with that I disagree with calling it the "Danny and Linda estate" though. According to my understanding of the documents and letters which have been published online, there was a property agreement which Danny and Linda signed in which he bought out her part of their marital real estate. I understand that there were some things which were not included in that property agreement though and so they agreed that he would file for the divorce and she would file later to resolve those things between them. That case is still underway... As that case is underseal and under a protection order I am not sure if she is now claiming she didn't get her fair share concerning their marital residence or not, BUT.. even if she is.. She needs to prove her case before it can be called Linda and Danny's estate. Reason being she sold her part to Danny and received 150,000 from Danny for it and so Danny was the only registered owner/seller when it was sold to Jim Gilley.
My questions here are.
1. In regards to you saying " let's take a look at the disclosure relating to the sale of the ... Estate to Gilley and how the proceeds are now disclosed to the court for the purchase of the 48 acres. " are you referring to the following which was earlier referenced?
The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.
1. a) If not, what part are you referring to? (You can just give a page number and I will go look
at it if that's easier than quoting it.)
2.) In regards to " Is this designed to make the property exempt from the divorce estate?" which divorce are you referring to?
Thanks in advance for your clarifications here.
..ian
-
As that also says, he is no longer President and is at present a trustee and consultant. As such his salary has dropped to about 1/2 of what it was before he stepped down as President and signed the non-compete agreement. That is revealed in the financial part of the dissolution of marriage Papers Bob published if you want to look that up too.
False. There is nothing that says that Danny's salary from 3ABN dropped 50% when he allegedly stopped down from being president.
I get so tired of the quibbling about words, meaning and intent with you , Bob. It's just so ridiculous to me! No, it doesn't say that in those exact words, but it doesn't need to. You have intelligence. You are more than capable of using your head and the facts you have as far as documents go to easily see that his salary is now about 1/2 of what it was.. ----> because DS's monthly income is listed for 2010 in those divorce documents, and if you multiply that by 12, and then compare it to his yearly income listed on previous 990's when he was President of 3ABN, and before the non compete agreement was made and signed, it's very obvious, and easy to see. Unless you choose not to.
The main point here is that it was all reported by 3abn as "other reportable compensation" to DS given to him in addition to his salary that year as part of the non compete agreement they signed, so it is above board and legal and there are no IRS problems and no funny business going on here.
Stop the spin and distortion. The point is that there are at least three different versions of 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 floating around out there, and the one filed with the IRS omits the fact admitted on the other versions, that 3ABN gave $96,000 to Danny Shelton.
Spin and distortion? Bob Pickle, what you just posted [bold text] is either a gross mistake on your part or an outright lie!
You were previously arguing about that IRS 990, that it only said "other reportable compensation" ( apart from his salary) 96,000, and should have used the word "land"
Now you stand here and claim it omitted the fact that 3abn even gave him the 96,000?
Anyone can go look at that document and easily see what you just said is false.
Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of Bob's pdf file. Here's the link to it: http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2008-irs.pdf ( It says 13 of 15 on that page, and schedule J part II) and it says right under Danny's name, and I quote:
Compensation reported on other form 990 EZ - 78,404
Other reportable income - 96,000
How can you in all conscience make these kinds of arguments, and then follow it up by posting:
" But since 3ABN's board is self-perpetuating and answers to no one, including to its donors, there was no one to hold the board accountable. And that is wrong."
In my opinion before you can even think of holding someone else accountable, you need to be honest and hold yourself accountable.
-
You are more than capable of using your head and the facts you have as far as documents go to easily see that his salary is now about 1/2 of what it was.. ----> because DS's monthly income is listed for 2010 in those divorce documents, and if you multiply that by 12, and then compare it to his yearly income listed on previous 990's when he was President of 3ABN.. it's very obvious, and easy to see.
The 2006 Form 990 reported Danny's salary as $72,802 for the year.
The 2007 Form 990 reported Danny's salary as $78,404 for the year. Danny allegedly stepped down form being president in September 2007.
The 2008 Form 990 filed with OR and IL reported Danny's salary as $70,309 for the year, plus $160 bonus, plus $96,000 in land.
The divorce papers reported Danny's 2009 salary as $6,445.50 per month ($77,346 for the year), plus $52,407.41 as part of an alleged non-compete agreement.
The divorce papers reported Danny's 2010 salary as $6,250 per month ($75,000 for the year).
You are clearly mistaken, and it has nothing to do with quibbling about words.
Stop the spin and distortion. The point is that there are at least three different versions of 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 floating around out there, and the one filed with the IRS omits the fact admitted on the other versions, that 3ABN gave $96,000 to Danny Shelton.
Spin and distortion? Bob Pickle, what you just posted [bold text] is either a gross mistake on your part or an outright lie!
It is neither. It was a typo. I accidentally left out the words "of land." I think most folks reading this thread would recognize that my issue was with Part III of Schedule J of the version filed with the IRS omitting the fact that the $96,000 in "compensation" consisted of 48 acres of land.
I wouldn't have even written that sentence if you had not refused to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable: That 3ABN has produced three different versions of their 2008 Form 990, and the one filed with the IRS, unlike the other two, does not acknowledge that the $96,000 of other "compensation" was in the form of 48 acres of land given to Danny Shelton.
It is also obvious that rather than giving away its assets to Danny Shelton when he allegedly stepped down, 3ABN should have summarily fired him for covering up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, when he knew that Tommy had done things for which the statute of limitations applied.
If 3ABN in essence terminated Linda Shelton for talking too long on the telephone, and wiped her off of 3ABN's website and programming, then 3ABN should have done the same to Danny Shelton, who committed a much worse atrocity than talking too long on the telephone.
Can you not agree with these points?
-
You are more than capable of using your head and the facts you have as far as documents go to easily see that his salary is now about 1/2 of what it was.. ----> because DS's monthly income is listed for 2010 in those divorce documents, and if you multiply that by 12, and then compare it to his yearly income listed on previous 990's when he was President of 3ABN.. it's very obvious, and easy to see.
The 2006 Form 990 reported Danny's salary as $72,802 for the year.
The 2007 Form 990 reported Danny's salary as $78,404 for the year. Danny allegedly stepped down form being president in September 2007.
The 2008 Form 990 filed with OR and IL reported Danny's salary as $70,309 for the year, plus $160 bonus, plus $96,000 in land.
The divorce papers reported Danny's 2009 salary as $6,445.50 per month ($77,346 for the year), plus $52,407.41 as part of an alleged non-compete agreement.
The divorce papers reported Danny's 2010 salary as $6,250 per month ($75,000 for the year).
You are clearly mistaken, and it has nothing to do with quibbling about words.
I am willing to admit that, it appears his salary has been dropping but not by 50% as I claimed, and as such I apologize. I was referring to the following for what it's worth:
-
Stop the spin and distortion. The point is that there are at least three different versions of 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 floating around out there, and the one filed with the IRS omits the fact admitted on the other versions, that 3ABN gave $96,000 to Danny Shelton.
Spin and distortion? Bob Pickle, what you just posted [bold text] is either a gross mistake on your part or an outright lie!
It is neither. It was a typo. I accidentally left out the words "of land." I think most folks reading this thread would recognize that my issue was with Part III of Schedule J of the version filed with the IRS omitting the fact that the $96,000 in "compensation" consisted of 48 acres of land.
I wouldn't have even written that sentence if you had not refused to acknowledge the obvious and indisputable: That 3ABN has produced three different versions of their 2008 Form 990, and the one filed with the IRS, unlike the other two, does not acknowledge that the $96,000 of other "compensation" was in the form of 48 acres of land given to Danny Shelton.
May I again suggest it doesn't have to say the word "land" as the compensation is reported. And may I further suggest that not all the documents filed are available publicly, and so you don't and never will have all?
It is also obvious that rather than giving away its assets to Danny Shelton when he allegedly stepped down, 3ABN should have summarily fired him for covering up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, when he knew that Tommy had done things for which the statute of limitations applied.
If 3ABN in essence terminated Linda Shelton for talking too long on the telephone, and wiped her off of 3ABN's website and programming, then 3ABN should have done the same to Danny Shelton, who committed a much worse atrocity than talking too long on the telephone.
Can you not agree with these points?
NO. I definately don't agree that either it's obvious or that these things are even true. Nor do I want to argue with you about them. I do think you need to learn to say what is your mere opinion and stop speaking as a despot and as if your opinions are indisputable facts and obviously so. They aren't.
-
May I again suggest it doesn't have to say the word "land" as the compensation is reported. And may I further suggest that not all the documents filed are available publicly, and so you don't and never will have all?
Your two suggestions are made as an attempt to evade the facts, and your suggestions are simply wrong.
1) The 990's given to a member of the public and filed with the states of Florida and Illinois all acknowledge that $96,000 in land was given to Danny by 3ABN. The 990 filed with the IRS does not so acknowledge.
2) The IRS provided Part III of Schedule J to me, so it is available to the public. But the acknowledgment of the land gift is missing on Part III of that Schedule.
3) Since the wording demonstrates that Danny lied yet again on his post-nuptial agreement, it would be advantageous to hide the truth by removing those words from the form filed with the IRS.
It is also obvious that rather than giving away its assets to Danny Shelton when he allegedly stepped down, 3ABN should have summarily fired him for covering up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, when he knew that Tommy had done things for which the statute of limitations applied.
If 3ABN in essence terminated Linda Shelton for talking too long on the telephone, and wiped her off of 3ABN's website and programming, then 3ABN should have done the same to Danny Shelton, who committed a much worse atrocity than talking too long on the telephone.
Can you not agree with these points?
NO. I definately don't agree that either it's obvious or that these things are even true.
Then you really ought to prayerfully consider the reasons why you do not agree, and why you somehow think that talking too long on the telephone is far, far worse than covering up allegations against someone believed to be a child molester.
-
May I again suggest it doesn't have to say the word "land" as the compensation is reported. And may I further suggest that not all the documents filed are available publicly, and so you don't and never will have all?
Your two suggestions are made as an attempt to evade the facts, and your suggestions are simply wrong.
1) The 990's given to a member of the public and filed with the states of Florida and Illinois all acknowledge that $96,000 in land was given to Danny by 3ABN. The 990 filed with the IRS does not so acknowledge.
2) The IRS provided Part III of Schedule J to me, so it is available to the public. But the acknowledgment of the land gift is missing on Part III of that Schedule.
3) Since the wording demonstrates that Danny lied yet again on his post-nuptial agreement, it would be advantageous to hide the truth by removing those words from the form filed with the IRS.
1.) :hamster:
2.) :hamster:
3.) :hamster:
It is also obvious that rather than giving away its assets to Danny Shelton when he allegedly stepped down, 3ABN should have summarily fired him for covering up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, when he knew that Tommy had done things for which the statute of limitations applied.
If 3ABN in essence terminated Linda Shelton for talking too long on the telephone, and wiped her off of 3ABN's website and programming, then 3ABN should have done the same to Danny Shelton, who committed a much worse atrocity than talking too long on the telephone.
Can you not agree with these points?
NO. I definately don't agree that either it's obvious or that these things are even true.
Then you really ought to prayerfully consider the reasons why you do not agree, and why you somehow think that talking too long on the telephone is far, far worse than covering up allegations against someone believed to be a child molester.
Bob please allow me to be blunt. I am NOT going to prayerfully weigh which is the worse of two imaginary scenarios of yours. I do not even believe Linda was fired for talking on the phone too long, nor do I believe that Danny Shelton or 3ABN covered up allegations of child molestation. I do not think your claims about either of those things can hold water.
In closing please consider how arrogant and self righteous it is to suggest that there is something morally wrong with me and that I pray to God about it, simply because I disagree with you.
Talk to you later- about something else. Enjoy your weekend. :wave:
-
I do not even believe Linda was fired for talking on the phone too long, nor do I believe that Danny Shelton or 3ABN covered up allegations of child molestation.
Then are you saying that you believe that Linda committed adultery, and that that was why she was terminated?
And are you saying that Danny fessed up to Walt by telling him that there were recent allegations in Virginia, but that Walt lied when he said that Danny had told him that the allegations were all 30 years old?
Come to think of it, at the time of Dryden's 2003 letter, the allegations that got Tommy booted out of 3ABN around 1991 would have only been about 12 years old.
In closing please consider how arrogant and self righteous it is to suggest that there is something morally wrong with me and that I pray to God about it, simply because I disagree with you.
I personally think that anyone who defends Tommy and Danny despite all the lies, corruption, immorality, bullying, and private inurement needs an good adjustment of their moral compass.
-
I do not even believe Linda was fired for talking on the phone too long
Then are you saying that you believe that Linda committed adultery, and that that was why she was terminated?
This has gone on long enough.
The issue of adultery was one which arose between Danny and Linda in their marriage. It was one their church later considered. Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
3ABN did not even bring it up and had no plans to until they were forced into that position by Linda herself standing up and saying on her web page and through her defenders in an article in Adventist Today and in various forums. "I did not have sex with that man!" And claiming she was fired for that, which is false. It was first mentioned by 3ABN in July both in a response to that article, and in a follow up statement put on www.3abn.org the same day.
Even Bill Clinton was not stupid enough to answer that question in public until it was asked.
Yes we know Darrell Mundall is the source of the rumor claiming that the rumors were all over the churches about Linda when he traveled for 3ABN and that he claims that whenever he asked people where they heard these things they always pointed to Danny. We also know the whole 3ABN crew traveled for 3ABN during that same time period and none of them shared Darrell's experience. It is quite clear to us where the rumors and talk originated. [It is clear to me in watching all this unfold that Linda had to be established as a victim and martyr in order to gather support and orchestrate and launch the attacks and accusations against the "evil" 3ABN. She was, and remains in my opinion, "crazy like a fox".]
[If anyone would like to see the brief 3abn announcements about Linda's leave of absence, and then the follow up one informing viewers and supporters that she was no longer with 3abn, to compare them with Linda's letters and the article her defenders were interviewed for, ask. I am sure one of us can come up with the links here for you. That will allow you to see the dates for yourselves and see how this false story that Linda was fired for adultery started and caused all the negative talk which continues to this very day.]
-
I do not even believe Linda was fired for talking on the phone too long
Then are you saying that you believe that Linda committed adultery, and that that was why she was terminated?
This has gone on long enough.
The issue of adultery was one which arose between Danny and Linda in their marriage. It was one their church later considered. Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
3ABN did not even bring it up and had no plans to...
3abn statement on 3abn.org:
Linda Shelton is on a leave of absence from Three Angels Broadcasting Network. Due to employee confidentiality, we cannot provide details on Mrs. Shelton's leave of absence. Danny Shelton continues in his role as president to oversee and manage 3ABN operations.
With the professional assistance of members of our board, our president, and the rest of the 3ABN leadership team, 3ABN will continue to deliver its message of faith and hope to its many viewers throughout the world.
Posted May 20, 2004.
3abn statement on 3abn.org:
Because of decisions Linda Shelton has made that have taken her in a different direction than that of the ministry, the Board of Directors of Three Angels Broadcasting Network (3ABN) regrets to say that she is no longer an employee of 3ABN.
Posted June 17, 2004.
Available online here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040609224123/http://www.3abn.org/
and here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20040618074511/www.3abn.org/
Click on the links where it says:
Statement Regarding Linda Shelton
Click here for information.
-
By request.
Re: Linda... Mar 27, 2010 1:08 pm UTC
The issue of adultery was one which arose between Danny and Linda in their marriage. It was one their church later considered. Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
3ABN did not even bring it up and had no plans to until they were forced into that position by Linda herself standing up and saying on her web page and through her defenders in an article in Adventist Today and in various forums. "I did not have sex with that man!" And claiming she was fired for that, which is false....
Mundall registers LindaShelton.org
Domain ID:D104524742-LROR
Domain Name:LINDASHELTON.ORG
Created On:12-Jun-2004 18:34:26 UTC
Last Updated On:02-Dec-2009 11:33:13 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Jun-2011 18:34:26 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:Wild West Domains, Inc. (R120-LROR)
Registrant ID:CR30887988
Registrant Name:Derrell Mundall
Registrant City:Thompsonville
Registrant State/Province:Illinois
May [June] 2004 Vol.12, No.3
http://www.atoday.com/magazine/archive
"Troubled 3ABN Fires Linda Shelton
May 1, 2004 - 12:00pm - Edwin A. Schwisow"
" In a move that consolidates Danny Shelton, president, ever more firmly at the helm of the troubled Three Angels Broadcasting (3ABN) satellite network, the 3ABN board in June voted to dismiss Shelton's now-ex-wife, Linda, from her position as vice president and on-air hostess.
The dismissal came just days before the couple's divorce became final in late June; an uncontested divorce filed in Guam by Danny Shelton, naming Linda as respondent, according to divorce papers obtained by Adventist Today, Linda's dismissal in June was followed immediately by an official release by 3ABN's board chairman, Walter Thompson, to the effect that Linda Shelton had chosen to go a 'different direction' from her husband and 3ABN."
" Meanwhile, sources close to Linda Shelton characterize her removal as a coup-in-the-works for several months leading up to the June announcement. They acknowledge that in months leading up to her dismissal, she had been heavily involved in the rehabilitation of her adult son, Nathan (by a previous marriage), who reportedly had developed serious drug- and alcohol-dependency problems.
The therapy routine, administered by a Norwegian Seventh-day Adventist physician and financial supporter of 3ABN, reportedly achieved outstanding early results. According to Linda Shelton, in a release posted on her Web site, rumors that she had engaged in inappropriately intimate activities with her son's therapist began to circulate at 3ABN, leading in large part to her ouster. She vigorously and consistently denies any improper behavior or relationship with the doctor.
At approximately the same time, Johann Thorvaldson, director of 3ABN development in Europe, was removed from his post and has become an advocate for Linda Shelton. Citing provisions of her agreement with 3ABN, Shelton herself so far has refused to speak with reporters regarding her dismissal or future plans. However, at least two releases written in her name (one on e-mail, the other on her Web site) specifically deny that she committed adultery and attribute her fall to the proliferation of false information about her.[/u]
Sources close to Linda Shelton cite the 3ABN allegation of 'spiritual adultery' as a factor in her dismissal, a phrase invoked among conservative Christians but not readily definable elsewhere. It appears to mean that the person so accused became overly friendly with, or bonded to, a person other than a spouse. Meanwhile, Danny Shelton's daughter by a previous marriage, Melody, has begun to appear regularly on the air as a co-host with her father.
Linda Shelton's dismissal took viewers across the nation by complete surprise, though careful observers had begun to pick up on-the-air cues more than a year ago that all was not well between Danny and Linda."
" At least one affiliate manager [Darell Mundall]interviewed by Adventist Today off the record believes that Linda Shelton's removal could benefit 3ABN ministry long-term. This source indicates that 3ABN has been undergoing troubled times, including a historic loss of revenue income in 2003, and that a shake-up at this time could be a new beginning for the maturing ministry."
" Meanwhile, the emergence of a brand new 'Hope' satellite network, {Mundall's new employment] sponsored by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, is attracting a great deal of interest across the nation, leading at least one influential Northwestern broadcaster, Blue Mountain Television, to sever ties with 3ABN as of Sept. 30. Other non-3ABN-owned stations may follow that lead in months to come, with unwelcome implications for 3ABN's bottom line.
All told, it appears likely that the internal disruption caused by the couple's breakup and the loss of 3ABN's monopoly as the sole source of satellite-driven programming for Adventist-oriented stations will combine to produce a less-than-banner year for 3ABN in 2004.
Oddly enough, Shelton herself sees a beneficial outcome, personally, from her termination. Noting on her new Web site that she had become institutionally sheltered by her many years of work at 3ABN, she says she welcomes the opportunity to get out on her own once again, mixing it up in the real world. She continues to portray herself as supportive of 3ABN's grand vision but conveys a sense of relief at severing ties.
Sources close to Linda Shelton indicate that she is now living near 3ABN headquarters in Illinois, in a modest dwelling, and that income sources include royalties from the sale of music she has written and performed and monthly termination payments. They also say that she has agreed not to comment publicly in ways that could be construed as attacks on her former husband and ministry.
She has also reportedly asked her friends to foreswear any such attacks or attempts to vindicate her, though some are now speaking out."
-
I do not even believe Linda was fired for talking on the phone too long
Then are you saying that you believe that Linda committed adultery, and that that was why she was terminated?
This has gone on long enough.
The issue of adultery was one which arose between Danny and Linda in their marriage. It was one their church later considered. Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
3ABN did not even bring it up and had no plans to until they were forced into that position by Linda herself standing up and saying on her web page and through her defenders in an article in Adventist Today and in various forums. "I did not have sex with that man!" And claiming she was fired for that, which is false. It was first mentioned by 3ABN in July both in a response to that article, and in a follow up statement put on www.3abn.org the same day.
http://www.atoday.net/magazine/2004/07/ ... s-schwisow
"Three Angels Broadcasting Responds to Schwisow
July 1, 2004 - 12:00pm - Walter Thompson
The story by Edwin Schwisow regarding Linda Shelton's recent termination from Three Angels Broadcasting contains a number of basic factual inaccuracies. Even more troubling, given that Adventist Today holds itself out as a Christian, Adventist publication, is the highly misleading slant the article gives to the events by its reliance on "reports" and "sources" from only one side of the matter. It seems that no one currently from Three Angels was spoken to regarding the claims of this story prior to its being sent to the printer.
As chairman of the board, I was involved with this matter early on, and led the independent fact-finding committee that investigated it. We sought intensely for reconciliation, but ultimately we were forced to recommend the termination of Mrs. Shelton from Three Angels. I list below the most troubling aspects of Mr. Schwisow's story.
1
The story of Danny and Linda's separation and divorce is a deeply personal, very sad event that has caused deep pain to all involved. To characterize the event as a "move that consolidates Danny Shelton at Three Angels helm" and as a sort of "coup", as the article claims, is untrue and even offensive to those of us involved in the decision. For the president of a religious ministry to engineer or pursue a divorce to enhance his standing or position at the ministry would be very foolish. Such an extraordinary claim would require extraordinary evidence to support it. Your author has not even ordinary evidence to support it, but is merely engaged in a cynical kind of speculation.
Danny is still the president of Three Angels, and has the full confidence of the board. But these events have caused Three Angels leadership to recognize that Danny needs greater assistance and support in carrying out that role, and the board chairman and others have become more involved in oversight activities. One example is a recently appointed manager of operations to assist Danny in his responsibilities.
2
Mr. Schwisow's attempts to support his "theory" of the meaning of the events at Three Angels by a number of references to claims made by "sources close to Linda Shelton". While he would no doubt deny that he is according these claims the status of "facts", he uses them as though they were. To print and repeat allegations from one side of the story, without acknowledging the views and claims presented by the other side, is to accord the former an unchallenged and privileged status usually accorded only to verified facts.
Anyone who considers the recent events at Three Angels as a "coup" or a "coup-in-the-works" is sadly misinformed and ignorant of the multiple efforts made over several months by Christian leaders to bring reconciliation to both Danny and Linda and to Linda and Three Angels. The list includes Danny and Linda's local pastor; meetings with professional Christian counselors; meetings with myself as board chairman; a review of the facts and further meetings and attempts at reconciliation by an investigative committee made up of Bill Hulsey, an Adventist layman and mayor of Collegedale; Dr. Kay Kuzma, Adventist family expert and author; Nicholas Miller, an Adventist attorney from a national law firm; and myself. Only after multiple efforts by these persons to achieve reconciliation failed was the matter reluctantly taken to the board for final resolution. This sequence of events is no secret. Three Angels described these efforts to its supporters in a letter sent out earlier last summer. Since then, Pastor Mark Finley has made further attempts at reconciliation, all to no avail.
3
Likewise, the printing of claims regarding Linda's relationship with the Norwegian physician to be solely about her son's treatment is to promote a story which the facts do not support. Without going into detail, we have solid evidence that, prior to her divorce and termination, Linda spent considerable time with this physician, both on the telephone and in person, in a manner inappropriate for a leader of a Christian ministry, or for any married woman for that matter. These contacts, inappropriate in their length, subject matter, and subterfuge, continued despite requests by both Danny and other Three Angels leadership that they cease. It is also clear, even by Linda's own admission, that the vast majority of these interactions had nothing to do with medical treatments for her son. In the short time since her divorce, Linda has traveled to Europe twice for nearly five weeks to spend time with this physician. These recent trips, which were taken without her son, have caused many of Linda's formerly die-hard supporters to recognize the truth of the matter of Linda's inappropriate relationship, and to cease their efforts in defending her.
4
The claim that Melody Shelton has begun to regularly appear as co-host is untrue. Melody sings from time to time on Three Angels, but has never co-hosted a program, and tries to avoid public speaking. The truth is that a variety of people have been assisting Danny with hosting responsibilities, and even hosting programs on their own. Of necessity, others are playing roles that Linda has played at Three Angels, but no one has "replaced" Linda. It is doubtful in my opinion that anyone ever will or can replace her unique combination of gifts.
5
Mr. Schwisow cannot seem to decide if the Shelton's unfortunate split is an effort calculated to revive a flagging ministry, as he suggests in paragraph 11, or a grave disruption that will harm Three Angels' prospects over the coming year, as in paragraph 12. Fortunately, neither theory or projection is true. These unfortunate events, which have been strongly resisted rather than cultivated, have caused both the leadership and supporters of Three Angels to draw together in prayer and support for the ministry. We have chosen to view these events with the eye of faith, looking for the opportunity the Lord always brings at a time of crisis. Due to this, Three Angels has significantly expanded, nearly doubled, its potential viewers, and financial support is well ahead of where it was last year at this time. Your author's prediction of a "less-than-banner-year", whether he meant number of viewers or financial support, is not supported by the facts.
In my view, this article is far from being simple news story that recites the facts in a fair and balanced fashion. Rather, it is a story with an agenda. I am not opposed to a story with an agenda, when it is not presented as a news story, when there has been a careful review of both sides of the matter, and where the author is quite certain of his or her facts. Such is not the case here. Rather, a few facts have been mixed in with a number of allegations from one side of the story, and then it has been stirred together with an anti-Danny Shelton, anti-Three Angels slant.
I am in favor of a church of greater openness. Events, good and bad, at times need to be aired and reported on. But it is an axiom of Christian charity that we should seek to put the most reasonably positive construction on events rather than the most negative. Mr. Schwisow's story fails on this most fundamental and elemental of tests. We hope that Adventist Today will hold future stories regarding Three Angels and other Christian ministries and leaders to a higher standard.
Walter Thompson, M.D., Chairman of the Board
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc."
-
I do not even believe Linda was fired for talking on the phone too long
Then are you saying that you believe that Linda committed adultery, and that that was why she was terminated?
This has gone on long enough.
The issue of adultery was one which arose between Danny and Linda in their marriage. It was one their church later considered. Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
3ABN did not even bring it up and had no plans to until they were forced into that position by Linda herself standing up and saying on her web page and through her defenders in an article in Adventist Today and in various forums. "I did not have sex with that man!" And claiming she was fired for that, which is false. It was first mentioned by 3ABN in July both in a response to that article, and in a follow up statement put on www.3abn.org the same day.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040703001418/http://www.3abn.org/
click on link where it says:
Letter from 3ABN Board Chairman
Click here for information
Posted July 1, 2004
Dear 3ABN Family:
You may have heard by now of changes that have recently happened at Three Angels Broadcasting Network. We believe we owe you, as a loyal supporter of this ministry, an accounting of recent events regarding the former Vice President of 3ABN.
Out of respect for the privacy of those involved, we cannot reveal all details. But after prayer and reflection, we are convicted that we should share with you what we responsibly can.
You may have noticed that Linda Shelton has not appeared on 3ABN telecasts for the last few weeks. That is because as of June 1, 2004, the 3ABN Board of Directors removed Linda from her role as Vice President and as a board member. More recently, she has been discontinued as an employee of 3ABN as well.
We want to assure you that this decision was not made by one or two people, nor was it made in one or two weeks. Rather, the situation developed over nearly five months, and was dealt with by the full 3ABN leadership, including its Board of Directors.
The issue relates to a matter that arose in Danny and Linda Shelton's marriage. They were not able to resolve the matter, despite many attempts with their local pastor and other counselors. It was then brought to my attention as Chairman of the Board.
In order to make a thorough, fair and independent review of the matter, I convened a fact-finding committee of well-known Adventists who are not employees of 3ABN. The committee consisted of myself; William Hulsey, a businessman and mayor of Collegedale, Tennessee; and Kay Kuzma, author and family issues expert. We were counseled in our deliberations and review by Nicholas Miller, an Adventist attorney associated with a major national law firm.
The committee members spoke with all relevant witnesses. It invited Linda to meet with the full committee and to present any witnesses she might wish to have speak on her behalf.
Upon reviewing the situation, it was clear to the 3ABN leadership that the source of the conflict lay in certain choices that Linda was making. We asked her, both verbally and in writing, to make different choices. She refused.
Under the circumstances, the board had no real choice but to take the actions it did in regards to Linda’s position at 3ABN. Should Linda reconsider her course of conduct, we would also reconsider our decision regarding her role at 3ABN.
Please pray for Linda, for Danny, and for the 3ABN ministry during this time. We believe in a God of miracles, who can renew and restore. This ministry was started and built through a series of miracles. Those miracles continue to this day, and we believe that many more are yet to come.
We believe that this ministry will continue to move forward, taking its direction from our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is His ministry, and not that of any man or woman. The Board of Directors, President Danny Shelton, and I as Chairman, are committed to doing His will with this organization.
Please join us in supporting 3ABN with your prayers and financial support. We know you have done so in the past, and we are deeply thankful for it. But right now the devil is doing his best to derail this work because we are pressing the front close to his strongholds.
This month we added a quarter of a billion potential viewers in India, as our signal is being placed on cable systems through much of this Hindu nation of 1.1 billion souls. This effectively doubles the viewership of 3ABN, virtually overnight. We are also being placed on the most-watched cable-network in the Washington D.C. area, giving us access to the political and thought leaders of our country.
Please don’t let the devil succeed in heading off the vital work of 3ABN at this crucial time. You have faithfully supported this ministry in the past. Show us your continued resolve and support by making a faith pledge or donation to support us during this tremendous expansion of our coverage.
Your efforts and support are the medium through which God allows 3ABN to carry its gospel message to the world. We thank God and you for that support.
In His Service,
Dr. Walter Thompson, Chairman
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.
P.S. I came across a quote recently that highlighted the importance of 3ABN’s resolve to “Go ye into all the world”: “The Duke of Wellington was once present where a party of Christian men were discussing the possibility of success in missionary effort among the heathen. They appealed to the Duke to say whether in his judgment such efforts were likely to prove a success commensurate to the cost. The old soldier replied: ‘Gentlemen, what are your marching orders? Success is not the question for you to discuss. If I read your orders aright, they run thus, “Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” Gentlemen, obey your marching orders.’” Gospel Workers, p. 115.
-
There was gossip in my local church (which is far from Illinois) at that time that "Linda had an innappropriate relationship with a man over the telephone". This spread fast and that this relationship was very innappropriate was accepted as an undeniable fact. My friends were thinking that meant, "phone sex" or a hot and steamy romantic involvement - you know the kind - with heavy breathing and lots of passionate sweet talk. 3ABN didn't have to claim that she committed adultry because folks were allowed to believe that she already had and they soon believed that she had left Danny for another guy because they could see that she wasn't on the air anymore. People were feeling sorry for Danny. No one indicated just how bad or not bad things were but they were allowing people to believe that they were protecting Linda's reputation by keeping silent because they the truth was so bad.
-
Excerpt from a private letter written by the 3ABN chairman of the board explaining what Linda was fired for.
It simply could not continue the way things were going. Though I and the board did not get involved in the marriage, we were very much concerned about the ministry. All the while, this was taking a real toll on the ministry. Work was not getting done. The employees were pulled in both directions... Linda said on her web site recently that I had told Johann a year before that I had never accused her of adultery. She was correctly quoting a portion of my statement to Johann, but what she did not bother to say is that I was defending 3ABN against an accusation that we had fired her for adultery. I was merely telling him that it was for defiance of her board that she was let go, not because of adultery, an accusation, it is true, I never stated. As you can see from the few things I have included here, we have had ample evidence to suggest adultery, but it is true, we have not seen the two of them in bed together.
Our position on the board all through this process was to take the high road and not to tell things like this to the public, attempting to protect Linda from even more hurt that she was doing to herself. In all of our public statements, we have tried to be discrete. To protect the ministry from a public confrontation, we also gave Linda a good settlement with the agreement that she would not bad mouth 3ABN. And while she has partially fulfilled her obligation, her "friends" have kept the pot boiling - contrary to her agreement.
Those wanting to read the letter in full can do so here:
http://references4links.blogspot.com/2007/05/wt-answering-questions.html
-
There was gossip in my local church (which is far from Illinois) at that time that "Linda had an innappropriate relationship with a man over the telephone". This spread fast and that this relationship was very innappropriate was accepted as an undeniable fact. My friends were thinking that meant, "phone sex" or a hot and steamy romantic involvement - you know the kind - with heavy breathing and lots of passionate sweet talk. 3ABN didn't have to claim that she committed adultry because folks were allowed to believe that she already had and they soon believed that she had left Danny for another guy because they could see that she wasn't on the air anymore. People were feeling sorry for Danny. No one indicated just how bad or not bad things were but they were allowing people to believe that they were protecting Linda's reputation by keeping silent because they the truth was so bad.
I would not argue with you that gossip, rumors and surmising has gone on, it has, for years, all of it ugly and unchristian in my opinion. Where I might differ with many here is in how it all started. I don't think it will be resolved, but at least the published documents above along with the archives of Linda's website demonstrate how the published internet stuff came about. As far as the Doctor goes she recently claimed in court that he is practically the only friend she has left next to her grown children, after explaining how he loaned her 100,000 to buy her house and the money to pay her lawyers. That seems rather inconsiderate and ungrateful of the friends and supporters of hers here on this forum, but that's my opinion, and actually gossip too.. So I'm done.
Have a blessed day...
-
You and I might indeed differ about how it started. A preacher I know of was gossiped about. The rumor was out that he had been married before and I believe they said he had a divorce. He had never been married before and of course wasn't divorced. He said it was very hard to track the rumor down enough to find out where it started so he could understand why anyone would even think so and so he could attempt to straighten them out.
I once was gossiped about. People would deny it to my face but talk about me behind my back and it wasn't true. How can you defend against that?
The thing I found unsettling about the accusations against Linda is that everything that happened or is still happening was said to be her fault. She seemed to be the scapegoat for everything bad or questionable that happened at 3ABN. I can't believe that she is evil as you said, or that she positioned herself to be the victim and that she is clever like a fox. It is rarely the case that one sets themselves up to be publicly humiliated, scorned and blamed in Adventist circles as she has been. Unlikely that anyone would deliberately put themself in that position.
Edited to finish my chain of thought.
-
I think you may want to go back and reread what was said and by whom, and even what was said. You seem to me to have some things wrong in your reply.
But as far as this statement goes
"The thing I found unsettling about the accusations against Linda is that everything that happened or is still happening was said to be her fault. She seemed to be the scapegoat for everything bad or questionable that happened at 3ABN."
I have no idea what you are talking about or referring to whether in the past or now. I do personally believe her own wrong choices led to her own troubles but I have no idea how Linda has been blamed for every thing bad or questionable at 3abn or even what those things even are, and how she was involved.
Again I think you may be mis-attributing things. Really look around here and at all the threads and posts, it is Danny I see being blamed and accused NOT Linda and it's gone on for years from the group of Linda supporters and defenders. Yes, that I lay at her feet also with no apologies for that.
Sorry to disagree with you...
laters...
You and I might indeed differ about how it started. A preacher I know of was gossiped about. The rumor was out that he had been married before and I believe they said he had a divorce. He had never been married before and of course wasn't divorced. He said it was very hard to track the rumor down enough to find out where it started so he could understand why anyone would even think so and so he could attempt to straighten them out.
I once was gossiped about. People would deny it to my face but talk about me behind my back and it wasn't true. How can you defend against that?
The thing I found unsettling about the accusations against Linda is that everything that happened or is still happening was said to be her fault. She seemed to be the scapegoat for everything bad or questionable that happened at 3ABN. I can't believe that she is evil as you said, or that she positioned herself to be the victim and that she is clever like a fox. It is rarely the case that one sets themselves up to be publicly humiliated, scorned and blamed in Adventist circles as she has been. Unlikely that anyone would deliberately put themself in that position.
Edited to finish my chain of thought.
-
When this thing started I was very pro 3ABN and inclined to think that there was merely a misunderstanding between Linda and Danny. I felt that he had mistaken her independence for rebellion and that he became jealous that another might have as much or more influence on her than he did. I felt that his jealousy had made him over react and that Linda had taken offense at his orders and had become more determined not to be dictated to. From the first my husband who had always been jealous of me said that though he himself understood Danny's feelings "He (Danny) is making a big mistake."
When Brandy came along, I thought she might be a gold digger and that Danny was "on the rebound" and wanted a cute girlfriend or wife so he could say "So there! Two can play at this game." I felt that if Danny's friend and Linda's friend would disappear the two of them might be able to work it out.
I no longer feel that way. I quit feeling that way a long time ago. On the various forums Danny's supporters indicated that those of us who had questions about what had happened or what was happening at 3ABN were "On Linda's side or were "Linda's supporters". We were accused of trying to bring down 3ABN or trying to put Linda back in. Not just on this site but on others. Some perhaps do feel this way. That is not how I feel. That was not and is not my motive. And it is not the motive of everybody who was asking or investigating. I was accused of lying or being biased when I specificly was trying to find out what the truth of the matter was. In trying to find out who was telling the truth about 3ABN I found out a lot of things on my own. Not just because others investigated and then I believed what they had found and not because I believed their testimony. But mostly from court cases and legal papers and from the words and actions of those defending 3ABN. You would be surprised how much is public record available to anyone who will take the time to check the facts. I felt that people on both sides but mainly on Danny's were taking what was claimed without checking to find out what was true. So much of this information was said to come from Linda when I knew where it came from and it wasn't from her at all.
Maybe I should have said that not just Linda but Linda (and her so called followers who are not all really her followers) have been blamed for everything.
-
Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
I call this a direct statement and it has my attention as someone stating what they believe is a true fact and close to the situation.
Now in order to make this statement it applies to one knowing the exact truth or leading it away from other hidden facts on way or the other.
So, even though the statement of not firing because of adultery as you claim and your claim of LS forcing the issue in the manner she did to be "crazy as a fox". The question is for a direct repy of all knowing what the board was having difficulty for some other reason as you emplied.. Then what was the reason if not what you claim??
Accusations? or what was the cause other then your direct statememt of adultery not the issue.. a direct answer should be clear and not withheld as a witness that comes forth with truth.
What you have done here is send a link to show all evangelists that will appear at 3abn evidently because they uphold your theory of actual happening evidently.
As I looked at your link --it is still beyond me, why the evangelists are with a self proclaimed off shoot of non denominational and denial of affiliation with SDA church and the minglers presence there causing SDA real members contributing to the 3abn company. I do not go along this this manuvering what so ever. I feel they are helping this fraud out quite a bit. Tell me this is not what is happening. Our evangelists having the continuation of pew money sent for 3abn with their denial of credentials. I also realize that our Evangelists draw from SDA members SDA church so what is going on here? Are SDA GC so corrupt that the money cannot go their either??? I really do not know next question either. Is Hope Channel and 3abn connected somehow? I feel you should know that too. I orginally understood that Hope was now of the SDA church on their own and yet some programing comes from 3abn as it sometimes states.
-
Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
How would you know? Were you there?
By April 27, 2004, after Linda hid Danny's gun, Danny decided to end their relationship. He then wrote Alyssa on April 28 about his decision, citing alleged spiritual adultery, and wrote up an offer to buy Lida's half of the house on April 29.
See Danny's April 28 letter to Alyssa at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-114-21.pdf (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-114-21.pdf). Read particularly pages 3-4, and how Danny says he's telling Walt, and refers to "this sin" and the 3ABN Board. Can you honestly say that Danny's allegations of spiritual adultery had nothing whatsoever to do with Linda's termination?
-
Excerpt from a private letter written by the 3ABN chairman of the board explaining what Linda was fired for.
... She was correctly quoting a portion of my statement to Johann, but what she did not bother to say is that I was defending 3ABN against an accusation that we had fired her for adultery. I was merely telling him that it was for defiance of her board that she was let go, not because of adultery, an accusation, it is true, I never stated.
First of all, Walt is an unreliable source of information.
Second, I personally asked Walt if there were any board meetings between April 27, 2004, and the one after the May camp meeting. He told me there were none.
Third, in Danny's April 28, 2004, letter to Alyssa linked above, Danny at the bottom of page 3 admits that the entire board had not yet dealt with the issue.
THEREFORE, Linda had never defied the board, because the board had never given her any ultimatums.
HOWEVER, Danny allegedly defied the board more than once and was never terminated, so defying the board may not be that big a deal to the 3ABN Board.
-
But as far as this statement goes
"The thing I found unsettling about the accusations against Linda is that everything that happened or is still happening was said to be her fault. She seemed to be the scapegoat for everything bad or questionable that happened at 3ABN."
I have no idea what you are talking about or referring to whether in the past or now.
I recall both John Lomacang and Danny Shelton singing that song. But there was simply no way that that could be true, that everything was Linda's fault and the fault of her alleged supporters.
-
Adultery was not an issue which entered into the decision of the 3ABN board to remove her from the board or to terminate her employment.
I call this a direct statement and it has my attention as someone stating what they believe is a true fact and close to the situation.
That's because it is a true statement, and it has never been a secret, A quote was provided in this thread and it was from the Chairman of the 3ABN board of trustees stating exactly why she was fired. He certainly knows why they fired her! The entire board knows why they fired her as they all voted to. They have no reason to lie about it not being for adultery, think about it Tinka. Doesn't a ministry have cause to remove someone from their position if the issue is adultery? Especially if it's a leadership position? Yes they do, you know that. So, if that was the reason 3ABN would have just said so.
They wouldn't even have had to prove it to anyone else as a conference President sits on the board of 3ABN always to ensure that there is accountability even though 3ABN is an independent adventist ministry, meaning they are not owned or controlled by the SDA Conference but support the SDA conference and work with them.
If your church disciplines a member for adultery it's done by the church and is private. Joe Blow off the street or from another Church doesn't have any right to come in demanding to see the evidence. Joe blow doesn't have the right to come in a demand to see the proof and evidence from a board meeting of a non profit organization either.
They met, went over all the evidence and events leading up to that time and fired her for her "defiance of the board"
And they have said that all along, to Linda and anyone else who asked.
For example the quote which was already posted here, from the Chairman of the 3ABN board:
It simply could not continue the way things were going. Though I and the board did not get involved in the marriage, we were very much concerned about the ministry. All the while, this was taking a real toll on the ministry. Work was not getting done. The employees were pulled in both directions... Linda said on her web site recently that I had told Johann a year before that I had never accused her of adultery. She was correctly quoting a portion of my statement to Johann, but what she did not bother to say is that I was defending 3ABN against an accusation that we had fired her for adultery. I was merely telling him that it was for defiance of her board that she was let go, not because of adultery, an accusation, it is true, I never stated. As you can see from the few things I have included here, we have had ample evidence to suggest adultery, but it is true, we have not seen the two of them in bed together.
You can read his whole letter here:
http://references4links.blogspot.com/2007/05/wt-answering-questions.html
The truth is no one has a right to believe or claim the board lied about why they fired her unless they can prove it.
Yes I know Linda claims she was fired for adultery. Perhaps that is because then she can claim I am innocent, I was fired unjustly! And a whole lot of people have heard this and believe it and have got very upset about it. It's a downright crying shame.
On the other hand she can't claim she was unjustly fired for defiance of the board, which is what she was fired for. She was sent a letter and ultimatum after this all went on for months and it was causing problems with work not getting done and employees being torn in one way or the other, after the Board chairman decided things couldn't go on that way for the wellbeing of the ministry. He appointed a fact finding group to looked into it all, as was his duty according to 3ABN's by laws, and then they reported to the entire 3ABN board. She refused to comply with the conditions of her continuing employment and refused to even answer. Further she refused to even come to the board meeting where it was all to be discussed and decided. She merely sent a letter still defying them. The 3ABN board went over all, including her letter and decided they had no choice but to let her go. She made her own choice, Tinka.
That's all I can tell you, so accept it, or don't.
-
Thank you for comments and link. I read all that before but wonder on several statements. It does not make clear what you are referring to for LS job on the set. Would the discrepancies against board be difference in SDA doctrinal policy? It seemingly says all the workere were being pulled apart in all directions, (that could mean lack or organization in programming or who is telling truth about facts between marriage).
I can't seem to find the answer when it is not spelled out the reason she defied the board unless it pertained to the accusations first and therefore reacted against them as the accusations would have to come from DS and all that he presented to board to prove his side. But you still tend to sound that their was other reasons that the board was in defiance by LS. also it is not clarified what she meant about DS staying out of her affairs. One could take that as the saga goes that her son was not DS affairs because of his remarks. I believe a lot could be clarified to outsiders in these matters. All DS actions thereafter seem very very odd expecially with choice of another and who he married.
But you are mostly letting on that the firing is caused by an adverse way of job performing before any of this?? One thing for sure that I do believe and if she did not put out the letter explaining it would never have been stated because of all other pertinent info on the rest of situations with Shelton family that has been discovered.
-
I find it amusing how they are still holding on to that weak straw as if their existence depended on it. All the letters Danny Shelton wrote to me during that period demonstrate how he constantly changed his explanation as he fumbled in the dark when shown he was not telling the truth. Later, when all other explanations failed they came up with what these people are trying to make us believe now with the documents being posted today and yesterday.
Why are they so scared just now? What has happened?
-
Danny_Defender,
You didn't address the specific points I made. Could you do so?
Remember, Linda could not have been fired for defying the board if she never was given an opportunity to0 defy the board.
You mention the board going over all the evidence. Evidence of what? The conference president told me he had seen video. Video of what? Of Linda defying the board? Hardly.
-
3abn defender,
You made your case ,you gave your side , I for the first time read the first letter to LS. I read it all & first time for some others and I still cannot believe what I read and the board did a thing like this-- to read this inhuman arrogant degree of guilty, sealed, signed, butchered and delivered back to a group of inhuman judges led by what some claim to say that DS is the most powerful man in the business. Then at the end of posts ASI stating that all would be paid by 3abn for all the meeting, comments and decisions rendered by them under the most gallant agreement of DS. This is worse then I could even imagine. I was getting bits and pieces here and there with all documents. But the letters from the board, J. Lomacane is not even American in what has been done here. Yes, the letter was a damaging claim of unproven accusations. She was actually let go for accusations, no other way out other then to admit guilt and ask for repentence by "Stoners". I cannot be on here as it makes me too angry.
I really believe that when God says his church will be first in line for judgement , He already gave the test for minglers and denial of credentials in a very big panoramic test.
I know first hand what people of the church are capable of and would love to give horrible experiences made public.
To then back someone in a corner with the threat of losing her home and all the threats that were in that letter written before proof or in right circumstances will definitely be "cohersion" to pay money to shut her mouth and all that malarkey. Like giving a drop of water to a dyin duck.
If LS was guilty and all this true let a jury do the proving and then all would have been believable, exceptable and non confusing--all this should not even be said in that letter until a court of law had proven facts. It was all staged by the producer. In fact at this moment I firmly believe this needs to be heard in a court of law and possibly justice will come there instead of expecting it from the SDA church. I cannot believe this. If I would have got that first letter and thought myself innocent. I would have held the money aside and went and Sued them for this "Entrapment" of guilt and used the money to do it. Better justice would come from public jury. I totally would have taken the stance of Bob and Gailon after reading that malarkey on ASI and there rules that came from none other the the "money holder that would pay them for all their time, meetings etc,etc,etc,". :horse: feed Talk about being angry. It brings up old unjustified wounds of fraud and corruption from the same kind of people in our neck of the wood.
I must say the board and their input was as if they were..puppets! You admitted you really did not see them in bed. But Danny is at the helm. yet! until......finished. Truth will prevail but not the way the board went about it. That was corrupt.
-
The documents in the new thread, *********************************************** were posted specifically in response to posts here in this thread by childoftheking who claims to want to investigate all and just know the truth, and for Tinka , who wants to know what is documented and known, and read that.
I am not going to argue with your opinions, (or your very revealing laughter in response to that childoftheking. Henceforth I will not take your claims seriously) You are all responsible for what you do with the information and whether you accept or don't accept it.
I do want to clarify a few things here due to childoftheking's post. The group referred to in this thread as Linda's supporters and defenders who are at the root of all the gossip, slander and attacks against DS and 3ABN is a small core group. In archiving all of the posts from the first ones made on Club Adventist about LS and DS, and then 3ABN to the last ones made on Blacksda in the 3ABN section, they are revealed and identified. Neither I or anyone else can out them here as it would not be allowed so I am only saying that to explain that that reference does not include those who have joined in along the way in attacking and misjudging DS or 3ABN. Those we consider victims. If you were falsely criticized or attacked I can only apologise, but it is very hard to take seriously your claim that "On the various forums Danny's supporters indicated that those of us who had questions about what had happened or what was happening at 3ABN were "On Linda's side or were "Linda's supporters". We were accused of trying to bring down 3ABN or trying to put Linda back in. Not just on this site but on others" precisely because we do have all the forums and posts archived, so I know what they all say. I suggest that the next time you make any such claims you document them and give examples of what you are talking about.
I have said all that I am going to say on this topic.
God bless.
Edited to remove inappropriate content.
-
I have said all that I am going to say on this topic.
Therefore it is crystal clear that you know that it is a lie that Linda was fired for defying the board, since the board did not meet between January and the end of May. If you knew otherwise, then you would have had no problem answering my question.
If you were falsely criticized or attacked I can only apologise, but it is very hard to take seriously your claim that "On the various forums Danny's supporters indicated that those of us who had questions about what had happened or what was happening at 3ABN were "On Linda's side or were "Linda's supporters". We were accused of trying to bring down 3ABN or trying to put Linda back in. Not just on this site but on others" precisely because we do have all the forums and posts archived, so I know what they all say. I suggest that the next time you make any such claims you document them and give examples of what you are talking about.
Here is a selection from my Dec. 9, 2006, reply to an email sent from Danny's email account:
"You can believe Gailon and Linda if you choose. But I know first hand about their lies they have told. Barb Kerr just wrote me and told me that Gailon is voicing that he has uncovered at least 8-10 affairs that I have had since I married Linda. God knows and I know that is lie. There has never been one!"
For the record, I am basing what I believe to be fact upon what Danny, Dr. Thompson, Hal and Mollie Steenson, John Lomacang, Melody Firestone, and the O'Briens have said.
As far as how many affairs Gailon said that Danny has had, Gailon's actual wording in his email of Nov. 26 states that Danny has had "inappropriate relationships," not "affairs." I would very much appreciate Danny writing back and stating unequivocally that he has not had one single inappropriate relationship in the last 22 years.
Now why in the world would Danny (or whoever wrote the email for him) accuse me of getting my information from Gailon and Linda when he knew full well that that was not the case?
And Sam on this forum just accused me of trying to destroy 3ABN because of my concern over the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton:
ANSWER: His tireless quest to try and bring down Danny Shelton and 3ABN.
How much documentation do you need?
I do recall Greg Thompson on BSDA make this sort of claim too, and I do recall being falsely accused of being one of Linda's supporters.
-
(or your very revealing laughter in response to that childoftheking.
I believe the very revealing laughter was posted by someone else not me. 3ABN_Defender I was not asking you for material to help me investigate. I was stating how I felt back in the beginning when the rumors about Linda started. I said that I no longer felt the way I did in the beginning. The reason I don't is because I have investigated neutral and disinterested sources. Court documents, filings and so forth. I have long ago seen your material. Seeing it again doesn't help. You hurt your case.