Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Bob Pickle on April 28, 2008, 09:43:56 AM
-
Nick asked Larry Ewing if 3ABN made a profit on books and such. He should have instead asked him if D & L a.k.a. Danny Shelton made a profit.
I say "should have instead asked" only in the sense of Walt Thompson's claim that the purpose of going to court is so that the truth can come out, assuming that 3ABN sued the IL Dept. of Rev. for the same alleged purpose they sued Gailon and me, so that the truth could come out in court under oath.
But given Danny's prevarication when he denied receiving housing and retirement benefits, Walt's claim that taking testimony under oath is somehow a guarantee that the truth will be told is either evidence that he is extremely naive or an accomplice, it seems to me.
-
MR. MILLER: Okay.
In your review of the records and the financials did you come across any evidence or indication that any of the revenues of Three Angels went to the personal profit or inurement of a private individual?
THE WITNESS: No.
Can someone please explain this one to me? How was Larry Ewing able to answer no when the 2001 financial statement he had at the time of his testimony, a statement he helped prepare, says, "The Organization purchases a portion of their inventory from an entity owned by two board members. Purchases from this entity totaled $75,000.00 for the year ending December 31, 2001."?
Is there some way in which such payments to Danny for such purchases are not considered revenue of 3ABN going to the personal profit or inurement of Danny? Or is $20,000 profit from a sale of $75,000 by Danny to 3ABN not considered personal profit or inurement?
At what point do such sales become personal profit or inurement?
-
Sure. If the entity receiving the revenues was a legal entity such as a corporation or a partnership, the inurement did not go to a "private individual". Legal semantics.
MR. MILLER: Okay.
In your review of the records and the financials did you come across any evidence or indication that any of the revenues of Three Angels went to the personal profit or inurement of a private individual?
THE WITNESS: No.
Can someone please explain this one to me? How was Larry Ewing able to answer no when the 2001 financial statement he had at the time of his testimony, a statement he helped prepare, says, "The Organization purchases a portion of their inventory from an entity owned by two board members. Purchases from this entity totaled $75,000.00 for the year ending December 31, 2001."?
Is there some way in which such payments to Danny for such purchases are not considered revenue of 3ABN going to the personal profit or inurement of Danny? Or is $20,000 profit from a sale of $75,000 by Danny to 3ABN not considered personal profit or inurement?
At what point do such sales become personal profit or inurement?
-
Okay. Now it gets tricky. Danny testified under oath in his affidavit in MN that D & L was a sole proprietorship, and he stated on his 2001 tax return under penalty of perjury that D & L was owned by both he and Linda, which according to the IRS's instructions that year would have made D & L a partnership, since they evenly split the profits between the two of them.
So are you saying that according to the legal semantics, if D & L was a DBA, then it was private inurement, but if it was a partnership, it wasn't?
But if it was a partnership, wouldn't that mean that 3ABN revenue went to personal profits or inurement of two private persons rather than one?
-
I'm saying that if D&L or any other entity that received revenue from 3ABN were a legally formed entity under the laws of the state of its formation as set forth by the appropriate Secretary of State (or its counterpart), then one could probably feel OK about stating that there was no private benefit to a "private individual".
A DBA is not a separate legal entity - it is simply an entity, usually a person(s) "doing business as" a different name. Thus, Bob Pickle could file a DBA to do business as "Mary Smith". Any income earned by an individual's DBA would be reported on that individual's personal income tax return (perhaps a joint return) on a Schedule C (or maybe an E) of the Form 1040.
A legally formed partnership would have to file a Schedule K-1 with the IRS. A corporation would file a Form 1120. So, revenue accruing to a DBA or private individual(s) would be reported under the individual(s) social security number(s), while revenue accruing to a legal partnership or corporation would be reported under the employer identification number.
Okay. Now it gets tricky. Danny testified under oath in his affidavit in MN that D & L was a sole proprietorship, and he stated on his 2001 tax return under penalty of perjury that D & L was owned by both he and Linda, which according to the IRS's instructions that year would have made D & L a partnership, since they evenly split the profits between the two of them.
So are you saying that according to the legal semantics, if D & L was a DBA, then it was private inurement, but if it was a partnership, it wasn't?
But if it was a partnership, wouldn't that mean that 3ABN revenue went to personal profits or inurement of two private persons rather than one?
-
It appears to me that in 2001, D & L was a "DBA" of both Danny and Linda, and thus wasn't a separate legal entity.
-
Sounds like private benefit or personal inurement to me.
NOTE: I am not an attorney and am not offering legal advice. Anyone feeling the need for legal advice should consult a licensed attorney!!!!
-
MR. MILLER: Okay.
In your review of the records and the financials did you come across any evidence or indication that any of the revenues of Three Angels went to the personal profit or inurement of a private individual?
THE WITNESS: No.
Can someone please explain this one to me? How was Larry Ewing able to answer no when the 2001 financial statement he had at the time of his testimony, a statement he helped prepare, says, "The Organization purchases a portion of their inventory from an entity owned by two board members. Purchases from this entity totaled $75,000.00 for the year ending December 31, 2001."?
Is there some way in which such payments to Danny for such purchases are not considered revenue of 3ABN going to the personal profit or inurement of Danny? Or is $20,000 profit from a sale of $75,000 by Danny to 3ABN not considered personal profit or inurement?
At what point do such sales become personal profit or inurement?
I would be much more interested in how he viewed all those advances to Danny that the board did not require documentation for, according to sources? And the use of the credit card?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
I'm saying that if D&L or any other entity that received revenue from 3ABN were a legally formed entity under the laws of the state of its formation as set forth by the appropriate Secretary of State (or its counterpart), then one could probably feel OK about stating that there was no private benefit to a "private individual".
A DBA is not a separate legal entity - it is simply an entity, usually a person(s) "doing business as" a different name. Thus, Bob Pickle could file a DBA to do business as "Mary Smith". Any income earned by an individual's DBA would be reported on that individual's personal income tax return (perhaps a joint return) on a Schedule C (or maybe an E) of the Form 1040.
A legally formed partnership would have to file a Schedule K-1 with the IRS. A corporation would file a Form 1120. So, revenue accruing to a DBA or private individual(s) would be reported under the individual(s) social security number(s), while revenue accruing to a legal partnership or corporation would be reported under the employer identification number.
Okay. Now it gets tricky. Danny testified under oath in his affidavit in MN that D & L was a sole proprietorship, and he stated on his 2001 tax return under penalty of perjury that D & L was owned by both he and Linda, which according to the IRS's instructions that year would have made D & L a partnership, since they evenly split the profits between the two of them.
So are you saying that according to the legal semantics, if D & L was a DBA, then it was private inurement, but if it was a partnership, it wasn't?
But if it was a partnership, wouldn't that mean that 3ABN revenue went to personal profits or inurement of two private persons rather than one?
You know, Snoopy has a point: where was the K-1 for that year to Linda? Guess she just didn't qualify as a real partner? Or did he just conveniently forget to give Linda her share?
And didn't that seem to be the perpetual trend until Danny simply absorbed the assets of D&L into DLS Publishing, Inc in late November, 2004, including all the book copyrights? Do you think he just forgot to put these on the Divorce Court Affidavit in 2005? What really hapened here? Any suggestions?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Sounds like private benefit or personal inurement to me.
NOTE: I am not an attorney and am not offering legal advice. Anyone feeling the need for legal advice should consult a licensed attorney!!!!
Are you suggesting that Danny may need legal advice? Is it possible he had it and simply ignored it or more likely implemented it by setting up a new corporation hoping no-one would notice the old D&L publishing assets had disappeared over the hill?
Anyone recall if Linda's seperation agreement included any royalties or mention of it? I certainly do not recall any and since she testified she didn't get royalties, does that mean she had no idea there would be royalties due to her?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Here is a much more important question: Just how much of this did Miller know about and when? And did he help DLS in any way with this royalty process?
Now Grandma Nettie, can you help us out with an answer to this question?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
You know, Snoopy has a point: where was the K-1 for that year to Linda? Guess she just didn't qualify as a real partner? Or did he just conveniently forget to give Linda her share?
For 2001 he reported all income for D & L on a Sched C., which the rules for that year state should not have been done. Then he took the profits and split them 50/50, reporting each half on separate Sched. SE's, one for him and one for Linda.
-
... assuming that 3ABN sued the IL Dept. of Rev. for the same alleged purpose they sued Gailon and me, so that the truth could come out in court under oath.
3ABN sued the IL Dept. of Revenue?? ???
-
Yes. See the caption of the case posted at http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-property-tax-appeal-decision-03-31-08.htm (http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-property-tax-appeal-decision-03-31-08.htm).
So 3ABN sued the IL DoR in Circuit Court, since 3ABN is listed as a plaintiff and the DoR is listed as a defendant.
Gailon, if Danny never wanted to really sue anyone but only threatened, lest his operation come under judicial scrutiny, why did he go along with suing the IL DoR? That doesn't quite make sense, does it?
-
The original hearing was an administrative hearing before the Illinois Dept of Revenue regarding the real estate tax exemption and would have been Thompsonville et al vs 3ABN. They lost this case and opted to appeal the decision de novo to the Illinois Circuit Court and that woud have reversed the masthead as part of the appeal procedure. That is why it is 3ABN vs DOR, et al.
To the degree that an appeal de novo would constitute a lawsuite, rather than a simple appeal on technical grounds, they have certainly opted to challenge the Illinois DOR, et al.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
The original hearing was an administrative hearing before the Illinois Dept of Revenue regarding the real estate tax exemption and would have been Thompsonville et al vs 3ABN. They lost this case and opted to appeal the decision de novo to the Illinois Circuit Court and that woud have reversed the masthead as part of the appeal procedure. That is why it is 3ABN vs DOR, et al.
To the degree that an appeal de novo would constitute a lawsuite, rather than a simple appeal on technical grounds, they have certainly opted to challenge the Illinois DOR, et al.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Well, I guess you've gotta give them points for trying! Seems to me though, they can think up devious ways of turning the tables, that we 'stockholders in the pews' would never think of. I guess that practice makes perfect (even with deception and/or criminal activity), as my old Dad used to say. :dogwag:
-
The original hearing was an administrative hearing before the Illinois Dept of Revenue regarding the real estate tax exemption and would have been Thompsonville et al vs 3ABN.
Actually, according to http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf), the original caption was 3 ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. So 3ABN sued the DoR from the very start, if sue is the right word for that type of case that results in an administrative hearing.
-
The original hearing was an administrative hearing before the Illinois Dept of Revenue regarding the real estate tax exemption and would have been Thompsonville et al vs 3ABN.
Actually, according to http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf), the original caption was 3 ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. So 3ABN sued the DoR from the very start, if sue is the right word for that type of case that results in an administrative hearing.
Wow, so the same board of directors pulled th trigger on this big-time looser as well??? Since it was clear they were not going to win this one, perhaps that is why they tried to bully the Mayor of Thomsonville and ran that full page add in the Local paper? Were they trying to convince the town to drop that lawsuite?
Since the judgement is upheld, I would guess it was worth their effort. 3ABN just has to change it's governance, at least on paper...or did they already do that?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Could this be a lawsuit that ends in an appelate court saying something about the weight and credibility given DS' testimony being a factor in the loss, and the loss being upheld?
The original hearing was an administrative hearing before the Illinois Dept of Revenue regarding the real estate tax exemption and would have been Thompsonville et al vs 3ABN.
Actually, according to http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf), the original caption was 3 ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. So 3ABN sued the DoR from the very start, if sue is the right word for that type of case that results in an administrative hearing.
Wow, so the same board of directors pulled th trigger on this big-time looser as well??? Since it was clear they were not going to win this one, perhaps that is why they tried to bully the Mayor of Thomsonville and ran that full page add in the Local paper? Were they trying to convince the town to drop that lawsuite?
Since the judgement is upheld, I would guess it was worth their effort. 3ABN just has to change it's governance, at least on paper...or did they already do that?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Change its governance?? Or maybe simply initiate some??
The original hearing was an administrative hearing before the Illinois Dept of Revenue regarding the real estate tax exemption and would have been Thompsonville et al vs 3ABN.
Actually, according to http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf (http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3-angels-v-dept-of-revenue.pdf), the original caption was 3 ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. So 3ABN sued the DoR from the very start, if sue is the right word for that type of case that results in an administrative hearing.
Wow, so the same board of directors pulled th trigger on this big-time looser as well??? Since it was clear they were not going to win this one, perhaps that is why they tried to bully the Mayor of Thomsonville and ran that full page add in the Local paper? Were they trying to convince the town to drop that lawsuite?
Since the judgement is upheld, I would guess it was worth their effort. 3ABN just has to change it's governance, at least on paper...or did they already do that?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Could this be a lawsuit that ends in an appelate court saying something about the weight and credibility given DS' testimony being a factor in the loss, and the loss being upheld?
And why do you think it was worth it to get the transcript of all three hearings? Those judges were just so perceptive it is difficult not to wonder what the SDA Lawyers, including Miller, were thinking?
But, then, Miller was perceptive enough to declare that if the state had done the minimum discovery
they would have found a basis to eliminate the tax exempt status. I trust that is not prophetic!!!
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Could this be a lawsuit that ends in an appelate court saying something about the weight and credibility given DS' testimony being a factor in the loss, and the loss being upheld?
And why do you think it was worth it to get the transcript of all three hearings? Those judges were just so perceptive it is difficult not to wonder what the SDA Lawyers, including Miller, were thinking?
But, then, Miller was perceptive enough to declare that if the state had done the minimum discovery
they would have found a basis to eliminate the tax exempt status. I trust that is not prophetic!!!
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Does that mean the IRS has gone back and taken more materials from the 3ABN compound?
-
Change its governance?? Or maybe simply initiate some??
Do they understand what governance is? Or, is that like a foreign language to them?
-
Gailon,
Can you expound on your new discoveries regarding the IRS CID?
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Gailon,
Can you expound on your new discoveries regarding the IRS CID?
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Nothing new...same old, same old, interview and document, interview and document. Takes a while to calculate the fine they will want. Seven figures takes a while to calculate and document.
As for Miller, well the old pied piper is about to get another chance to hone his litigation skills...for himself this time. It will interesting reconstructing those ninety days in the Spring of 2004 and the role he played putting together all those documents and coordinating Linda's demise. He must now ponder what he has done and just how he will justify his actions and yet stand so solidly for the integrity he is known and respected for. And he must get this done against the backdrop of a failed tax exemption case that ruled 3ABN is a Shelton business, and this based on limited discovery...can you imagine what the rulings will be with ALL the discovery?
Sometimes, we just cannot escape our past, good, bad or indifferent.
Can't wait to read his cease and desist letter!!! Yes, he got one too!!!
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
Praise God! It is time.
-
The time seems to be getting ripe. And God does not fail.
-
Praise God! It is time.
Yes. All in God's time.
-
Could this be a lawsuit that ends in an appelate court saying something about the weight and credibility given DS' testimony being a factor in the loss, and the loss being upheld?
And why do you think it was worth it to get the transcript of all three hearings? Those judges were just so perceptive it is difficult not to wonder what the SDA Lawyers, including Miller, were thinking?
But, then, Miller was perceptive enough to declare that if the state had done the minimum discovery
they would have found a basis to eliminate the tax exempt status. I trust that is not prophetic!!!
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
-
Could this be a lawsuit that ends in an appelate court saying something about the weight and credibility given DS' testimony being a factor in the loss, and the loss being upheld?
And why do you think it was worth it to get the transcript of all three hearings? Those judges were just so perceptive it is difficult not to wonder what the SDA Lawyers, including Miller, were thinking?
But, then, Miller was perceptive enough to declare that if the state had done the minimum discovery
they would have found a basis to eliminate the tax exempt status. I trust that is not prophetic!!!
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
Goodness gracious Dan/Sam! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want you pulling out the rest of your hair. Toupees don't come cheap, I understand.
-
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
Sam,
So good to see you back.
Now, I know you have been repeatedly factually challenged, but I assumed you had reasonably good command of the English Language. I said I had "DISCOVERED" they were doing more discovery. Now, Sam, does "DISCOVERED" in any way imply that the Criminal Division is passing me information?
Let me put your mind at peace and state emphatically they do not share anything with us, anymore than they will share with you, until they are ready. But, every investigation leaves tracks, Sam. Follow the tracks and you can follow the trends in any investigation. Investigative journalism builds a nose for this. Maybe, you ought to try it and you wouldn't be so factually challenged. Try it, you may like it!
Now, let us take up your other decisively antagonistic statement: (except to report 3abn in the first place). Bad news, Sam...the IRS was already on the trail building a file before Bob or I got involved. I have already given a history of this as we were able to follow it. Did I encourage frustrated former employees and donors to contact them???Absolutely.
BUT: For clarification, if I had the information that we now know and if I had the documents that we are discovering, and if I had the statements we have accumulated, and we saw just how deliberate the board was in its refusal to bring discipline and order, I WOULD SHARE IT WITH THE IRS AND THE ILLINOIS, AND 49 OTHER STATES, AG's AND Dept's Of REVENUE, and various other state and federal agencies. From Washington State to Florida and from Maine to California, anyone that would take action would be be given every note and every document to bring this mis-use of a religious facade to an end. And I say that, now knowing, that the board is virtually irresponsible in refusing to take appropriate steps to end this abuse until it was simply too late.
When you send warning after warning, and they go speeding through stop sign after stop sign, ignoring every reasonable effort to bring an end to this 20 year abuse and (and we were neither the first nor the last to raise the red flags) the directors simply ignore it all to end up in a mine field, they get nothing less than what they deserve.
Sam, have you read "Who Watches? Who Cares?" by Doug Hackleman? I have lived through every one of these crisis in stewardship within the church, and so have the 3ABN Directors, yet they followed the same path of intransigence and ommission that has PLAGUED the Seventh-day Adventist Church for nearly thirty years. And that is thirty years TOO LONG in my book!!!
I would guess you could argue I am intolerant of Institutional arrogance and the abuses of self inurement that comes with it. It must end within the church. The church needs entrepreneurial
spirit, but it needs to be unselfish and to the benefit of the institution, not the benefit of a few individuals and founders, while employees and volunteers barely survive or end up victims. Explain to me when it became the Christian model for the president of an adventist institution to live in a 4000 square foot house with a large horse barn and paddock, gated of course, and running side deals to get the institution to buy their books so they can make a small fortune, while the people that work at making the ministry happen every day barely survive, sometimes requiring assistance. The President gets a jet but the peons are lucky to be able to afford enough gas to get to work every day to get the next paycheck. Just how many raises were there in nearly a million dollars a year in Jet expense?
Just how many benefits for the masses were there in a $3Million dollar book deal? And just how many cola increases will have to be waived to cover that $3,000,000 dollar loss from simply irresponsible efforts in 2006?
You have the tax case, the Linda Shelton Debacle, the Sky Angel problems, the Jet issues, the remarriage to Brandy issues, the lawsuite issues and the Tommy Shelton issues. We could go on, but you live it every day. Don't tell me you don't feel the weight of erroneous judgment on your shoulders as well. And don't you wonder how it is possible that building goes on, but annual cola's are waived?
Sam, we have the weight of evidence in our favor. We are so convinced that the weight of evidence will support our claims and the cross claims, we are preparing for trial. And we are encouraging others to do the same thing. By the time it is done, 3ABN will have so many fronts to deal with and so many lawyers yipping at the heals of the organization and its directors, they will wish they had taken the right turn when they had the opportunity. But, it is too late now. Too many hungry lawyers, too many bureaucrats with agenda's and simply too much history ignored.
Now, once again Sam, 3ABN gave us our license the day they served us with a lawsuite. Just ask that investigative relative of yours. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give us license to discover any material that may lead to relevant information and here is a sample:
FRCP 26 (b) "Discovery Scope and Limits.
(1) Scope in General.
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C)."
A FRCP 34: (a) In General.
"A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):
(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control:
(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations — stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or
(B) any designated tangible things; or
(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it."
The rest of the rules are readily available online for your careful review.
In summary, they will be giving information out to anyone whom they sue or that sues them if the litigants do proper discovery.
So, get a nose like Pinnochio and follow the trail of evidence, you will be less factually challenged and more factually accurate, and your analytical skills will improve as well.
Good to have you back as you are such a terrific platform upon which to build ones responses.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
Goodness gracious Dan/Sam! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want you pulling out the rest of your hair. Toupees don't come cheap, I understand.
That makes about as much sense, as me foolishly replying to that with equal politeness and love:
"Goodness gracious Linda/Ozzie! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want the stress causing more signs of age. Botox treatments and airbrushed photos don't come cheap, I understand."
Anybody who would appreciate that and think it helpful, or on the other hand attack my words as being unloving or ignorant and uninformed etc.. don't hesitate to speak right up here! Otherwise you can just look the other way again and continue to pretend you don't have double standards and that you judge all equally and impartially...
Note- To clarify-- I am not complaining to the admin or moderators, nor do I expect or ask them to do anything regarding the post I am replying to. That is why I didn't hit report. They can see it for themselves. I am posting to the members and readers here...
-
Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy on May 04, 2008, 01:02:43 PM
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
:dunno: Other than that the IRS are thorough?? :ROFL:
Quote from: Gailon Arthur Joy on May 04, 2008, 01:02:43 PM
The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
Quote from: Sam on Yesterday at 08:38:31 PM
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
Gailon Joy replies:
Sam,
So good to see you back.
Now, I know you have been repeatedly factually challenged, but I assumed you had reasonably good command of the English Language. I said I had "DISCOVERED" they were doing more discovery. Now, Sam, does "DISCOVERED" in any way imply that the Criminal Division is passing me information?
Let me put your mind at peace and state emphatically they do not share anything with us, anymore than they will share with you, until they are ready. But, every investigation leaves tracks, Sam. Follow the tracks and you can follow the trends in any investigation. Investigative journalism builds a nose for this. Maybe, you ought to try it and you wouldn't be so factually challenged. Try it, you may like it!
Now, let us take up your other decisively antagonistic statement: (except to report 3abn in the first place). Bad news, Sam...the IRS was already on the trail building a file before Bob or I got involved. I have already given a history of this as we were able to follow it. Did I encourage frustrated former employees and donors to contact them??? Absolutely....
[snipped balance, enough admitted to..]
Quote from: Snoopy on May 05, 2008, 12:03:33 AM
Gailon,
Can you expound on your new discoveries regarding the IRS CID?
Gailon Joy answers:
"Nothing new...same old, same old, interview and document, interview and document... Takes a while to calculate the fine they will want. Seven figures takes a while to calculate and document. "
He already said the IRS has told him nothing, and admits his discovery amounts to nothing new... but goes on to assume facts not in evidence... and present his thoughts and opinions to others as what's what.
Maybe it's time for GJ, BP, and others to at least consider, or TRY to answer the question previously posted:
"Just a few questions to clarify. Please provide only direct answers to the specific questions.
We all know if you are given a clearance by the IRS....YOU ARE CLEARED. Meaning the IRS is known for finding things when their really isn't anything to find. So, if they clear you, you can be sure you are squeaky clean. My question?
What will your reaction be if the IRS completely clears 3abn of any financial wrong doing? That would mean, accurate tax records, no private inurment, no 3abn monies spent on anyone's personal needs, etc...etc..
IMO if that happens that would mean a large number of stories you have repeated, as well as, your own take on what constitutes private inurment, mishandling of funds and on and on would be totally incorrect. Without merit. Down the tube. In other words, your opinions and your sources opinions aren't worth a dime compared to the IRS. If your financial allegations are proven false then think how many other accusations you have made that could be in error also. Several come to mind...."
Would that indicate that slander and libel (defamation of character) have occured? would that indicate that a public apology is in order???
I would think so.... but guess we'll have to see what happens...
edit to correct code
-
That makes about as much sense, as me foolishly replying to that with equal politeness and love:
"Goodness gracious Linda/Ozzie! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want the stress causing more signs of age. Botox treatments and airbrushed photos don't come cheap, I understand."
It seems like the poster is assuming that Ozzie and Linda are either the same person or that they think alike. Is this a false assumption?
-
That makes about as much sense, as me foolishly replying to that with equal politeness and love:
"Goodness gracious Linda/Ozzie! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want the stress causing more signs of age. Botox treatments and airbrushed photos don't come cheap, I understand."
Anybody who would appreciate that and think it helpful, or on the other hand attack my words as being unloving or ignorant and uninformed etc.. don't hesitate to speak right up here! Otherwise you can just look the other way again and continue to pretend you don't have double standards and that you judge all equally and impartially...
It seems like the poster is assuming that Ozzie and Linda are either the same person or that they think alike. Is this a false assumption?
ya think?
Now, think again .. Can you respond in the same way to Ozzie's post?
Jam 2:9 But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-
Aahh, yes. You mean REAL attorneys who send out defective subpoenas and then allow the information gleaned to be used against innocent posters?? THOSE ATTORNEYS??
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
-
Aahh, yes. You mean REAL attorneys who send out defective subpoenas and then allow the information gleaned to be used against innocent posters?? THOSE ATTORNEYS??
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
Snoopy, has it been established that the subpoena served to BlueHost was defective? If so, it is even more awful that BlueHost's legal department didn't check that out and deal with the subpoena in the proper manner, as Calvin did. I understand that at least the first subpoena that the 3abn atty served Calvin was defective, but I didn't hear the same for the BlueHost one.
I will agree with the principle that it is reprehensible that information gleaned through less-than-honest means is used against innocent people. I guess that is the difference between those acting for monetary gain, solely in the interests of their clients, as opposed to those with much loftier interests and ideals...representing God and fighting for truth.
-
I will agree with the principle that it is reprehensible that information gleaned through less-than-honest means is used against innocent people. I guess that is the difference between those acting for monetary gain, solely in the interests of their clients, as opposed to those with much loftier interests and ideals...representing God and fighting for truth.
I am not sure that there is much of a difference. More often than not, in my opinion, clients are representing themselves as having much loftier interests and ideals...representing God and fighting for truth, but are in it for monetary gain as much as the ones they hire to do unsavory things at an arms distance so that they can maintain the whiteness of their lovely sepulchres. If clients hire someone to do something reprehensible are they as guilty of reprehensible actions as the person they hired to do their bidding?
-
Snoopy,
I will agree with the principle that it is reprehensible that information gleaned through less-than-honest means is used against innocent people. I guess that is the difference between those acting for monetary gain, solely in the interests of their clients, as opposed to those with much loftier interests and ideals...representing God and fighting for truth.
GrandmaNettie', Is it less reprehensible for those "representing God and fighting for truth" to use information gleaned similarly in the fight "for much loftier interests and ideals"? Do not construe this as support for one side or other.
-
I totally agree, Ian! But I wonder how much longer it will take for 3ABN/DS to make such a public apology to Linda Shelton, Derrell Mundall and others who have suffered just such an injustice at the hands of a Christian ministry??
Would that indicate that slander and libel (defamation of character) have occured? would that indicate that a public apology is in order???
I would think so.... but guess we'll have to see what happens...
-
Ian - what's up with the small print?? Reminds me of a contract where one party is hoping to slide something by on the other!!
Actually, I believe you have a good point here, but exercising the golden rule in such a manner probably isn't going to help much!!
Ozzie, Ian and all of us....let's try to remember that we are all God's children. Even if we disagree with each other, He loves each of us the same and we only hurt Him when we resort to ugliness. This advice is directed at myself just as much as anybody else.
Happy Sabbath, all!!
Snoopy
That makes about as much sense, as me foolishly replying to that with equal politeness and love:
"Goodness gracious Linda/Ozzie! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want the stress causing more signs of age. Botox treatments and airbrushed photos don't come cheap, I understand."
Anybody who would appreciate that and think it helpful, or on the other hand attack my words as being unloving or ignorant and uninformed etc.. don't hesitate to speak right up here! Otherwise you can just look the other way again and continue to pretend you don't have double standards and that you judge all equally and impartially...
Note- To clarify-- I am not complaining to the admin or moderators, nor do I expect or ask them to do anything regarding the post I am replying to. That is why I didn't hit report. They can see it for themselves. I am posting to the members and readers here...
-
What made the first BSDA subpoena defective?
Snoopy, has it been established that the subpoena served to BlueHost was defective? If so, it is even more awful that BlueHost's legal department didn't check that out and deal with the subpoena in the proper manner, as Calvin did. I understand that at least the first subpoena that the 3abn atty served Calvin was defective, but I didn't hear the same for the BlueHost one.
I will agree with the principle that it is reprehensible that information gleaned through less-than-honest means is used against innocent people. I guess that is the difference between those acting for monetary gain, solely in the interests of their clients, as opposed to those with much loftier interests and ideals...representing God and fighting for truth.
-
Habanero, Fair Havens, you will get no argument from me.
As I posted, I agree with the principle. My statement was not made in support of any side. It was made to contrast reprehensible practices made for solely selfish reasons to the practices of those who truely represent God.
I will leave it to the individual readers to draw their own conclusions where any of the sides represented here stand.
Snoopy,
I will agree with the principle that it is reprehensible that information gleaned through less-than-honest means is used against innocent people. I guess that is the difference between those acting for monetary gain, solely in the interests of their clients, as opposed to those with much loftier interests and ideals...representing God and fighting for truth.
GrandmaNettie', Is it less reprehensible for those "representing God and fighting for truth" to use information gleaned similarly in the fight "for much loftier interests and ideals"? Do not construe this as support for one side or other.
-
Snoopy, it is my understanding that the original subpoena served on Calvin was not made according to the rules of Calvin's home state. It has been some time since I read the details of why the BSDA subpeona didn't conform, but that is my recollection.
Is this the case for the subpoena served on BlueHost?
What made the first BSDA subpoena defective?
-
Maybe it's time for GJ, BP, and others to at least consider, or TRY to answer the question previously posted:
I already answered that. Remember?
-
Snoopy, has it been established that the subpoena served to BlueHost was defective? If so, it is even more awful that BlueHost's legal department didn't check that out and deal with the subpoena in the proper manner, as Calvin did. I understand that at least the first subpoena that the 3abn atty served Calvin was defective, but I didn't hear the same for the BlueHost one.
Both subpoenas were identical in the problems they had. Both didn't list a case number. Both didn't say "District of Massachusetts" under where the case number should have been, and instead said "District of Utah" or "District of Nebraska" in that spot. Both also called for production on the 17th, leaving the recipients perhaps a week or less to comply.
Jerrie Hayes had multiple times brought up that I had issued subpoenas from the wrong district. Thus her issuing subpoenas without case numbers and without "District of Massachusetts" on it were of particular interest to me, but whether a court would have felt her subpoenas consequently did not have to be complied with, I do not know. But probably if BlueHost had noticed the problem and made an issue of it, she would have reissued it, is my guess.
-
"He already said the IRS has told him nothing, and admits his discovery amounts to nothing new... but goes on to assume facts not in evidence... and present his thoughts and opinions to others as what's what. " IAN
Ian, did it ever occur to you that the reason I have some knowledge of the IRS Criminal Investigation is because we had interviewed many of the same people and collected much of the same evidence? The exception to date is incomplete information from the campus of 3ABN. We will work to improve that deficiency!!!
Your problem is that you have problems reading the footprints in the fresh morning snow. I recall a morning in November many years ago when myself and three flatlanders from Pennsylvania were out for a walk by the lake in NH. We found a fresh pair of tracks and they said they wanted to follow them. I agreed. As I proceeded up the trail, I noticed they were headed the wrong way. They had no idea the direction of the fresh prints and were headed back from whence the prints came from.
I have come to the conclusion that we have a problem like that here.
And speaking of double standards? How is it that a Historic Adventist can in any way support 3ABN given the weight of the evidence? Unless one simply cannot figure out the direction of the tracks.
Gailon Arthur Joy
-
That makes about as much sense, as me foolishly replying to that with equal politeness and love:
"Goodness gracious Linda/Ozzie! That did make you drop your guard, didn't it? Sounds like you're getting a bit rattled by all this. Calm down old salt. Don't want the stress causing more signs of age. Botox treatments and airbrushed photos don't come cheap, I understand."
It seems like the poster is assuming that Ozzie and Linda are either the same person or that they think alike. Is this a false assumption?
Quite laughable really! Ozzie being Linda? :oops: Like chalk and cheese. :ROFL:
-
Quite laughable really! Ozzie being Linda? :oops: Like chalk and cheese. :ROFL:
Yeah Ozzie, it was silly, :ROFL: but you didn't acknowledge or apparently get the point, ---> the way you keep accusing posters of being DS is just as silly and ignorant...
-
Quite laughable really! Ozzie being Linda? :oops: Like chalk and cheese. :ROFL:
Yeah Ozzie, it was silly, :ROFL: but you didn't acknowledge or apparently get the point, ---> the way you keep accusing posters of being DS is just as silly and ignorant...
Sounds like you just called her behavior silly and ignorant? I suppose it is hard to actually put your finger on a posters actual fingerprint at any given time being that ID's are shared and therefore one can claim "it's not me". So, it really does no good to point any finger as one could always be wrong and always be right - timing is what makes the difference, huh Ian? I think it doesn't matter as the sum of all is basically the same no matter who wrote it, of course there are always some little differences, if one pays attention to noticing.
I think she got the point. I think you missed it.
-
Quite laughable really! Ozzie being Linda? :oops: Like chalk and cheese. :ROFL:
Yeah Ozzie, it was silly, :ROFL: but you didn't acknowledge or apparently get the point, ---> the way you keep accusing posters of being DS is just as silly and ignorant...
Ozzie,
Now really, after all of our years together, all the fun and tears we shared, are you going to tell me now you were really Linda Shelton.
Sorry, Ian, this is one woman that is neither silly nor ignorant. Anyone thinking so might have their own problems
-
I noticed that too sonshine. Funny how one minute Ian goes from admonishing "prayerful consideration" to calling someone else "silly and ignorant". It's really too bad.
Sounds like you just called her behavior silly and ignorant? I suppose it is hard to actually put your finger on a posters actual fingerprint at any given time being that ID's are shared and therefore one can claim "it's not me". So, it really does no good to point any finger as one could always be wrong and always be right - timing is what makes the difference, huh Ian? I think it doesn't matter as the sum of all is basically the same no matter who wrote it, of course there are always some little differences, if one pays attention to noticing.
I think she got the point. I think you missed it.
-
Not sure "funny" is the term I would choose, but, that's just me :-X
I noticed that too sonshine. Funny how one minute Ian goes from admonishing "prayerful consideration" to calling someone else "silly and ignorant". It's really too bad.
Sounds like you just called her behavior silly and ignorant? I suppose it is hard to actually put your finger on a posters actual fingerprint at any given time being that ID's are shared and therefore one can claim "it's not me". So, it really does no good to point any finger as one could always be wrong and always be right - timing is what makes the difference, huh Ian? I think it doesn't matter as the sum of all is basically the same no matter who wrote it, of course there are always some little differences, if one pays attention to noticing.
I think she got the point. I think you missed it.
-
Is a grandiose inconsistency a new line?