Questions For Joe Smith, for starters: "mansion" & "huge pool" Options

[Joe Smith]

I take it from this comment that Danny was ultimately the sole source of your information that Linda lived in a "mansion" with a "huge pool." If this is incorrect, please inform us differently.

Pickle, It looks like you are making assumptions here that were not stated. I did not say that Danny told me Linda lived in a "mansion', I said he told me about the pool. You added the "Mansion" part.

It thus appears, based on your own testimony, that we have potentially here another fabrication told by Danny Shelton. I say potentially since we don't yet have square footage figures or the number of rooms in her house. Again you have charged Danny with a statement that he did not make. I thought you were the man that wouldn't repeat anything without proof.

I don't put a lot of weight on what Johann, Sister, and others who have sided with Linda say when it comes to Danny's untrustworthiness. But I put a lot of weight on what his staunch supporters, defenders, and apologists say to that effect.

Here are a few questions, Joe:

• What was the appraised value?
• How much more than the appraised value did he give her?

See if you can dig up more info on this one. Did she really need a loan from the doctor if she really got all this money? How much did she really get?

Knowing the appraised value and how much Danny gave her for her half of the house will let us know just how kind and generous Danny really was.
Of course he could, since:

• He allegedly made a big deal when they bought the car that his name was not going to be on the title. I ask you Pickle, were you there when Danny supposedly made this "big deal?" Are you just repeating second hand info? Can we see you documentation for this statement?
  
• He claimed emphatically that he had proof that his name was on the title. Proof?

Now if you are suggesting that he made this claim when he had no proof whatsoever except a faulty memory, then we are left with the conclusion that Danny claimed he had proof when he really had none.

Now can we really try to explain this one away by saying that he can't keep straight what he has proof for and what he doesn't, just like he can't keep straight which cars he owns and which ones he doesn't?
Danny didn't have the title there before him and so he just made an asumpsion. Danny has sooo much more on his plate than how a car was titled in 2003, was it? This is such a small piece of info that anyone could get mixed up on. As I stated, I don't know how my own vehicles are titled without getting them out and looking.

Joe

[Daryl Fawcett]

Well that was very special! Apparently, you meant that I should only go there and apologise, as you repeatedly told me to do, while I am being attacked and accused without any reproof, and that none of my questions will be answered by skye, as he is not expected to answer my complaints???


That seems to be par for the course there. I despise censorship and bias coming from people proclaiming Christianity and fairness.

Thank God the owners and moderators of this forum seem to allow both sides of any issue to post their concerns and questions as long as it is withing the rules here, regardless of their agreement or disagreement with what's posted, and that those rules are applied equally, regardless of who the person is.

I think I can say that both forums tolerate some off-topic discussion in a topic, however, when it takes over from the intended topic, it is then time to stop and do it in a new topic. Such was the case over there.

As this topic is supposed to be focusing on questions to Joe Smith, I think I had better now stop discussing this here in fear of unintentionally hijacking this topic.

[Aletheia]

I've always thought it appropriate for me to apologize when I have something to apologize for, even if the other party is more wrong than I am, and even if they refuse to apologize.

What they do they have to answer to God for. What I do I have to answer to God for.

See that's the problem Bob. You aren't my conscience, it is not appropriate for me to apologise just because you don't see the problem and you say I have something to apologise for. That seems rather arrogant to me.

I have apologised quite a few times both on here and on maritime for what I felt I needed to regardless of whether I thought someone else was also wrong, but I am not going to apologise and say I am wrong when I am not. That would be a lie.

I asked sky to explain so that maybe I would see that I needed to apologise, as I am willing to be open minded, and consider what is said, but just got more accusations in response.

Maybe sky will starsuddenly see the need to apologise or answer, but barring that, I am done with Maritime and the rearanging of topics and closed threads and shouts of off topic and irrelevant from those who can't see past their own point of view, and censor those who they disagree with, while leaving others untouched.

And I am not going to discuss this further, for I can tell from this whole episode that it iwould be a futile waste of time.

[Pickle]

Hi Joe.

You write:

Pickle, It looks like you are making assumptions here that were not stated. I did not say that Danny told me Linda lived in a "mansion', I said he told me about the pool. You added the "Mansion" part.

... Again you have charged Danny with a statement that he did not make. I thought you were the man that wouldn't repeat anything without proof.

Then please be more specific. All I'm trying to do is nail down exactly what Danny did and didn't tell you. And I don't know how else to figure it out.

You stated that Linda now lives in a mansion with a huge pool. When asked whether you've seen it for yourself and, if not, who the source of your info was, you stated only that Danny told you about the pool, thus indicating that you never have seen it for yourself.

Who told you about the size of her house if not Danny? Or were you merely assuming that it just had to be bigger than yours if it cost $200,000?

You write (in red):

• He allegedly made a big deal when they bought the car that his name was not going to be on the title. I ask you Pickle, were you there when Danny supposedly made this "big deal?" Are you just repeating second hand info? Can we see you documentation for this statement?
• He claimed emphatically that he had proof that his name was on the title. Proof?

First of all, I used the word "allegedly" for just those reasons. Secondly, Danny emphatically claimed that he had proof. Here is what he wrote on Oct. 8, 2006:

Our car door was locked. Yes, I'm aware that she claims it was her car but I have proof that it is titled to both she and I even unto this day. She didn't apparently remember that I too had keys to this Toyota Sequoia. I opened the car door and opened the glove compartment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you are evading the only questions I asked you this time around. I'll repeat them below:

Another thing, don't forget that linda didn't just have $250,000.00 to live on.. she also had the Big check from Danny for her half of the house. That amounted to $150,000.00 to $200,000.00. He gave her more than the apraised value.

Here are a few questions, Joe:

• What was the appraised value?
• How much more than the appraised value did he give her?

See if you can dig up more info on this one. Did she really need a loan from the doctor if she really got all this money? How much did she really get?

Knowing the appraised value and how much Danny gave her for her half of the house will let us know just how kind and generous Danny really was.

[princessdi]

Not necessarily so, Kevin. When was the house bougth, and then when was it appraised. It might now be worth $400,000.00, and only $200,000.00(or less) when it was built.

That's too good if his income is as has been stated in the neighborhood of just under 50K per annum... even with the absolute best credit rating on the planet, someone with that income would not qualify for a 400K dollar loan.

Either he has undeclared income or he has managed to artificially inflate the value of his house... or it's not his house...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Brother Sam]

The question is how much does danny have in the house?

I understand the property was donated to him and much of the labor and materials were from 3ABN.

Maybe that is how you can have a $500,000 house on 50,000 dollars a year.

This post has been edited by Brother Sam: Dec 28 2006, 02:58 PM

[princessdi]

Uh basically, Joe, you act as if Danny did Linda a favor. He wanted a divorce, there was marital property to divide, Simple as that, she was supposed to get her share. Now, about the house, may she did, maybe she didn't. I know she didn't with the buisness 3ABN, because it is not worth only $500,000.00. They built that life together, she got shafted and did not even get her fair share. About the music? She sang it wrote it, her music, it would have been more than vindictive for Danny to keep it(even though that didn't stop him from retaping each and every show she was on for the next season). Danny did not give Linda anything but the shaft. Stop acting like Danny did Linda such a big favor, he didn't.


One more thing...Johann has always maintained that he and his wife were close friends with Linda. a dip in her pool means nothing. What? Now she can't even have friends to visit?

I was waiting to see if anyone else had picked up on the fact that Johann had said he had taken a "dip" in Linda's pool. If the pics from the sky didn't show a pool, must not be the right neighborhood. Danny also told me about her pool.
Another thing, don't forget that linda didn't just have $250,000.00 to live on.. she also had the Big check from Danny for her half of the house. That amounted to $150,000.00 to $200,000.00. He gave her more than the apraised value. Cash Money.. she didn't have to wait for 2 years for that.

Don't forget the other perks she left with.... her music video rights... her singing and songwriting rights... these amount to a good chunk of change also.

One more thing, about the title to her car. Do you really think that Danny could keep it straight how the title reads since it was not in his possession. I doubt it because I have 4 vehicles and 2 trailer titles and I can't tell you how a certain one of them is made out without getting it out and looking at it.

[Eddy]

Uh basically, Joe, you act as if Danny did Linda a favor. He wanted a divorce, there was marital property to divide, Simple as that, she was supposed to get her share. Now, about the house, may she did, maybe she didn't. I know she didn't with the buisness 3ABN, because it is not worth only $500,000.00. They built that life together, she got shafted and did not even get her fair share. About the music? She sang it wrote it, her music, it would have been more than vindictive for Danny to keep it(even though that didn't stop him from retaping each and every show she was on for the next season). Danny did not give Linda anything but the shaft. Stop acting like Danny did Linda such a big favor, he didn't.
One more thing...Johann has always maintained that he and his wife were close friends with Linda. a dip in her pool means nothing. What? Now she can't even have friends to visit?

Married for 20 years right? She was given the SHAFT!

[Aletheia]

This whole issue of Marital Property keeps coming up in reference to 3ABN... by people who think Linda should have got half.

WHY?

Anybody know of any law defining NPOs as marital property?

I don't know all, but this I do know.

3ABN is a not for profit organization, that means it can't be divided by it's founders because of divorce, there are no profits to divide.

NPO's are set up to be run by boards, they can have employees who receive wages,as Linda was, and as Danny is, but that's all.

Being a founder of a NPO is not the same as owning a business.

If someone has other info regarding this I'd be interested in hearing it.

~ Alethteia

[awesumtenor]

See that's the problem Bob. You aren't my conscience, it is not appropriate for me to apologise just because you don't see the problem and you say I have something to apologise for. That seems rather arrogant to me.

I have apologised quite a few times both on here and on maritime for what I felt I needed to regardless of whether I thought someone else was also wrong, but I am not going to apologise and say I am wrong when I am not. That would be a lie.

I asked sky to explain so that maybe I would see that I needed to apologise, as I am willing to be open minded, and consider what is said, but just got more accusations in response.

Maybe sky will starsuddenly see the need to apologise or answer, but barring that, I am done with Maritime and the rearanging of topics and closed threads and shouts of off topic and irrelevant from those who can't see past their own point of view, and censor those who they disagree with, while leaving others untouched.

And I am not going to discuss this further, for I can tell from this whole episode that it iwould be a futile waste of time.

Do you actually read the posts you call yourself responding to, Cindy? Because if you had actually read all of Bob's post... and it wasnt exactly War and Peace for it's length... you'd have noticed the last statement he made which was the following:

What they do they have to answer to God for. What I do I have to answer to God for.

You, BTW, would be part and parcel of the 'they' Bob spoke of. His statement about apologizing was about himself... not about you. The only part that alluded to you was the collective statement noted above...

So why the thin skin and the defensiveness?

Inquiring minds, etc.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

Do you actually read the posts you call yourself responding to, Cindy? Because if you had actually read all of Bob's post... and it wasnt exactly War and Peace for it's length... you'd have noticed the last statement he made which was the following:
You, BTW, would be part and parcel of the 'they' Bob spoke of. His statement about apologizing was about himself... not about you. The only part that alluded to you was the collective statement noted above...

So why the thin skin and the defensiveness?

Inquiring minds, etc.

In His service,
Mr. J

Why am I as you say?

What 1 do and say I have to be accountable to God for also. If I pray and ask him to guide me, before posting and then another comes telling me I am wrong and doesn't prove this, and I pray and ask the Lord to sho me if I am, and get nothing, then I guess others will perceive me as being thin skinned and defensive when I don't follow their conscience and thinking instead of my own, or depending on their perceptions they may see and think many things about me.

If they judge righteously God will know, if they judge unrighteously God will know.

And he knows me, that's good enough for me..


That's the best I can answer you.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 28 2006, 04:41 PM

[awesumtenor]

Why am I as you say?

What 1 do and say I have to be accountable to God for also. If I pray and ask him to guide me, before posting and then another comes telling me I am wrong and doesn't prove this, and I pray and ask the Lord to sho me if I am, and get nothing, then I guess others will perceive me as being thin skinned and defensive when I don't follow their conscience and thinking instead of my own, or depending on their perceptions they may see and think many things about me.

If they judge righteously God will know, if they judge unrighteously God will know.

And he knows me, that's good enough for me..
That's the best I can answer you.

Delusions of adequacy... riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Noted; carry on.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

3ABN is a not for profit organization, that means it can't be divided by it's founders because of divorce, there are no profits to divide.

NPO's are set up to be run by boards, they can have employees who receive wages,as Linda was, and as Danny is, but that's all.

...

If someone has other info regarding this I'd be interested in hearing it.

Aletheia,

The sticky part is that the IL Tax Case decision was based in part on the finding that 3ABN does not operate like a non-profit should:

I must conclude from the evidence of record, that applicant is controlled by Danny and Linda Shelton, and all final decisions are made by them and not by a disinterested impartial board of directors.

...

Applicant has failed to establish that it is not charging everyone that purchases or uses its products, facilities, and programs at prices above the cost of operation. On the contrary, these appear to be armslength transactions producing fees no different than a non-exempt business enterprise would generate. Programming and broadcasting are done for profit on this property, as clearly shown by applicant’s financial statements.

...

Applicant has, therefore, not established that it does not profit from the enterprise conducted on the subject property, a fatal flaw to its exemption claim.

...

Also contrary to the guidelines enumerated in Methodist Old People’s Home, is the fact that applicant’s property is used with a view to accumulating profits....

Danny and Linda Shelton have control of applicant. They regulate the amount they are paid. They have control of programming. They regulate all contracts. Applicant uses this property to produce television programs, to sell equipment, radio and television time, and to sell merchandise, and, absent evidence to the contrary, sales are made at commercially competitive prices.

While this court decision did not revoke 3ABN's 501©3 tax exempt status, it could possibly be used as a basis for doing so.

If these findings by the court are correct, then 3ABN could possibly be considered a for-profit business, and thus be potentially divisible as marital property.

[Richard Sherwin]

So what would prevent Danny from intentionally wanting it to be a for profit company? Would he then own it? If so could he turn around and sell the place built with donations and take off with the proceeds?

Richard

Aletheia,

The sticky part is that the IL Tax Case decision was based in part on the finding that 3ABN does not operate like a non-profit should:
While this court decision did not revoke 3ABN's 501©3 tax exempt status, it could possibly be used as a basis for doing so.

If these findings by the court are correct, then 3ABN could possibly be considered a for-profit business, and thus be potentially divisible as marital property.

[Pickle]

So what would prevent Danny from intentionally wanting it to be a for profit company? Would he then own it? If so could he turn around and sell the place built with donations and take off with the proceeds?

Richard

If it weren't, it would be much harder to get donations. And there are some tax breaks, I think, that he would lose.