Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Johann on March 31, 2011, 12:43:33 PM
-
God loves the sinner at AdventTalk, but hates the sin. That is the truth of the matter. God does not always deal with mankind the way they deserve. He is merciful. Yet there will be a day of reckoning, a day of judgment. For some it will come sooner than for others. For some perhaps just around the corner. God will not be mocked, neither will He keep his patience forever. You don't know who is the "apple of His eye." But God does.
"Oh be careful little lips what you say
Oh be careful little lips what you say
There's a Father up above
And He's looking down in love
Oh be careful little lips what you say."
With this significant quote from TRUTH at another site I start this new topic. I agree with every word quoted - and this is my great goal in life. It was also with this in mind that I accepted a position with that great ministry, 3ABN, at the time of my retirement after serving my church from 1951 to 2003 in various capacities in several countries on two continents. It has been a great life and a wonderful experience working with some of the best people imaginable of various colors and races. Best of all - so many of these people loved truth and peace found through the Gospel of Jesus Christ. My memories from all those years of work are mostly like sunshine - until I discovered how the reputation of one precious soul was being murdered by lies and intrigues.
Unfortunately the website where I found this quotation seems devoted to justify these lies and intrigues, and most of what is accepted there serves that purpose. May God have mercy!
Yes, I am talking about Linda Shelton. She might not be perfect, but the Lord knows she is innocent of all the accusations leveled at her for adultery by her former husband and all of his cronies.
Is the Lord pleased with all of your false accusations against this woman which some of you repeat again and again until you imagine the lie has become a truth? Is this the truth you people want to live with, hoping it gets you into Heaven?
So if you insist on continuing your demonic accusations, don't bring them here, unless you have a verification beyond a shadow of doubt. I have never seen a single one? Have you?
Yes, we are bound for a better land and a brighter future. How far in that direction will the Lord allow your travels as long as you carry those false accusations in your baggage?
Let us pray together for TRUTH to prevail.
-
Johann,
Say "hello" to my friend Eric.
Bill
-
Johann,
Say "hello" to my friend Eric.
Bill
Bill,
This is the first time you post here on AT, but sure is good to see you. And how I appreciate all that you have done already many years ago to preserve truth and proclaiming the precious gospel and message of Jesus Christ our Savior.
At 2:30 in the morning both Eric and I woke up to see your message and Eric is also so thankful to get this message from you. You know he was at Gospel Outreach when the 3ABN people made their calls in their attempts to discredit Linda.
May God remain with you, Bill, as we all unite in front of the Cross of Jesus Christ, faithful to Him for the sake of TRUTH. Just like charcoal is cleansing the poisoning effects of dying cancer cells out of Eric's body these days, may the Holy Spirit cleanse our hearts and bodies to preserve TRUTH for HIS sake!
If not before, we will see each other in the realms of Glory, Bill.
Blessings,
Johann
-
Johann,
You've got my attention on your mention of "charcoal" use. I have used charcoal on my family and my mother before me and remembered EGW stating a "poultice used on the stomach of one women. Are you talking about using this Internally or Externally for the use of cancer. Don't mean to get very personal but know a woman that is going second round on Breast cancer. It would be good to know how the use is being done with "charcoal" as you mentioned.
-
Several years ago a medical doctor in USA told at a medical convention his own experience when he was an associate at a hospital where a patient was brough in with a mushroom poisoning. His superior told the associate the patient would die, and told him what medication to give the patient to ease his discomfort. When the associate examined the patient he thought of a medicine he had read was available in Germany which might heal the patient. He got hold of the medicine which was fully approved by German medical authorities. He gave it to the patient who was completely healed.
When hospital authorities discovered what he had done he was given a warning for disobeying orders given by his superior.
Later another patient was brought to the hospital also with mushroom poisoning. The chief physician again told his associate the patient was doomed to die and ordered the same treatment as before. But the associate was unwilling to just let the patient die so he used the same medication as he had administerd to the previous patient. The second patient was healed as well. When the hospital authorities discovered he had again disobeyed orders he was fired.
Fortunately it is fully legal to use such medication in certain countries where the medical industry does not force Congress to enforce regulations that serve their financial interests.
Eric happens to be treated right now by a medical doctor in one of these countries. Charcoal does not heal cancer but it removes the poison the dead cancer cells leave in the body, and thereby eases the discomfort of the patient. It is another medicine which revives the healthy cells and kill the cancer cells. The charcoal is taken internally together with a good supply of fresh water when the patient feels discomfort. In some countries charcoal is not available because it is used by many drug addicts to survive, and I suppose the authorites there do not want them to survive!!! I know that private Adventist health ministries in these countries who use charcoal in their healing have had to import it from other countries.
-
AND WHAT DOES THE "OTHER SITE" KNOW ABOUT TRUTH???
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Activated carbon, also called activated charcoal, is well known to chemists and medical personnel to have healing properties which include the ability to remove harmful materials from air, solutions and the human body. This occurs even in its simplist form. Processed to combine with specific chemical agents (materials) it can be made more specific the the harmful agent involved.
If you want to know more about activated carbon, check with Wikipedia.
It should be noted that it is the "activated" form of charcoal that works in removing harmful agents. Common charcoal is not activated and while it will removes some harmful agents, it does not remove near the quantity that activated charcoal can remove.
-
Correct - we are dealing with "Activated Charcoal is one of the finest natural absorbent agents. Each particle contains many small chambers and cavities that 'capture' or bind-up unwanted materials and gas, which are safely carried out of the digestive system."
-
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the LORD.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
When is the time to settle the matter - and how?
How is it possible to settle a matter when the only intention of a whole insititution is to blame a woman for what she has never done?
And when a site has been created for the purpose of making an innocent woman guilty of what there is not the slightest evidence?
Is that not a sin? Even if it is a dreadful sin to blame the innocent the Lord invites to participate in a settlement. Is that possible as long as falsehood separates from pursuing the TRUTH? They are still without the slightes shred of evidence that what they are blaming her for has ever taken place. What will then happen when the angels appear on the clouds of glory to rescue the righteous?
Edited to correct a spelling mistake
-
They had an opportunity to "Come together and settle matters" in 2007 with the ecclesiasitcal process. They did not like the terms that would guarantee an open and fair process, pulled out and decided to elect Governmental Authority to try and settle the matter. Anytime a religious order elects to have a government enforce it's will, that is a clear and open exhibition of the Spirit of Anti-Christ.
As long as Danny Lee Shelton is on that board and they have the form of governance they currently utilize, they will continue to be the counterfeit...after all, they are non-denominational, aren't they???
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
Being fired for healing a patient?
Very interesting.
Several years ago a medical doctor in USA told at a medical convention his own experience when he was an associate at a hospital where a patient was brough in with a mushroom poisoning. His superior told the associate the patient would die, and told him what medication to give the patient to ease his discomfort. When the associate examined the patient he thought of a medicine he had read was available in Germany which might heal the patient. He got hold of the medicine which was fully approved by German medical authorities. He gave it to the patient who was completely healed.
When hospital authorities discovered what he had done he was given a warning for disobeying orders given by his superior.
Later another patient was brought to the hospital also with mushroom poisoning. The chief physician again told his associate the patient was doomed to die and ordered the same treatment as before. But the associate was unwilling to just let the patient die so he used the same medication as he had administerd to the previous patient. The second patient was healed as well. When the hospital authorities discovered he had again disobeyed orders he was fired.
Fortunately it is fully legal to use such medication in certain countries where the medical industry does not force Congress to enforce regulations that serve their financial interests.
Eric happens to be treated right now by a medical doctor in one of these countries. Charcoal does not heal cancer but it removes the poison the dead cancer cells leave in the body, and thereby eases the discomfort of the patient. It is another medicine which revives the healthy cells and kill the cancer cells. The charcoal is taken internally together with a good supply of fresh water when the patient feels discomfort. In some countries charcoal is not available because it is used by many drug addicts to survive, and I suppose the authorites there do not want them to survive!!! I know that private Adventist health ministries in these countries who use charcoal in their healing have had to import it from other countries.
-
Reading betweent he lines, this is what I think happened:
There are many medications that are approved for use in other countries but not apptoved for use in the United States. (Or perhaps the medication is approved for use in the U.S. but not for the illness for whilch the doctor used it.) The use of an unapproved medication, or its use in a manner that is not approved has the potential for subjeacting the hospital for significant liabilaty exposure.
If a doctor seriously wants to use a medication not approved for use in the U.S. or in a manner that is not approved, there is a proceedure by which permission may be granted. In some cases it simply requires the approval of an Institutional Review Board which may prescribe education of the patient for potential harm along with certain legal release documents. In other cased, it will require permission of the U.S. government.
NOTE: On certain levels individual physicians use approved medications in a manner that has not been approved and do so on a regular basis. In such cases it is typically the manafacturer of the medication that has sold the physician on the availability of the medication for non-approved useage. In these cases, if the government wants it stopped it typically obtains a court order direciting that the medication not be sold for a specific unapproved useage.
Individual physicians have a lot of freedom as to what they do in their own practice. My wife sometimes has a leaning toward an alaternative, non standard medication. Our family physician will obtain that alternative medication for her and administer it to her in that non-standard manner. But, it would not easily happepn in an institution such as a hospital.
-
Postby Truth » Fri Jul 29, 2011 7:22 pm UTC
Elder Thorvaldsson, I don't need to prove a thing--common sense tells me it was Linda that wrote it or she dictated it to sister and she wrote it down. Either way, it came from Linda Shelton. Try proving it didn't.....
You have shown yourself that your assumptions are not dependable. You have stated that you never read more than the beginning of the book. If you had read the whole book you had clearly seen that it also deals with matters that neither Linda nor "sister" would know anything about. A strong indication that neither of them wrote it. I happen to know for certain that your opinion about the authorship is based on false assumptions. It is a while since I asked Linda if she knew the contents of the TELEVANGELIST. At that time she assured me she had never read it and that she did not want to read it.
The author uses a pen-name, just like you do. Since you are not using your right name either you have no reason to reveal your assumptions, which some of us know for certain are false.
18 “Come now, let us settle the matter,”
says the LORD.
“Though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
though they are red as crimson,
they shall be like wool.
When is the time to settle the matter - and how?
How is it possible to settle a matter when the only intention of a whole institution is to blame a woman for what she has never done?
And when a site has been created for the purpose of making an innocent woman guilty of what there is not the slightest evidence?
Is that not a sin? Even if it is a dreadful sin to blame the innocent the Lord invites to participate in a settlement. Is that possible as long as falsehood separates from pursuing the TRUTH? They are still without the slightest shred of evidence that what they are blaming her for has ever taken place. What will then happen when the angels appear on the clouds of glory to rescue the righteous?
Edited to correct a spelling mistake
-
That other site claims their purpose is only that of defending 3ABN. . .
Some years back I had decided to withdraw from Advent Talk. What made me decide to re-join was because I saw how much of that defense is based on such false presumptions as presented by TRUTH that Linda wrote the TELEVANGELIST. How can such presentations be a valid base of defense?
John 8:32
Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Presumptions or opinions do not count here!
-
Postby Truth » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:37 pm UTC
Linda denied having written the Televangelist? I have some land in Timbuktoo to sell you Johann!! :roll:
I didn't need to read that filthy trash all the way through in order to form an opinion on who wrote it. It was as obvious as the nose on my face. Really Johann, what are you going to do when everything hits the fan and Linda is exposed for what she really is? :shock:
What will you do when it hits you? It so happens I know who collected that material without any help from Linda, but from various other available primary sources. So your opinion is completely worthless if you are trying to change my knowledge of how it came into existence.
-
I do, too, Johann! A fantastic writer who should be published, in my opinion.
It is interesting how Linda is responsible for everything. Global warming is probably her fault, too...
Postby Truth » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:37 pm UTC
Linda denied having written the Televangelist? I have some land in Timbuktoo to sell you Johann!! :roll:
I didn't need to read that filthy trash all the way through in order to form an opinion on who wrote it. It was as obvious as the nose on my face. Really Johann, what are you going to do when everything hits the fan and Linda is exposed for what she really is? :shock:
What will you do when it hits you? It so happens I know who collected that material without any help from Linda, but from various other available primary sources. So your opinion is completely worthless if you are trying to change my knowledge of how it came into existence.
-
It is interesting how Linda is responsible for everything. Global warming is probably her fault, too...
The debt crisis? ObamaCare? The Tsunami? The tornadoes down south? The flooding? The drought? ....
-
Postby Truth » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:37 pm UTC
I have some land in Timbuktoo to sell you Johann!! :roll:
My wife suggests you keep that property for yourself as a safer place of residence - and never show yourself anywhere else, she adds.
-
It seems that The Televangelist has been resurected as a bone of contention once again. I seem to have a vague recollection that you, Johann, had been declared the author and that the person who made this declaration said he had all the proof that Linda dictated and you wrote it. Furthermore, I have some recollection of him saying that a friend of his would be pursuing you with litigation on the matter. Is my memory correct on this?
-
It seems that The Televangelist has been resurected as a bone of contention once again. I seem to have a vague recollection that you, Johann, had been declared the author and that the person who made this declaration said he had all the proof that Linda dictated and you wrote it. Furthermore, I have some recollection of him saying that a friend of his would be pursuing you with litigation on the matter. Is my memory correct on this?
Yes, that is correct. He even trailed me at the General Conference session wanting to pick up copies he thought I had given to people I met. But he found none. It seems like I finally convinced him I had not written The Televangelist. But he apparently would not accept that Linda was not involved.
It is rather strange that even though the book does not state which one of hundreds of televangelists in USA it deals with, I heard him make the "accusation" on a TV program that the book was dealing with him and that it contained some truth in it. A smart televangelist could have ignored it.
-
I also know that Linda was not the one who authored the Televangelist.
But I will have to agree with Snoopy, it is very well written!
-
I also am aware of the fact Linda was not involved, and know who was. But people whose agenda requires that they believe a lie will cause themselves to believe it. It is sadly what cult members and followers must do in order to justify themselves to themselves. When the fundamental platform for a movement is based on lies, it is only lies that can sustain it.
I also know that Linda was not the one who authored the Televangelist.
But I will have to agree with Snoopy, it is very well written!
-
I would suppose "Truth" might actually posses some capital holdings in Timbuktoo. It's primary claim to fame is as a conduit in the slave trade. A small city in Mali, it is impoverished and has had a bad reputation for many centuries as a poor investment. Therefore "Truth" you may wish to consider looking for other like-minded slave traders with whom to trade in your Timbuktoo holdings.
Postby Truth » Sun Jul 31, 2011 3:37 pm UTC
I have some land in Timbuktoo to sell you Johann!! :roll:
My wife suggests you keep that property for yourself as a safer place of residence - and never show yourself anywhere else, she adds.
-
A fantastic writer who should be published, in my opinion.
:thumbsup:
:dogwag:
-
I may have missed something somewhere but is The Televangelist a published book?
-
It is the story of a televangelist. Danny Shelton claims that it is partly his story but certain parts he does not like
Note: I used my iPod to read and post this item. Now I'm making corrections.
-
I may have missed something somewhere but is The Televangelist a published book?
"The Televangelist" By Jorgen VanBraun (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,63.0.html)
-
"The Televangelist" By Jorgen VanBraun (http://www.adventtalk.com/forums/index.php/topic,63.0.html)
It's right here on our site for everyone to read.
-
Now some people are going to read it for the first time just because it was brought up again. Oh well someone didn't think that one through.
-
I see that "Truth" is someone VERY CLOSE to Danny Shelton!!!
-
Now some people are going to read it for the first time just because it was brought up again. Oh well someone didn't think that one through.
:goodpost:
And that's not the only thing not thought through today!!
-
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
-
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
-
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
Who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath? :dunno:
-
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
;) Yep!
-
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
;) Yep!
OK - back at ya!! ;)
-
So anyone know if there is a sequel planned?
-
That's a great idea!
-
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
;) Yep!
OK - back at ya!! ;)
I'm sure it is important to attack someone on "Sabbath observance" when nothing else comes to mind.
-
So anyone know if there is a sequel planned?
It is my understanding that there is.
-
So anyone know if there is a sequel planned?
It is my understanding that there is.
Really?
-
With all the sloppy homework being presented a sequel seems unavoidable.
-
Why you all don't have a fainting smiley when sista needs one! LOL!!! Any decent SDA should need resusitation(sp) right about now.......
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
-
How about simply "takes his daughter to see Harry Potter...?" That simple question is so
fundamentally in opposition to Adventist Theology that "on the Sabbath" is just fine for
this tortured apostate. OVER THE EDGE...
Gailon Arthur Joy a proud card carrying member of Tea Party Adventism
AUReporter
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
Who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath? :dunno:
-
How about simply "takes his daughter to see Harry Potter...?" That simple question is so
fundamentally in opposition to Adventist Theology that "on the Sabbath" is just fine for
this tortured apostate. OVER THE EDGE...
Gailon Arthur Joy a proud card carrying member of Tea Party Adventism
AUReporter
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
Who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath? :dunno:
Well that's the same snake you and Pickle have clasped to your bosom all along, Joy,. The one who all along has played nice-nice with 3abn ( I was there) while stabbing all in the back and falsely accusing them. The same man who you and Pickle listed as one of your main sources against 3ABN in your court documents. The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.
Will this post , as others here, be deleted as "inappropriate material" or as being a "personal attack" when I am just trying to make the truth known and cause folks to think or at least question things?? We'll see... ( As always we make copies as we are used to this forum and the characters and double standards here) I am guessing that "sda minister" who previously only tried to identify 3abn sabbath breakers will never say a word against his crony here or acknowledge any wrong.. I am guessing that members who post: "I'm sure it is important to attack someone on "Sabbath observance" when nothing else comes to mind. " and who have never made that observation before when it concerned their own making such accusations, will NEVER do so in the future either wbut will support the accusations their own make in that regard, or zip their lips. Can we say "partiality" or "bias"?
Shame on you all, you need to do your homework and get to know who you believe or disbelieve, and learn to prove all things rather than believing what you choose to, or going by appearances or your own impressions.
-
You, Sir mizer, are a false accuser. Bearing False witness is breaking the ten commandments, remember those commandments that were TWICE REMOVED!!! Well, you just made it three(3).
Starting with the purported source, let's be clear that we did not publish anything from ANY SOURCE that could not be corroberated by at least TWO (2) SOURCES. That is a standard that none of the 3ABN perpetrators EVER UTILIZED...assuming you have any standards at all.
And you are now in a position to prove the visitation allegation. IT IS ALSO A FALSE ACCUSATION!!!
We did our homework and you ran in the face of the evidence and the TRUTH. 3ABN is a sham and a hypocrisy and needs to be sept aside with the rest of the apostacy...yes, #ABN is an apostate.... A LIVING LIE!!!
The shame is on all those that perpetuate the LIE. And that clearly includes you. I can safely declare that if you could not LIE, you would behave nothing to say.
Keep up the venerable work of misrepresentation, salacious and libelous false staements and perpetuate yourself into the abyss. An appropriate punishment for your foul mouth.
Gailon Arthur Joy a proud card carrying Tea Party Adventist
AUReporter
-
Mercy! You all these two venomous posts were posted on Sabbath.....for Nosir....what happened or didn't happen at your church today that you can come skrate home from worship service and post that kind of stuff? I'm jes askin'................ :dunno:
-
"For to be free is not merely to cast off one's
chains, but to live in a way that respects and
enhances the freedom of others."
--Nelson Mandela
-
You, Sir mizer, are a false accuser. Bearing False witness is breaking the ten commandments, remember those commandments that were TWICE REMOVED!!! Well, you just made it three(3).
Starting with the purported source, let's be clear that we did not publish anything from ANY SOURCE that could not be corroberated by at least TWO (2) SOURCES. That is a standard that none of the 3ABN perpetrators EVER UTILIZED...assuming you have any standards at all.
Three negatives do not a positive make, Joy. That has been the problem all along. You have 2 or three people telling a story and think that it is established as the truth. It isn't. Many accused Jesus of the same things, over and over, but when examined, none of their stories matched, remember that? Let me give you an example of a story your source gave you and one you claim was verified. A 10,000 love gift from 3ABN to Tommy Shelton. You think that happened, you repeat it over and over, but it never happened, there was no such check from 3ABN to TS, and he has said that and challenged folks to check bank accounts and 3ABN has denied it, but you have your 3 liars as "sources".. and never seem to realize you have zero evidence to back it up.
And you are now in a position to prove the visitation allegation. IT IS ALSO A FALSE ACCUSATION!!!
You should talk to the different parties and see the paperwork before making such claims Joy, as this claim of yours just confirms for me you have never done so, and that you don't bother to "investigate" thoroughly before "reporting".
snipped balance...
For Princess Di --
Your continuing condemnations and judgments against both sides while refusing to find out the truth before doing so is tiresome also, it doesn't make you look fair, imo, it make you appear uninformed. IMO, you should not say anything unless you have facts or evidence to contribute but, if you choose to keep talking that's your right.
I will just say that your definition of venomous and mine are obviously different. It is my belief that identifying a false accuser and instigating troublemaker is not breaking the Sabbath, nor does it mean I had a bad day at Church. That's ridiculous imo. What is venomous in my book is false accusations and gossip and slander against others. The bible identifies that as having a poison tongue, character assasination (murder)and sin. I don't like that and I will say that and can, even though you think it's mean. We'll just have to disagree and let the Lord decide, alright?
-
Sir Mizer,
I realize you are delusional, and let me clarify that Tommy Ray Shelton, Danny Lee Shelton and a good many of the "Administrators" of 3ABN are anything but reliable sources.
But this I can most certainly assert...that "love gift" and several other "love gifts" had sources from within your beloved financial dept and at least one was incidently verified by your beloved General Manager. The "LOVE GIFTS" were originally disclosed by several internal sources and those we could get verified were reported. BUT, rest assured, the missing money and payoffs in their various forms have frequently been confirmed by so many sources they are OVERWHLMING...and I dare you to try it out...stipulate to vacate YOUR dismissal and we will finish discovery and put it to a Federal Jury.
My guess is that further evidence will come into the light of day with the current litigation, unless you are willing to pay a few million to get rid of this newest discovery revelator!!!
We have repeatedly proven that Tommy and Danny are AVID LIARS and I invite them to reopen the civil court system and try and prove otherwise. Any takers??? How about the Sir Mizer???
AND if you are so confident, simply vacate the "confidentiality" order and we will be happy to display ALL THE EVIDENCE. Think you can handle it? Get me a document authorizing the vacating of the confidentiality agreement and let's just see what surprises are in those "confidential" portfolios. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU, YOU WIMPS!!!
And as to the "visitation issue" shall we say "put your documents where your mouth is" and be sure to tell the entire story or I shall be happy to embarrass you once again. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT ALLEGATION IS GROUNDLESS AND JUST ANOTHER EFFORT TO PERPETUATE A FALSE ALLEGATION!!!
A SPECIALTY OF THE 3ABN TEAM!!! LIAR, LIAR is the best description!!!
SO VACATE THE DISMISSAL AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER AND LET"S SEE HOW RED YOU CAN REALLY GET!!! DOUBLE DOG DARE!!!
You and your ilk remain an embarrassment to the Three Angels Message and the Seventh-day Adventist Church...and more and more you are proving yourselves to be IRRELEVANT and HYPOCRITS. The Lord will shut you down soon enough!!!
And let's discuss that name...you are clearly a misnomer and should be ashamed to proclaim and perpetuate such a lie!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
How about simply "takes his daughter to see Harry Potter...?" That simple question is so
fundamentally in opposition to Adventist Theology that "on the Sabbath" is just fine for
this tortured apostate. OVER THE EDGE...
Gailon Arthur Joy a proud card carrying member of Tea Party Adventism
AUReporter
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
Who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath? :dunno:
Well that's the same snake you and Pickle have clasped to your bosom all along, Joy,. The one who all along has played nice-nice with 3abn ( I was there) while stabbing all in the back and falsely accusing them. The same man who you and Pickle listed as one of your main sources against 3ABN in your court documents. The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.
Will this post , as others here, be deleted as "inappropriate material" or as being a "personal attack" when I am just trying to make the truth known and cause folks to think or at least question things?? We'll see... ( As always we make copies as we are used to this forum and the characters and double standards here) I am guessing that "sda minister" who previously only tried to identify 3abn sabbath breakers will never say a word against his crony here or acknowledge any wrong.. I am guessing that members who post: "I'm sure it is important to attack someone on "Sabbath observance" when nothing else comes to mind. " and who have never made that observation before when it concerned their own making such accusations, will NEVER do so in the future either wbut will support the accusations their own make in that regard, or zip their lips. Can we say "partiality" or "bias"?
Shame on you all, you need to do your homework and get to know who you believe or disbelieve, and learn to prove all things rather than believing what you choose to, or going by appearances or your own impressions.
Wow...this may be the most spot on post ever presented here. So many accurate points that any argument would be foolish.
*******************************************
Yes he has been a "source" for years for Pickle & Joy. So when Joy spouts that he has at least 2 "sources" maybe one should question who those "sources" are. So far the "sources" have been known liars, ex employees with a beef, bitter ex wives and people desperate for attention. Desperate for attention would include pickledjoy themselves.
The truth is Pickle or Joy have never been to 3abn, have never met Danny, Mollie, Jim or the board members. They have never met any of the accountants or auditors or any of the people they have accused of wrong doing. They have never spent even one day watching 125 3abn employees function at full capacity to bring the gospel of Jesus Christ to the world.
How long can they say that Doug B, Kenneth Cox, David A, John C. and a host of other ministers are just "over looking" 3abn crimes? How long can it be said that the full support of the conference towards 3abn is just so they can "use" it to their own end? Why would they need 3abn when they have Hope and even Loma Linda? Doesn't make sense does it? How long before you all cannot make excuses for 3abn support from all these powerful sources that have been to 3abn, have watched day to day functions, have met and come to know those that work there? How long before you acknowledge that Pickle and Joy and their wonderful "sources" stand for nothing in the presence of those who are well aquainted with 3abn staff and administration and who know and understand men like Joy and Pickle and their "sources". Those who understand the difference between facts and rumors, gossip, lies, "I was told" and "one must come to the conclusion that...". Not to mention that Joy and Pickle have less than stellar backgrounds and have been caught in lie after lie. Add that to the fact that anyone in the world who would read Joy's rantings and ravings could not deny mental instability.
This little fiasco that started with Linda then was taken up by Pickle and Joy has dwindled to almost nothing as more and more people have seen the light, the truth and the nature of those involved in trying to bring down 3abn. It just isn't working anymore.
Edited to remove inappropriate content.
-
Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.
Such as? Please be specific.
-
The truth is Pickle or Joy have never been to 3abn, have never met Danny, Mollie, Jim or the board members. They have never met any of the accountants or auditors or any of the people they have accused of wrong doing.
Your statement is false.
I agree with Gailon. Stipulate to vacating the dismissal order and confidentiality order, and we'll lay out that documented facts for all to see.
But in reality, such is unnecessary. Regarding the kickback issue, there is plenty already in the public domain to prove that there was a kickback scheme, including Simpson's admission. All the Remnant documents would do is prove how much in kickbacks Danny Shelton got from Remnant.
-
The truth is Pickle or Joy have never been to 3abn, have never met Danny, Mollie, Jim or the board members. They have never met any of the accountants or auditors or any of the people they have accused of wrong doing.
Your statement is false.
I agree with Gailon. Stipulate to vacating the dismissal order and confidentiality order, and we'll lay out that documented facts for all to see.
But in reality, such is unnecessary. Regarding the kickback issue, there is plenty already in the public domain to prove that there was a kickback scheme, including Simpson's admission. All the Remnant documents would do is prove how much in kickbacks Danny Shelton got from Remnant.
You made all these accusations before the lawsuit, Pickle. You should have had proof or said nothing then. Since then the IRS investigated all of your complaints, and found nothing... NOTHING. You can't prove what others far more qualified then you and your fellow accusers could not. The IRS was allowed to go back as far as they liked if they had reason to, but didn't go back even as far as all your alleged crimes indicated they should have for they had no reason to. Your continued claims about the house agreement etc and saying well they never investigated back that far are STUPID. If your reported accusations had any merit or could hold water or were even questionable they would have and could have gone back that far, and further.
Please educate yourself:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/24465262/Irs-Criminal-Investigation
You claim --without proof or support-- that 3ABN payed an exorbitant amount of money.
If the criminal investigation had uncovered any wrong doing,(kick backs etc) they would have filed an indictment. The very purpose for the IRS to do so is as a public deterrent, and thus it is always public, not secret or private. They are required to file an indictment once the investigation uncovers any wrongdoing or crimes etc... They haven't done so. Only after a indictment and trial would fines or penalties be awarded, and again, that WOULD BE PUBLIC. Under certain situations the IRS might accept payments or corrections to Filed returns or reports, but those exceptions are limited, very limited, and always involves filing a corrected or amended return and filingswhen that is done, NEVER after the fact. It has been years now... and there are no amended or corrected public filings, are there? If there had been? It would be in the public domain, and you would have published it as proof. You have NOT done so for there aren't any.
You claim Simpson admitted the house issue and others weren't investigated but he never said that. That is your convoluted reasoning and false logic. When you start with a false premise , Pickle? Your logic always falls apart.
All Simpson ever said was what years the investigation covered, the rest is your fantasy as you can't accept you could be mistaken or wrong, and thus you are a false accuser.
You have claimed the IRS investigation is ongoing and not closed, despite claiming that 3ABN illegally ordered documents destroyed when the IRS asked what they wanted them to do with all the copies they had made for their investigation, and despite the fact that the originals were not destroyed. Why would the IRS even ask them that if the investigation was ongoing? They would still need the documents to continue investigating and making a case, right? Most rational and sensible people can understand that. Why can't you, Pickle?
Give it up, Pickle! You aren't infallible and it's not working. It never will.
-
How about simply "takes his daughter to see Harry Potter...?" That simple question is so
fundamentally in opposition to Adventist Theology that "on the Sabbath" is just fine for
this tortured apostate. OVER THE EDGE...
Gailon Arthur Joy a proud card carrying member of Tea Party Adventism
AUReporter
Minions must do what minions must do to try making points. Its their function.
And this from one who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath. Hhmm...
Who allegedly takes his daughter to see a Harry Potter movie on the Sabbath? :dunno:
Well that's the same snake you and Pickle have clasped to your bosom all along, Joy,. The one who all along has played nice-nice with 3abn ( I was there) while stabbing all in the back and falsely accusing them. The same man who you and Pickle listed as one of your main sources against 3ABN in your court documents. The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.
Will this post , as others here, be deleted as "inappropriate material" or as being a "personal attack" when I am just trying to make the truth known and cause folks to think or at least question things?? We'll see... ( As always we make copies as we are used to this forum and the characters and double standards here) I am guessing that "sda minister" who previously only tried to identify 3abn sabbath breakers will never say a word against his crony here or acknowledge any wrong.. I am guessing that members who post: "I'm sure it is important to attack someone on "Sabbath observance" when nothing else comes to mind. " and who have never made that observation before when it concerned their own making such accusations, will NEVER do so in the future either wbut will support the accusations their own make in that regard, or zip their lips. Can we say "partiality" or "bias"?
Shame on you all, you need to do your homework and get to know who you believe or disbelieve, and learn to prove all things rather than believing what you choose to, or going by appearances or your own impressions.
It seems like you do keep a good record of certain things. Did you also keep a record of the phone call a certain lawyer made to apologize he had made a false accusation of pornography that he could not prove?
-
Sirmizer,
Let's start with the kickback issue.
It is a proven fact that 3ABN buys books from Pacific Press, but instead bought Danny's Pacific Press booklets from Remnant for a higher price when Remnant didn't even stock them. Simpson admitted that Danny got paid by Remnant for those sales.
On what basis are you claiming that such payments were not kickbacks?
After you have adequately explained this one, we can move on to other issues.
-
Sir Mizer,
I realize you are delusional, and let me clarify that Tommy Ray Shelton, Danny Lee Shelton and a good many of the "Administrators" of 3ABN are anything but reliable sources.
But this I can most certainly assert...that "love gift" and several other "love gifts" had sources from within your beloved financial dept and at least one was incidently verified by your beloved General Manager. The "LOVE GIFTS" were originally disclosed by several internal sources and those we could get verified were reported. BUT, rest assured, the missing money and payoffs in their various forms have frequently been confirmed by so many sources they are OVERWHLMING...and I dare you to try it out...stipulate to vacate YOUR dismissal and we will finish discovery and put it to a Federal Jury.
My guess is that further evidence will come into the light of day with the current litigation, unless you are willing to pay a few million to get rid of this newest discovery revelator!!!
We have repeatedly proven that Tommy and Danny are AVID LIARS and I invite them to reopen the civil court system and try and prove otherwise. Any takers??? How about the Sir Mizer???
AND if you are so confident, simply vacate the "confidentiality" order and we will be happy to display ALL THE EVIDENCE. Think you can handle it? Get me a document authorizing the vacating of the confidentiality agreement and let's just see what surprises are in those "confidential" portfolios. I DOUBLE DOG DARE YOU, YOU WIMPS!!!
And as to the "visitation issue" shall we say "put your documents where your mouth is" and be sure to tell the entire story or I shall be happy to embarrass you once again. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT ALLEGATION IS GROUNDLESS AND JUST ANOTHER EFFORT TO PERPETUATE A FALSE ALLEGATION!!!
A SPECIALTY OF THE 3ABN TEAM!!! LIAR, LIAR is the best description!!!
SO VACATE THE DISMISSAL AND THE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER AND LET"S SEE HOW RED YOU CAN REALLY GET!!! DOUBLE DOG DARE!!!
You and your ilk remain an embarrassment to the Three Angels Message and the Seventh-day Adventist Church...and more and more you are proving yourselves to be IRRELEVANT and HYPOCRITS. The Lord will shut you down soon enough!!!
And let's discuss that name...you are clearly a misnomer and should be ashamed to proclaim and perpetuate such a lie!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
Arthur,
I appreciate your bluntness, but I accept NOTHING you claim with words only. Your bellicose blusters, double dog dares, empty claims of proof, your dire threats, and your false judgments that I, or another, are sinful or damned, your name calling and chants such as "wimps" or "liar, liar!" mean nothing to me, as I have considered the fruits and lack of documentation well before now. I'm sorry, but I do consider you scary, and mentally unbalanced and fanatical, but you can't and don't frighten me, and never will. We both know that isn't what the Lord was talking about when he asked us to love one another as He loved us or asked us to come reason together, or what Paul meant when he said "let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind" along with "Let this mind be in you which was also in Jesus Christ", for that last is how each man needs to become fully persuaded... I do hope and pray for the best for you, despite that... and hope you do for me as well. So? Let's not waste our time with such childishness or unchristian dialogue in the future, please.
You threatened:
"be sure to tell the entire story or I shall be happy to embarrass you once again. YOU KNOW VERY WELL THAT ALLEGATION IS GROUNDLESS AND JUST ANOTHER EFFORT TO PERPETUATE A FALSE ALLEGATION!!!
A SPECIALTY OF THE 3ABN TEAM!!! LIAR, LIAR is the best description!!! "
Please be aware that you can't embarrass me on this issue.
I know this man's version and excuse and explanation. I have heard it. I have also heard his friends who believed it, repeat it and try to explain it in their own words- although they weren't there and only knew what he said, as do you.
I was trying to explain how all involved or witness to should also be heard and diligent inquiry and investigation done. I have done that also, but you, Sir, have not.
I don't know how you could have verified this as you claim with at least 2 sources, when only this man tells his story... You never talked to his ex-wife or family.
Even Linda Shelton, who is not a 3abn supporter and who was aligned with him, and who after all the problems stopped by his house, was disturbed by what she saw and warned his ex-wife out of concern-- although they were estranged and had been for quite some time, Linda calling her "the enemy" and refusing to even appear with her at the same events, etc..
He was not just divorced once for his problems and blamed because he had stood by Linda (according to him), this was the second divorce. He had been in counselling, he had been under church discipline and even his new employers knew and had talked to him about this, and you were given their names to contact , Joy. Brad Thorpe being one. I don't know if any of those involved would have talked to you or even if they would today, but to the best of my knowledge you never made the attempt.
That is why I find you and you investigations wanting. Perhaps you would not have agreed still, but my point is you never bothered to make the attempt, or apparently saw the need, but presume to judge me and call me a liar, and demand proof from me as if you require it now. It is not up to me to furnish all their statements and the documents to you to disprove the lies, it was up to you to ask for all that before you started making claims and false accusations or defending evil doers. That is not right, Joy, to my way of thinking and that is all I have to say about topic.
-
Sirmizer,
Let's start with the kickback issue.
It is a proven fact that 3ABN buys books from Pacific Press, but instead bought Danny's Pacific Press booklets from Remnant for a higher price when Remnant didn't even stock them. Simpson admitted that Danny got paid by Remnant for those sales.
On what basis are you claiming that such payments were not kickbacks?
After you have adequately explained this one, we can move on to other issues.
More dust in the wind... The IRS trumps you, Pickle. Deal with it.
-
Sirmizer,
Let's start with the kickback issue.
It is a proven fact that 3ABN buys books from Pacific Press, but instead bought Danny's Pacific Press booklets from Remnant for a higher price when Remnant didn't even stock them. Simpson admitted that Danny got paid by Remnant for those sales.
On what basis are you claiming that such payments were not kickbacks?
After you have adequately explained this one, we can move on to other issues.
More dust in the wind... The IRS trumps you, Pickle. Deal with it.
That's as I thought. You have no way to explain it, because there is no way to explain it.
Now if you think the IRS approved of the kickbacks, or said that the kickbacks weren't kickbacks, then by all means, publish the official IRS statement here. But there is no such IRS statement, and you know it.
The truth trumps you, Sirmizer. Deal with it.
-
Folks, The IRS does not make statements vindicating those it investigates if nothing is found. Nor would they ever make a statement saying something illegal or in violation of U.S. codes and statutes was ok. Pickle knows this, and that what he is asking for is impossible here.
On the other hand,when the IRS do find something wrong or criminal. They do publish and make known all indictments and charges as a PUBLIC Deterrent. For that same reason they also make known sentencing and fines when those who are indicted go on to be found guilty. If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, it would have resulted in a tax evasion charge at the least... He is 100% wrong here, he has no indictment,as the IRS found nothing, he has no proof of amended returns as none were needed or filed. Again, because the IRS found NOTHING wrong. He has no public announcements or news releases or court filings from the IRS or the courts backing anything he is continuing to claim here. The IRS investigated far more thoroughly than Pickle, Joy and their sources ever did, had access to far more documents, and they found NOTHING wrong or needing corrected. It's been over for quite awhile despite the false accusations still going on here. The very fact that none of these things have occurred and that none of these things were filed and all of the copies of the documents they made for their investigation were returned or destroyed IS the proof that the IRS Investigation is over and that the investigation vindicated 3ABN.
I am quite sure Pickle is going to continue arguing and insisting he is right, but I am not going to bother arguing back anymore about this. Imo it's a waste of time, just plain ridiculous, arrogant, and downright pathetic the way he and Joy are still carrying on in their denial and refusal to face reality with their repeated false accusations.
L8trs...
-
If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....
It's a proven fact that Remnant paid Danny kickbacks for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. How so? Because Attorney Simpson admitted that payments were made by Remnant to Danny for those sales!
You have no credible evidence whatsoever that the IRS found nothing either criminally or civilly wrong with Remnant's kickback payments to Danny.
-
If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....
Sirmizer,
Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.
1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
-
So now there are some stalkers out there? Lol! Oh well, one would expect nothing less from these cult members. It's just standard mo for their ilk. The normal cult behaviors as seen in the Jonestown members and the followers if David Koresh.
-
Probably would not recognize themselves standing before the mirror of history
-
“Deception has endless variations, which Satan tailors to our natural bents. Like a seasoned fisherman, he selects the lure that he knows is most likely to attract his intended prey-the one we are least likely to consider harmful. He does not care what we believe, as long as we don’t believe the Truth. The Truth is the only thing he cannot withstand; it causes his kingdom and his control to crumble.”
Nancy Leigh DeMoss
-
If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....
Sirmizer,
Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.
1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Yoo hoo! Surmizer!
Could you please answer the above two questions? Shouldn't be too hard since you are so certain that Remnant never paid Danny any kickbacks. Either you're going to have to deny that payments were made, or you're going to have to try to claim that Pacific Press wasn't the publisher, and thus that the payments were genuine, bona fide royalty payments. I'm eager to hear your explanation.
If you need to review what booklets we're talking about, Pacific Press has them listed here: http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch (http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch). Notice how the ISBN numbers (visible for each title when you click "details") contain 8163, a code that identifies Pacific Press as the publisher. And Remnant does NOT have the booklets listed here: http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton (http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton). Thus, nothing has changed in the last two years since Simpson tried to tell the court that Danny switched publishers for these booklets from Pacific Press to Remnant.
So the only possible explanation I see that you can make is to deny that any payments were made, and to assert that Simpson was just shooting the breeze when he told the court otherwise. But who's going to believe that?
-
If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....
Sirmizer,
Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.
1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Yoo hoo! Surmizer!
Could you please answer the above two questions? Shouldn't be too hard since you are so certain that Remnant never paid Danny any kickbacks. Either you're going to have to deny that payments were made, or you're going to have to try to claim that Pacific Press wasn't the publisher, and thus that the payments were genuine, bona fide royalty payments. I'm eager to hear your explanation.
If you need to review what booklets we're talking about, Pacific Press has them listed here: http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch (http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch). Notice how the ISBN numbers (visible for each title when you click "details") contain 8163, a code that identifies Pacific Press as the publisher. And Remnant does NOT have the booklets listed here: http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton (http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton). Thus, nothing has changed in the last two years since Simpson tried to tell the court that Danny switched publishers for these booklets from Pacific Press to Remnant.
So the only possible explanation I see that you can make is to deny that any payments were made, and to assert that Simpson was just shooting the breeze when he told the court otherwise. But who's going to believe that?
My, how time flies, Sirmizer.
Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?
-
If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....
Sirmizer,
Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.
1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Yoo hoo! Surmizer!
Could you please answer the above two questions? Shouldn't be too hard since you are so certain that Remnant never paid Danny any kickbacks. Either you're going to have to deny that payments were made, or you're going to have to try to claim that Pacific Press wasn't the publisher, and thus that the payments were genuine, bona fide royalty payments. I'm eager to hear your explanation.
If you need to review what booklets we're talking about, Pacific Press has them listed here: http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch (http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbcpdcqxvzutj/sstu/p1/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch). Notice how the ISBN numbers (visible for each title when you click "details") contain 8163, a code that identifies Pacific Press as the publisher. And Remnant does NOT have the booklets listed here: http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton (http://server8.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/sbxzugoryctnjojxlles/shvtzz/p1/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton). Thus, nothing has changed in the last two years since Simpson tried to tell the court that Danny switched publishers for these booklets from Pacific Press to Remnant.
So the only possible explanation I see that you can make is to deny that any payments were made, and to assert that Simpson was just shooting the breeze when he told the court otherwise. But who's going to believe that?
My, how time flies, Sirmizer.
Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?
Please reread the following and let it sink in...
Sirmizer,
Let's start with the kickback issue.
It is a proven fact that 3ABN buys books from Pacific Press, but instead bought Danny's Pacific Press booklets from Remnant for a higher price when Remnant didn't even stock them. Simpson admitted that Danny got paid by Remnant for those sales.
On what basis are you claiming that such payments were not kickbacks?
After you have adequately explained this one, we can move on to other issues.
More dust in the wind... The IRS trumps you, Pickle. Deal with it.
Folks, The IRS does not make statements vindicating those it investigates if nothing is found. Nor would they ever make a statement saying something illegal or in violation of U.S. codes and statutes was ok. Pickle knows this, and that what he is asking for is impossible here.
On the other hand,when the IRS do find something wrong or criminal. They do publish and make known all indictments and charges as a PUBLIC Deterrent. For that same reason they also make known sentencing and fines when those who are indicted go on to be found guilty. If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, it would have resulted in a tax evasion charge at the least... He is 100% wrong here, he has no indictment,as the IRS found nothing, he has no proof of amended returns as none were needed or filed. Again, because the IRS found NOTHING wrong. He has no public announcements or news releases or court filings from the IRS or the courts backing anything he is continuing to claim here. The IRS investigated far more thoroughly than Pickle, Joy and their sources ever did, had access to far more documents, and they found NOTHING wrong or needing corrected. It's been over for quite awhile despite the false accusations still going on here. The very fact that none of these things have occurred and that none of these things were filed and all of the copies of the documents they made for their investigation were returned or destroyed IS the proof that the IRS Investigation is over and that the investigation vindicated 3ABN.
I am quite sure Pickle is going to continue arguing and insisting he is right, but I am not going to bother arguing back anymore about this. Imo it's a waste of time, just plain ridiculous, arrogant, and downright pathetic the way he and Joy are still carrying on in their denial and refusal to face reality with their repeated false accusations.
L8trs...
-
Sir Mizer has "Dust in the Eyes" and is obviously blind...
BUT, Sir Mizer, that stipulation to vacate the confidentiality order is very easy to put together and we will be happy to post all that documentation for the Laodiceans with eyesalve that can read the facts for themselves...what's the matter, SIR Mizer, AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH???
Just get that that stip and let's put those documents where your mouth has been for all these years!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter - A Tea Party Adventist
-
My, how time flies, Sirmizer.
Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?
Sirmizer,
Your reply to the above questions is unintelligible.
First off, which question were you replying to? No one who reads your reply can figure out what you were really saying.
Were you conceding the point that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Or were you denying that any such payments had occurred, even though Attorney Greg Simpson admitted that such payments had occurred?
Or were you only denying that such payments were kickbacks? And if that is the only thing you were denying, what would you call those payments, then?
-
My, how time flies, Sirmizer.
Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?
[NO!!!, Pickle has zero reason to conclude that, other than that he assumes that those who choose not to participate in childish or illogical or un-meritorious or unsupported and repetitious arguments are conceding to him. How arrogant is that? In my bnook, that is exceedingly arrogant...]
Sirmizer,
Your reply to the above questions is unintelligible.
First off, which question were you replying to? No one who reads your reply can figure out what you were really saying.
Were you conceding the point that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?
Or were you denying that any such payments had occurred, even though Attorney Greg Simpson admitted that such payments had occurred?
Or were you only denying that such payments were kickbacks? And if that is the only thing you were denying, what would you call those payments, then?
Folks,
This man, along with GAJ keeps insisting on calling me "sirmizer" or "surmizer" when that is not my login name here. My login and registered name is: " Nosir Myzing." I chose that name as a reminder to all, including myself... Doesn't common courtesy, even apart from the rules here, dictate he should address me by the name I registered with? I would think so, especially as he objected to being called Robert Pickle ( his legal name, and one that court documents identified, along with his acknowlegment about that) and as he insisted that his other login name "SDAminister" contain caps... In light of this, and his objections to beinf misnamed, I consider his deliberate misnaming of me, rude, and a violation of the golden rule and of his own standardswhich he uses to find fault with others and demands apologies for.
But moving on...
As I previously posted: When you start with a false premise , Pickle? Your logic always falls apart. (http://server1.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s1iwolzo/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s41jxpmap/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/stvlfgbtlus/sqrs/p1/forums/index.php/topic,2109.msg32911.html#msg32911)
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
I previously posted:
"You made all these accusations before the lawsuit, Pickle. You should have had proof or said nothing then. Since then the IRS investigated all of your complaints, and found nothing... NOTHING. You can't prove what others far more qualified then you and your fellow accusers could not. The IRS was allowed to go back as far as they liked if they had reason to, but didn't go back even as far as all your alleged crimes indicated they should have for they had no reason to. Your continued claims about the house agreement etc and saying well they never investigated back that far are STUPID. If your reported accusations had any merit or could hold water or were even questionable they would have and could have gone back that far, and further."
Anyway "truth posted the following elsewhere and I consider it pertinent and relevant, but understand you all may not... Despite that, we consider the readers and those not involved but looking for answers as more important than those here (who may be biased and partial, and are considered as such by us) so this is quoted for them, and we hope it is allowed and the right of others to consider all trumps what those here decide to delete as "inappropriate"...
Re: Squelching Rumors
Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:10 am UTC
Hello Robert Pickle;
Do you know the difference between "kickbacks" and "royalties" ?
Here's are defintions to show the difference:
Kickbacks: an illegal, secret payment made in return for a referral which resulted in a transaction or contract.
http://www.investorwords.com/2695/kickback.html
Royalties: A royalty is a percentage of gross or net profit or a fixed amount per sale to which a creator of a work is entitled which is agreed upon in a contract between the creator and the manufacturer, publisher, agent and/or distributor.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/royalties/
Danny Shelton received a set royalty payment from the sale of his books. And why not--most people get paid for their work. This was an agreed upon contract with Remnant Publishing.
Re: Squelching Rumors
Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
So what happens in a IRS criminal investigation? Please read below:
What Happens In IRS Criminal Prosecutions
You'll know you have IRS issues if you open your door and the person identifies himself as a special agent from the Criminal Investigation Division or CID. Special Enforcement and General Enforcement are 2 arms of the IRS police department. Special Enforcement investigates organized crime, drugs, and unions. General Enforcement gets common taxpayers and others.
You do not really have to be the one under investigation to be contacted by the CID. It could be anybody you know. Do not lie and be careful with dealing with the CID as 80% of all crimes are prosecuted through their thorough investigation and you may unwittingly lead them back to you.
If you are the person being investigated, do not answer any queries from the CID. Contact your lawyer right away as soon as they are gone. Don't seek information about the investigation from the IRS. Let your lawyer contact them.
If the CID can prove your guilt without a doubt, you can be prosecuted. Otherwise, you may get away with civil penalties.
You would be investigated because you:
filed a false tax return.
failed to file a tax return.
evaded taxes.
If the CID recommends prosecution, an assistant U.S. Attorney General from the Justice Department will review and take your case. If the IRS seeks a federal grand jury indictment against you, you'll be formally charged and ordered to go before a federal judge or be arrested. You can plea not guilty or guilty, and possibly be released on your own recognizance or post bail.
The case will go to trial when you plead not guilty. It might be with a judge or a full jury. The IRS must give evidence that you are guilty of the crimes as charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. You will be incarcerated in a federal prison if convicted of a tax crime. If you end up reaching a plea bargain you'll probably just be fined and/or put on probation, given home confinement, or ordered to stay in a halfway house. Prosecution costs will have to be paid by you. The average time you will serve for a tax crime is 2 years.
Link: http://getirshelp.com/what-happens-in-i ... utions.htm
So people--did Danny Shelton go to trial? no. Did the IRS find anything in which to charge 3ABN with? No. Was DS or 3ABN put in a federal prison? No--you're still seeing him on TV. Was a plea deal reached? No. Were they fined? no. Civil penalties? No. Was he given home confinement or ordered to stay in a halfway house? NO NO NO!!!
What part of NO do some not understand?
...later taters....
-
Sirmizer: Answer my question's. Geesh.
Btw, it's not a very good reminder than. Especially to yourself, Sirmizer. :help:
-
Sirmizer: Answer my question's. Geesh.
Btw, it's not a very good reminder than. Especially to yourself, Sirmizer. :help:
???
My login name is Nosir myzing in case you didn't catch it, Alex, and I am not sure why or how posting "geesh" is necessary???
BUT---
What questions, Alex? I am sorry, I was not aware you were specifically posting to me or specifically asking me anything.?..?..?...
-
I chose that name as a reminder to all, including myself...
If you were not repeatedly surmizing in contradiction to your user name, I would not call you Sirmizer.
... and as he insisted that his other login name "SDAminister" contain caps...
A case in point. Aren't you surmizing when you falsely accuse me of having the username "SDAminister"?
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
Now why couldn't you have simply and succinctly admitted earlier that Remnant did pay Danny for sales to 3ABN of his Pacific Press booklets? You earlier tried to make people think it was all lies, but now you admit that the payments really did occur.
By the way, no one has produced a scrap of evidence that the IRS does not consider those payments to be kickbacks.
Re: Squelching Rumors
Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:10 am UTC
Hello Robert Pickle;
Do you know the difference between "kickbacks" and "royalties" ?
Here's are defintions to show the difference:
Kickbacks: an illegal, secret payment made in return for a referral which resulted in a transaction or contract.
http://www.investorwords.com/2695/kickback.html
Royalties: A royalty is a percentage of gross or net profit or a fixed amount per sale to which a creator of a work is entitled which is agreed upon in a contract between the creator and the manufacturer, publisher, agent and/or distributor.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/royalties/
Danny Shelton received a set royalty payment from the sale of his books. And why not--most people get paid for their work. This was an agreed upon contract with Remnant Publishing.
So you are saying that there is a contract by which Remnant agreed to pay Danny kickbacks on those sales? I'd like to see that. I highly doubt they would have committed that to writing. It would be too incriminating.
What you're ignoring is that Pacific Press, not Remnant, was the one paying royalties to Danny since Pacific Press, not Remnant, was the publisher of those titles. You can't even call Remnant the distributor, since Remnant didn't even stock them and had to have them drop shipped from Pacific Press.
So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.
-
1) Your "log-in name" is a misnomer and a log-in...your well established identity is as a "sirmizer" and we give you the courtesy of a title "Sir Mizer"...to fit the true character.
2) If the payments to DLS were not "kick-backs" from Remnant's venerable former "special forces" turned "ranger" leadership, and were fully disclosed to the officers and directors of 3ABN, could you explain the failure to disclose these deals in the 990's of either entity?
3) And can you explain the failure to disclose these "royalties" on the Financial "Affidavit" in the divorce case just shortly after having received a major distribution from the non-Remnant publisher?
Your surmizing response is highly anticipated with "BAITED BREATH" and perhaps a little documentation???
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
-
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch11.html#en_US_2010_publink1000209182 (http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch11.html#en_US_2010_publink1000209182)
Kickbacks. A kickback is a payment for referring a client, patient, or customer. The common kickback situation occurs when money or property is given to someone as payment for influencing a third party to purchase from, use the services of, or otherwise deal with the person who pays the kickback. In many cases, the person whose business is being sought or enjoyed by the person who pays the kickback is not aware of the payment.
For example, the Yard Corporation is in the business of repairing ships. It engages in the practice of returning 10% of the repair bills as kickbacks to the captains and chief officers of the vessels it repairs. Although this practice is considered an ordinary and necessary expense of getting business, it is clearly a violation of a state law that is generally enforced. These expenditures are not deductible for tax purposes, whether or not the owners of the shipyard are subsequently prosecuted.
I think we laid out a case from Danny's tax returns that Remnant's kickback payments could have been somewhere between 27.5% and 32% of the total price 3ABN paid, roughly three times what the IRS gave in the example above.
Notice that the IRS's example explicitly states that it matters not whether the kickbacks result in prosecution.
-
fromNosir Myzing on August 06, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.
It seems like you do keep a good record of certain things. Did you also keep a record of the phone call a certain lawyer made to apologize he had made a false accusation of pornography that he could not prove?
No answer yet? If the lawyer could not prove that account of pornography, how can you do it? Or are you just shooting accusations out into the air, hoping some people believe your statements?
-
So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.
So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?
You admit that there were payments.
You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.
I think the only possible conclusion, given your inability to provide the evidence to the contrary thus far, is that these payments were indeed kickbacks.
Do you agree?
-
1) Your "log-in name" is a misnomer and a log-in...your well established identity is as a "sirmizer" and we give you the courtesy of a title "Sir Mizer"...to fit the true character.
2) If the payments to DLS were not "kick-backs" from Remnant's venerable former "special forces" turned "ranger" leadership, and were fully disclosed to the officers and directors of 3ABN, could you explain the failure to disclose these deals in the 990's of either entity?
3) And can you explain the failure to disclose these "royalties" on the Financial "Affidavit" in the divorce case just shortly after having received a major distribution from the non-Remnant publisher?
Your surmizing response is highly anticipated with "BAITED BREATH" and perhaps a little documentation???
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter
You have enough documentation yourself to figure out that any royalties paid AFTER THE DIVORCE WAS FILED FOR DID NOT APPLY TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS, OR NEED TO BE REPORTED, OR DIVIDED AFTER THAT DATE.
You also have enough documentation and laws and regulations to know that royalties are legal and need to be reported to the IRS on a personal tax return, but do not have to be reported by the employer.
I acknowledge that you also may have a reason to suspect kickbacks occurred, but in light of all of what you knew being reported to the IRS, and the subsequent IRS INVESTIGATION, and them not coming to your same conclusions, as is demonstrated by no indictment, and no amended filings after that occurred? Well, you really imo,knowing that they are far more qualified than yourselves, and knowing that they had far more access to all pertinent documents than yourselves? Need to accept that and move on...
IMO, you not doing so, is just evidence that you are acting in arrogance, not facing facts, and just want to believe evil of D.S. and 3ABN without cause. Due to that, I feel no need to argue with you, Joy, nor do I feel the need to provide further evidence for it is apparent if you do not accpet the IRS's finding that you will accept nothing which does not support your own perspective from any other including mine.
-
fromNosir Myzing on August 06, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.
It seems like you do keep a good record of certain things. Did you also keep a record of the phone call a certain lawyer made to apologize he had made a false accusation of pornography that he could not prove?
No answer yet? If the lawyer could not prove that account of pornography, how can you do it? Or are you just shooting accusations out into the air, hoping some people believe your statements?
I said nothing about pornography except for him being a child pornography addict, check with his employers (past and present) his ex wife and former church. (it's all documented ) I do not know about any phone calls made about that so have nothing to contribute here and no need to prove anything in regards to that, Nor do I really have any idea what you are talking about or understand what it has to do with this topic...
-
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch11.html#en_US_2010_publink1000209182 (http://server15.kproxy.com/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/s51jxpmap/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/sruj/shhzdcy/p1/servlet/redirect.srv/saun/sbbt/sjkl/p1/publications/p535/ch11.html#en_US_2010_publink1000209182)
Kickbacks. A kickback is a payment for referring a client, patient, or customer. The common kickback situation occurs when money or property is given to someone as payment for influencing a third party to purchase from, use the services of, or otherwise deal with the person who pays the kickback. In many cases, the person whose business is being sought or enjoyed by the person who pays the kickback is not aware of the payment.
For example, the Yard Corporation is in the business of repairing ships. It engages in the practice of returning 10% of the repair bills as kickbacks to the captains and chief officers of the vessels it repairs. Although this practice is considered an ordinary and necessary expense of getting business, it is clearly a violation of a state law that is generally enforced. These expenditures are not deductible for tax purposes, whether or not the owners of the shipyard are subsequently prosecuted.
I think we laid out a case from Danny's tax returns that Remnant's kickback payments could have been somewhere between 27.5% and 32% of the total price 3ABN paid, roughly three times what the IRS gave in the example above.
Notice that the IRS's example explicitly states that it matters not whether the kickbacks result in prosecution.
NOTE: that is talking about a tax deduction, Pickle. Kickbacks are NOT tax deductable,. That is all that that means...
It does not mean that the IRS criminal investigation may have discovered that Danny was getting kickbacks and may not have indicted him or prosecuted him after finding that That really is not realistic. They don't do that. Reality is that they found NOTHING wrong, and found NOTHING needing corrected, Pickle.
That is why there was no indictment, and no corrected returns and forms filed after their investigation. The IRS investigation concluded with zero negative findings and WE KNOW THAT because they asked 3ABN whether the copies of all the files they took should be returned or destroyed as they didn't need them anymore, and zero amended or corrected returns were filed and zero indictments occurred.
To reiterate. It's been years, Pickle. Move on...
-
So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.
So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?
NO.
You admit that there were payments.
You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.
I have contended nothing of the sort. I don't need to answer you within any time limits. Check my posts and what I did and did not say, and then DON'T put words in my mouth which I didn't say.
I think the only possible conclusion, given your inability to provide the evidence to the contrary thus far, is that these payments were indeed kickbacks.
Do you agree?
NO. ALSO: The IRS would never say "there were not kickbacks" but I know that if they found someone engaging in receiving kickbacks or paying them during a criminal investigation, they would not excuse them. They wouldn't, the IRS would indict as "kickbacks" are against even state law, but they never have indicted 3ABN, Pickle... It's been years now...
I saw where you posted this:"Notice that the IRS's example explicitly states that it matters not whether the kickbacks result in prosecution. " and failed to acknowledge they were saying that in regard to the fact that kickbacks were not tax deductible regardless of if prosecuted or not. That isn't the issue. They never said they would condone kickbacks in an investigation whether they are prosecuted or not. In fact, they won't.
I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks but The IRS trumps you, and I will expand that to say that their investigation was far more thorough than yours. It is not possible for you to be able to find fault, imo, when they did not with far more experienced investigations techniques and documentation.
AGAIN, "DEAL WITH IT". And stop bothering me and jumping to false conclusions about what I have said, when I didn't say that. That is lying, Robert Pickle, and I don't like that. Nor does The Lord.
I AM DONE ANSWERING ABOUT THIS, and will not cast pearls, so stop posting to me about this, and pretending i am wrong, or am admitting to what you say by not answering you please. It doesn't wash.
I am glad/thankful that The Lord knows what is really going on here...
-
You have enough documentation yourself to figure out that any royalties paid AFTER THE DIVORCE WAS FILED FOR DID NOT APPLY TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS, OR NEED TO BE REPORTED, OR DIVIDED AFTER THAT DATE.
Danny reported his income from 3ABN on that affidavit as if it was what he expected to get that very year. Your reasoning suggests that he should have reported his income as it was prior to 2004. In 2004 he was paid $59,294. In 2006 he was paid $72,802. On the financial affidavit he reported his monthly income as being $5,991.
You also have enough documentation and laws and regulations to know that royalties are legal and need to be reported to the IRS on a personal tax return, but do not have to be reported by the employer.
I forget which year it was, but the rules one year required 3ABN to report that Danny got income from DLS or D&L.
I acknowledge that you also may have a reason to suspect kickbacks occurred, but in light of all of what you knew being reported to the IRS, and the subsequent IRS INVESTIGATION, and them not coming to your same conclusions, ...
"Suspect" is the wrong word, and perhaps dishonest at that. Please use "know" in the future.
Remember, you have yet to produce any statement from the IRS saying that the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. So I think you should just drop it and move on.
-
So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.
So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?
NO.
But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.
But that is your choice.
You admit that there were payments.
You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.
I have contended nothing of the sort.
Oh yes you did:
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....
No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.
How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.
By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise.
By the way, the booklets identify 3ABN as a co-publisher. Kind of interesting, isn't it? If 3ABN was the co-publisher, why wasn't 3ABN getting their copies straight from Pacific Press instead of from Remnant which didn't stock them, for a higher price than what ABC's or anyone else could buy them for?
I know it was for a higher price because I got price info from Pacific Press, in writing. But I never could get price info for large enough quantities. But the prices for quantities I did get info for were lower than what 3ABN paid.
And the higher price is what funded those kickbacks, pure and simple. You can pretend all you want that it isn't so, but that doesn't change the facts.
-
NOTE: that is talking about a tax deduction, Pickle. Kickbacks are NOT tax deductable,. That is all that that means...
I didn't give that quote to show anything about tax deductibility. I showed it only to show what the IRS's definition of kickbacks are.
But whether Remnant could report the kickbacks they paid Danny as expenses or not, that is an interesting question.
-
Really good comebacks, Bob!
I think you make a formidable legal opponent.
-
You have enough documentation yourself to figure out that any royalties paid AFTER THE DIVORCE WAS FILED FOR DID NOT APPLY TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS, OR NEED TO BE REPORTED, OR DIVIDED AFTER THAT DATE.
Danny reported his income from 3ABN on that affidavit as if it was what he expected to get that very year. Your reasoning suggests that he should have reported his income as it was prior to 2004. In 2004 he was paid $59,294. In 2006 he was paid $72,802. On the financial affidavit he reported his monthly income as being $5,991.
$5,991 * 12 = $71,892.
2003 pay from 3ABN = $53,695.
2004 pay from 3ABN = $59,294.
2005 pay from 3ABN = $70,944.
2006 pay from 3ABN = $72,802.
$70,944 + $72,802 = $143,746.
$143,746 / 2 = $71,873.
$71,873 / 12 = $5,989.42.
Looks like Danny reported his income for the previous 12 months on his July 2006 financial affidavit (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-royalty-disclosures-financial-affidavit.htm), doesn't it? (Of course, what he reported would not likely include anything he bought and got reimbursed for by 3ABN, but for which he didn't turn in receipts.) But look through his financial affidavit, and you won't find any hint of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickback and royalty income he earned over that same time period. Not one hint.
Assuming he's reporting 2004 income, which he apparently wasn't, there's no hint of the royalty income he received in 2004 from Pacific Press, or the profits he made via D & L Publishing. 3ABN reported buying $44,724.38 worth of books from DLS in 2004, and $35,000 from D & L. Certainly royalty payments coming to him via D & L should have been reported under "Other income," but it isn't there.
-
But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.
But that is your choice.
Pickle is a sad man... I do NOT need to prove his assumptions and contentions are false. He does not become correct simply because others fail to answer him or choose not to. He needs to prove what he says. He needs to provide the evidence to support his contentions and his assumptions and explain how he came to his faulty conclusions-- particularly since this was all reported to the IRS and they investigated all and DID NOT arrive at the same conclusions he did.
Again, IF Pickle was correct, which he obviously is NOT. The IRS criminal investigation of D.S. and 3ABN would have at least resulted in an ammended return and form 990's and at most a indictment. Neither have occured and it's been years... He asks me to provide evidence of an exoneration by the IRS, which we all know they don't do. What they do is provide documentation of errors and crimes, Pickle does not provide that, because there is none. It is bordering on insane imo for him to keep insisting that his accusations have merit or are valid lacking this. But, you know what? You are all free to decide as you will...
-
My opinion? Pickleis making confusing arguments here,as per usual, although they don't confuse me.. but I don't wish for others to be confused...
So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.
So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?
NO.
But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.
But that is your choice.
You admit that there were payments.
You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.
I have contended nothing of the sort.
Oh yes you did:
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
Fact: Pickle is WRONG, he is quoting another.. As I said before to him:"I have contended nothing of the sort. I don't need to answer you within any time limits. Check my posts and what I did and did not say, and then DON'T put words in my mouth which I didn't say.
I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....
No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.
STOP putting words in my mouth and attributing things to me that I did not say, nor do I think! I didn't say that, nor do I presume that. Claiming that is arrogant, Pickle!
How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.
By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise....
Fact: Simpson NEVER said there were payments to Danny "for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN". I defy you to prove that with a direct quote! Nor did I or ANY other say that! Simpson only spoke of Remnant's payments to DS being perfectly legit, and as audited by outside auditors which were hired and employed to keep 3ABN correct, legal and all above board, that was true.. Fact: Simpson NEVER named the books or pamphlets. Pickle ASSUMED, and applied what was said about "booklets, pamphlets etc to whichever book or books or pamphets he chose to as fitting his faultifinding and conclusions,, but provides and has no legit reason to do so other than it suits his thoughts and accusations. (All erronious imo) He also fails to explain his logic or reasoning for doing so but expects readers to jump from A to P as he does without providing an adequate and logical reason or logic for doing so. And.. as we all know also know ALL of this was also investigated by the IRS, after Pickle , Fran and co.. reported their suspicions and accusations to them. The result being the IRS was concerned, did find reason and cause to investigate but DID NOT find fault or guilt or error in regards to D.S. and 3ABN.
Their investigation concluded several years ago without amended returns resulting in payments or adjustments, and without any indictments for criminal or illegal activities etc... but Pickle and Joy continue... IMO without excuse.
Pacific Press published DS's pamphlets and Remnant later stored and distributed them. That's documented, as Pickle and Joy recieved and published that, No argument here. Did the copy rights to that change? Were payments made to DS for them? Well Pickle provides no proof of that, although he contends that occured....
Remnant DID have the copyright to DS and SQ's book and the abridged addition and so did pay royalties to both... although Pickle applies all to DS and ignores SQ.... ( Really as co-authors they are entitled to royalties, and both need to claim them, their employer does not.
The problem here as far as I am concerned is that Pickle does NOT identify what the royalties for those books are , nor does he distinguish the difference between them and Danny's other pamphlets are. Or what Remnant was paying DS for, or even what he was paid. Pickle, really, just assumes alot, and then concludes others should agree with his logic, or prove his illogical assumptions wrong or that proves he is right....
That is not my job.
It is obvious, or should be, to reasonable folk, that the IRS has not and did not come to Pickle's conclusions.
As far as I am concerned, Pickle now has a greater burden of proof
To be brief? I for one am tired of his ****** ********, and he can continue to spin and argue till the Lord returns, but it will not justify him! MY OPINION!
I'm done with all of this topic and his arguments, no matter how many times he says me not answering proves him right.
IMO that is arrogance on his part, and for my part I have better things to do.
May God be with you all and help you find and receive all that you ask for , and more, and may you all recognize it when you recieve and find that... and acknowledge it, and thank Him or take responsibility and be accountable...
Adios Amigos...
MODERATOR HAT ON
Kindly do not include objectionable scatological terms with the rest of your supposedly Christian comments.
MODERATOR HAT OFF
-
Your refusal, Surmizer, to engage in a meaningful, rational discussion is rather wearisome.
Rather than simply explain how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks, you resort to mere assertions without any evidence regarding alleged IRS vindication, seemingly unaware that the kickback issue itself proves that there was no IRS vindication.
You admit that there were payments.
You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.
I have contended nothing of the sort.
Oh yes you did:
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
Fact: Pickle is WRONG, he is quoting another..
I quoted you. Go read your post again. If you didn't write that, you represented that you did in the way that you posted.
I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....
No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.
STOP putting words in my mouth and attributing things to me that I did not say, nor do I think! That's arrogant, Pickle!
If you don't think the kickbacks were kickbacks, then explain why you think they weren't. But leave the IRS out of it. Explain it from an accounting and publishing standpoint only.
How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.
By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise....
Fact: Simpson NEVER said there were payments to Danny "for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN". I defy you to prove that with a direct quote!
Speaking specifically about Danny's Pacific Press booklets, since those were the specific booklets to which our use of the term "kickback" applied, Simpson stated:
While resisting the temptation to publish the documents themselves, Defendants describe the confidential documents in pleadings available to the public, for example referring to perfectly proper royalty payments to Shelton from Remnant Publications for the sale of books he authored as “kickbacks and/or royalties.”
(http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-174.pdf#page=4 (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-174.pdf#page=4)). And:
Their "evidence," however, is not evidence as much as a web of guesswork and speculation that begins and ends with the assumption that the payments were kickbacks. The reason they must be kickbacks, say the Defendants, is that the booklets for which royalties were paid were at one time published by a different publisher at a lower cost. Defendants say "the only logical reason for such an arrangement is that it was a kickback scheme." In other words, Defendants' logic goes, moving to a higher cost publisher is proof of a kickback scheme because they can't think of any other reason for it.
(http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-188.pdf#page=5 (http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-188.pdf#page=5)). So you are going to try to deny that Simpson was referring to the Pacific Press booklets?
Nor did I or ANY other say that!
Sure you did. Short memory?
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
Now what does your comment above refer to? It can only refer to one thing: the payments by Remnant to Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets. It can only refer to that since that is what we are referring to when we speak of kickbacks.
Pacific Press published DS's pamphlets and Remnant later stored and distributed them.
Because of your asserted knowledge about this issue, you have condemned yourself as a bald faced liar. Remnant DIDN'T STOCK THEM. They had Pacific Press drop ship them for that reason.
Were payments made to DS for them? Well Pickle provides no proof of that, although he contends that occured....
I'll provide all the proof anyone could ever wish for, provided that you obtain a release from Danny and 3ABN permitting me to do so, since they, improperly in my opinion, designated the proof as confidential since COVER UP is what they like doing.
Remnant DID have the copyright to DS and SQ's book and the abridged addition and so did pay royalties to both... although Pickle applies all to DS and ignores SQ.... ( Really as co-authors they are entitled to royalties, and both need to claim them, their employer does not.
Where's your evidence that Remnant ever paid Shelley for her part of the book? And why are you trying to hide the fact that Danny and Shelley held the copyright? And where did you come up with the idea that Remnant ever held the copyright on the original book?
The problem here as far as I am concerned is that Pickle does NOT identify what the royalties for those books are , nor does he distinguish the difference between them and Danny's other pamphlets are. Or what Remnant was paying DS for, or even what he was paid. Pickle, really, just assumes alot, and then concludes others should agree with his logic, or prove his illogical assumptions wrong or that proves he is right....
Get the release and I will publish the specifics. And if they don't want to give the release, then we can come to the same conclusions using publicly available documents, and documents not falling under any proper or improper use of the confidentiality order.
-
THE BOTTOM LINE, PICKLE?
THERE ARE NO KICKBACKS, AND THE IRS FOUND NONE.
If YOU insist on calling legitimate, legal, payments that?(They are legit/legal unless proven otherwise) Then you need to prove they are kickbacks and prove how the IRS was wrong etc, or cease claiming that D.S. and 3ABN are unethical, wrong and criminal. For all those claims without evidence and proof? Are just unsupported, unmerited, unproven and false accusations to those outside your little 3abn accusing and faulting finding world. ( Those who consistently fail to ask diligent questions...)
In other words: Your empty claims mean nothing to others besides your little group. --Sorry, but that's reality, despite some kowtowing and saying "Oh.. Bob you are so wise.. "(gag)-- They really, are NOT your friends..
MOVE ON, or be accountable, Pickle! Why just endlessly repeat yourself without proof and think your opinions and judgments trump all others, and justify yourself without answering the questions asked of you about that?
I am prepared to let you continue unopposed by myself, if you choose to, as the Lord will decide who is right and wrong. I am done arguing with you and out of patience and worry about the pearls before swine and the dogs rending you stuff....
So, carry on by yourself, or with whoever buys it.. I don't.
This is my LAST post to YOU and on THIS FORUM
May God give you all that you desire and seek, and more, and may you all learn the difference between that and His plan for you, and seek His desires and treasures.
He rocks, and He rules, and all is in His control... All the glory belongs to Him....
-
I said nothing
You didn´t?
-
THE BOTTOM LINE, PICKLE?
THERE ARE NO KICKBACKS, ...
Weird, absolutely weird. Here you have a prime opportunity to explain how Remnant's payments to Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets weren't kickbacks, and you simply refuse to even try.
If YOU insist on calling legitimate, legal, payments that?(They are legit/legal unless proven otherwise) Then you need to prove they are kickbacks ...
I already did, remember?
I even laid out for you the possible ways to show that they weren't kickbacks, like showing that no payments were ever made, which would make Simpson a liar, or by showing that Pacific Press was no longer the publisher of the titles, which really is impossible to do.
Thus, given all the opportunities you've had to set the record straight, and how you've refused to even try, then we have to conclude that Danny really was paid kickbacks by Remnant.
And I really believe that you knew this was so a long time ago, and your bogus assertions of IRS vindication were just an attempt at a smoke screen. The fact of the matter is that the IRS would never have approved of Danny receiving kickbacks, and so the whole story about IRS vindication is a big, big lie, and Danny receiving kickbacks is proof of that.
-
My opinion? Pickleis making confusing arguments here,as per usual, although they don't confuse me.. but I don't wish for others to be confused...
So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.
So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?
NO.
But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.
But that is your choice.
You admit that there were payments.
You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.
I have contended nothing of the sort.
Oh yes you did:
Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...
Fact: Pickle is WRONG, he is quoting another.. As I said before to him:"I have contended nothing of the sort. I don't need to answer you within any time limits. Check my posts and what I did and did not say, and then DON'T put words in my mouth which I didn't say.
I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....
No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.
STOP putting words in my mouth and attributing things to me that I did not say, nor do I think! I didn't say that, nor do I presume that. Claiming that is arrogant, Pickle!
How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.
By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise....
Fact: Simpson NEVER said there were payments to Danny "for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN". I defy you to prove that with a direct quote! Nor did I or ANY other say that! Simpson only spoke of Remnant's payments to DS being perfectly legit, and as audited by outside auditors which were hired and employed to keep 3ABN correct, legal and all above board, that was true.. Fact: Simpson NEVER named the books or pamphlets. Pickle ASSUMED, and applied what was said about "booklets, pamphlets etc to whichever book or books or pamphets he chose to as fitting his faultifinding and conclusions,, but provides and has no legit reason to do so other than it suits his thoughts and accusations. (All erronious imo) He also fails to explain his logic or reasoning for doing so but expects readers to jump from A to P as he does without providing an adequate and logical reason or logic for doing so. And.. as we all know also know ALL of this was also investigated by the IRS, after Pickle , Fran and co.. reported their suspicions and accusations to them. The result being the IRS was concerned, did find reason and cause to investigate but DID NOT find fault or guilt or error in regards to D.S. and 3ABN.
Their investigation concluded several years ago without amended returns resulting in payments or adjustments, and without any indictments for criminal or illegal activities etc... but Pickle and Joy continue... IMO without excuse.
Pacific Press published DS's pamphlets and Remnant later stored and distributed them. That's documented, as Pickle and Joy recieved and published that, No argument here. Did the copy rights to that change? Were payments made to DS for them? Well Pickle provides no proof of that, although he contends that occured....
Remnant DID have the copyright to DS and SQ's book and the abridged addition and so did pay royalties to both... although Pickle applies all to DS and ignores SQ.... ( Really as co-authors they are entitled to royalties, and both need to claim them, their employer does not.
The problem here as far as I am concerned is that Pickle does NOT identify what the royalties for those books are , nor does he distinguish the difference between them and Danny's other pamphlets are. Or what Remnant was paying DS for, or even what he was paid. Pickle, really, just assumes alot, and then concludes others should agree with his logic, or prove his illogical assumptions wrong or that proves he is right....
That is not my job.
It is obvious, or should be, to reasonable folk, that the IRS has not and did not come to Pickle's conclusions.
As far as I am concerned, Pickle now has a greater burden of proof
To be brief? I for one am tired of his ****** ********, and he can continue to spin and argue till the Lord returns, but it will not justify him! MY OPINION!
I'm done with all of this topic and his arguments, no matter how many times he says me not answering proves him right.
IMO that is arrogance on his part, and for my part I have better things to do.
May God be with you all and help you find and receive all that you ask for , and more, and may you all recognize it when you recieve and find that... and acknowledge it, and thank Him or take responsibility and be accountable...
Adios Amigos...
MODERATOR HAT ON
Kindly do not include objectionable scatological terms with the rest of your supposedly Christian comments.
MODERATOR HAT OFF
It is obvious, or should be, to reasonable folk, that the IRS has not and did not come to Pickle's conclusions.
What about the approximately one million dollars that apparently had to be paid by someone to the IRS to clear the matter up?
-
I purposely have not disclosed the figure I was told, but it was not $1 million. It was over $1 million. How much over I have not said.
-
I purposely have not disclosed the figure I was told, but it was not $1 million. It was over $1 million. How much over I have not said.
Really! Very interesting!
-
Chuckles.
Now they are demanding proof from you, Artiste! Good grief! :help:
-
Perhaps they will be demanding proof next that Judas taking money out of the money bag was ok (John 12:6) (Desire of Ages page 718) or that Annanias and Saphira lying about thier finances was nobody's business but their own.
Some things are common sense.
-
Perhaps they will be demanding proof next that Judas taking money out of the money bag wasn't ok (John 12:6) (Desire of Ages page 718) or demanding proof that Annanias and Saphira were lying about their finances and saying that A&S's finances weren't anybody's business but their own.
Some things are common sense.
This is what I meant to say.
-
Oh this is priceless--to me, this shows the inept crass mentality of the handful of posters who bow down to whatever Pickle and Linda Shelton has to say.
Childoftheking says it is now "common sense" that 3ABN paid millions (according to Pickle was more than a million) to the IRS. She compares it to Judas stealing and Annanias and Saphira. SERIOUSLY? They have no evidence except what Linda Shelton tells them through Pickle---and they believe her LIES.
Hey Linda--PROVE IT! PROVE your accusation is true--I DARE you to try it. You can't prove squat about this and your silence will prove it. You have NOTHING to prove because you know it isn't true and that you OPENLY LIED.
Pickle won't dare show his supposed documentation because he doesn't have any except what you say.
So toodle-doo to all of you. I'm done with this topic! so, "sticks and stones" --so go ahead and ridicule Truth, 3ABN and whoever else you think should be ridiculed--goes off my back like water off a duck's back. Couldn't care less WHAT you say because you all live in "Delusionville" with Linda and her bf.
BTW - childoftheking is either Sharon Griggs or Johann's T's son who works for the Hope channel. Take your pick.
Quite interesting - to say the least. Interesting how TRUTH manages to turn completely wrong presumptions into "truth". Like living in a pretended world. But if that person really wants to know the real truth, a lot of additional homework is a must to avoid presenting more lies as if they were real.
Quite a few of the statements TRUTH makes above would be worthless trash in a court case.
You will have to find out yourself what it is - except I'll give you one hint: Linda has absolutely nothing to do with what you claim she has. No more than with that manuscript you people recently claimed she had.
-
Johann is certainly right. Linda was not the source of the information about the IRS being paid $1+ million to make the criminal investigation go away.
Johann, has "Nosir Myzing" come down on "Truth" for making such unproven and false allegations?
-
Well, Sir Mizer, I am now able to define your surmising as a bold faced lie.
The financial statement required by the divorce court does not give one permission to discern between what a surmiser would deem relevant or irrelevant.
And the affidavit was a bold faced deliberate lie!!!
And, with regard to the books, since they were printed at Pacific Press, why did not PPPA pay the royalty? Oh, before Pickle corrects the question, let me simply say...by golly, gee, they did!!!
So what were the payments from the third party Processor? Particularly the sums our internal sources told us were paid...a simple split of the pass-through fees that far exceeded any royalties by a LONG SHOT.
Sir Mizer, you are right, I have seen the evidence and you are a bold faced liar. And you know it...and a lot of other people know it....including the 3ABN Board of Directors.
But, get that dismissal vacated and we can get back to a trial on the merits!!! You will either be exonerated or the worlds biggest fool. I am very willing to put my money where my money is...are you willing to step out and hope for the best? Or is the gamble just too risky???
Waiting to finish the fight!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter