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

[lurker]

He may prefer it to remain a npo but his non profit status may be revoked and it could be declared to be a regular business against his will. I would think then that he would try to keep as much of it under his control as he can both for himself but also for the benefit of his extended family. I doubt very much that he will consider it to be the donors money if that happens.

[awesumtenor]

He may prefer it to remain a npo but his non profit status may be revoked and it could be declared to be a regular business against his will. I would think then that he would try to keep as much of it under his control as he can both for himself but also for the benefit of his extended family. I doubt very much that he will consider it to be the donors money if that happens.

If 3ABN is reclassified as a for profit business entity, there will be no "donor money"; as long as they have 501c3 status, those donations are tax deductible; no 501c3, no tax deduction and, for all practical intents and purposes, no tax deduction, no donations... he could make them stockholders... but he could be pushed out the door by a well constructed proxy fight then... ask Steve Jobs.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Richard Sherwin]

Whose name is all the properties of 3abn in?

I know of a situation where a man raised up a church, had a big following, and was able to build a multimillion dollar facility, including a lavish parsonage. In time he tired of it and cashed out for several million. Everything was in his name. He turned his back on his congregation and retired a rich man. Could danny do the same, especially if it was determined that 3abn was a for profit corp?

Richard

[Ed White]

If 3ABN is reclassified as a for profit business entity, there will be no "donor money"; as long as they have 501c3 status, those donations are tax deductible; no 501c3, no tax deduction and, for all practical intents and purposes, no tax deduction, no donations... he could make them stockholders... but he could be pushed out the door by a well constructed proxy fight then... ask Steve Jobs.

In His service,
Mr. J

Mr. J. I am asking because I don't know, but I thought that it was determined in a court of law that in one of the trademark lawsuits that the GC corporation does not have members but "customers" since it is a business instead of a church.

[PeacefulBe]

Yes absent enviremental concerns, hummers are very cute. Given how you see it, "what's so funny?" about the ad?

If I saw the ad I would determine that the “funny” part would be that people were laughing sarcastically at the thought of McDonalds giving them impression they were giving away full-sized Hummers with their happy meals. Of course, it could also be a sexual innuendo but I don’t know what was in sky’s mind when posting it.

I'm just curious as I am no longer allowed to ask sky that on Maritime, or why he posted it instead of answering my questions. I find it absurd that after being called names and being accused of many things by him, even for posting here rather then there, all while refusing to answer even one question of mine ever; That it turns out that nothing can be posted by me except an apology, and I can never expect answers there because they are decreed off topic. and yet the picture remains...

It’s a shame that you and sky are at odds. That is a sorry place for Christians to be. Sounds like you will have to just chalk it up to one of life’s unfortunate circumstances and learn what you can from it.

Perhaps you won't find me so sad either, if you actually looked at the links You are responding to?? Here you go, here's the one you just criticized me for:
Maybe you can tell me why asking someone to explain themselves, or prove what they say, and then noticing that they refuse to do so , is the equivalent of having extended claws, to you? Does anyone else around here seem catty to you, or just me??

I actually twice more asked Sister to explain, now I found it sad a Christian would accuse another without explaining or proving how what they claimed was true, and ignoring questions about it, and you found me at fault for noticing that, and asking her to do so.

I’m sorry you haven’t received a response from sister that you are satisfied with. Perhaps she is still working on it. I realize it can get frustrating but when we resort to judgmental comments about each other it detracts from the clear search for truth.

I'm not really understanding your point of view or focus.

I guess people see things differently.

It is true that some people here get catty but I wouldn’t say “many” of them do. I’d say it’s more like a few who do it with any regularity. Of course all of us have that odd moment when we forget our Christianity and the claws come out. I’m sorry if you thought I was doing that to you. Just keep carefully reading, questioning and attempting to verify the material you read here. But do try not to lash out in your frustration. It diverts from that important search, in my opinion.

[Aletheia]

If I saw the ad I would determine that the “funny” part would be that people were laughing sarcastically at the thought of McDonalds giving them impression they were giving away full-sized Hummers with their happy meals. Of course, it could also be a sexual innuendo but I don’t know what was in sky’s mind when posting it.
It’s a shame that you and sky are at odds. That is a sorry place for Christians to be. Sounds like you will have to just chalk it up to one of life’s unfortunate circumstances and learn what you can from it.
I’m sorry you haven’t received a response from sister that you are satisfied with. Perhaps she is still working on it. I realize it can get frustrating but when we resort to judgmental comments about each other it detracts from the clear search for truth.
It is true that some people here get catty but I wouldn’t say “many” of them do. I’d say it’s more like a few who do it with any regularity. Of course all of us have that odd moment when we forget our Christianity and the claws come out. I’m sorry if you thought I was doing that to you. Just keep carefully reading, questioning and attempting to verify the material you read here. But do try not to lash out in your frustration. It diverts from that important search, in my opinion.

PB,

I do hope you will understand that sometimes my words are blunt but I meant no offense yo you, and none was taken,

I appreciate the way you answered here, I am not sure I agree with all, but neither can I fault it, Your answers and thoughts and reasoning, have given me something to think about,



Thankyou, and have a wonderful day.

~ Cindy

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 29 2006, 05:12 AM

[Joe Smith]

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. That is my understanding as well.

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

I am certain that the figure was a high estimate of $400,000 from one of the other posts, not mine.
Again I need to say the loan was not based upon only one salary of 50k per year, but two, as Linda was in the picture as well when it was being built and financed. The value or current apprasial of the house is considerably more now than when it was built several years ago. Danny did some of the work there himself.

Joe

[Pickle]

I am certain that the figure was a high estimate of $400,000 from one of the other posts, not mine.
Again I need to say the loan was not based upon only one salary of 50k per year, but two, as Linda was in the picture as well when it was being built and financed. The value or current apprasial of the house is considerably more now than when it was built several years ago. Danny did some of the work there himself.

Joe

So Joe, do you have a figure for the current appraised value yet? And how much above the appraised value Danny paid Linda for her half? And how the amount of the outstanding loan figures into it all, since obviously Danny wouldn't have to pay her for her half of what was still owed on the house?

Are you suggesting above that the current appraised value is $500,000 or $600,000? If not, what are you suggesting, or what is the correct figure?

And since you say that it is your understanding that the materials and labor came from 3ABN, was this reported on his W-2 and/or 3ABN's Form 990?

[Aletheia]

Aletheia,

You and Sky can continue to discuss it further there in a separate topic, if one of you desires to create one there in connection with Sky's request for an apology.

[ Previous reply removed by Aletheia-- ]

My Sincere apologies Daryl for jumping to conclusions based on what I thought you were able to do with your moderator tools on Maritime and finding fault with you here for not doing so. I was wrong, and I am v e r y sorry.



This post has been edited by Aletheia: Dec 29 2006, 09:09 PM

[Panama_Pete]

Mr. J. I am asking because I don't know, but I thought that it was determined in a court of law that in one of the trademark lawsuits that the GC corporation does not have members but "customers" since it is a business instead of a church.

The Seventh-day Adventist church has all kinds of different registered marks.

1. They have trademarks for products, because they publish books.

2. They have service-marks for services they provide. They own hospitals and such.

3. There's another option called a collective membership mark.

The SDA Church, itself, is comprised of both the association and the corporation, with the corporation owning the assets.

One non-adventist example I know about is Sky Angel:

With Sky Angel, TV services are part of the non-profit service, but the satellite assets are owned by a separate corporation, because corporate ownership works best for assets. For instance, if they launch their own satellite, it would be insured, and the insurance company would prefer a corporate form of ownership for the satellite.

Back to the Adventist Church:

The Adventist Church, with its books, hospitals, schools, and TV network, can have customers for these products and services, and this can certainly affect trademark and service-mark registrations, but the church can also have members.

It just depends on which part of a very large church organization is under discussion. It is highly possible a court ruled that some entity of the church had customers, not members. But we would have to see the case, itself, to know for sure.

Pete

[Ed White]

The Seventh-day Adventist church has all kinds of different registered marks.

1. They have trademarks for products, because they publish books.

2. They have service-marks for services they provide. They own hospitals and such.

3. There's another option called a collective membership mark.

The SDA Church, itself, is comprised of both the association and the corporation, with the corporation owning the assets.

One non-adventist example I know about is Sky Angel:

With Sky Angel, TV services are part of the non-profit service, but the satellite assets are owned by a separate corporation, because corporate ownership works best for assets. For instance, if they launch their own satellite, it would be insured, and the insurance company would prefer a corporate form of ownership for the satellite.

Back to the Adventist Church:

The Adventist Church, with its books, hospitals, schools, and TV network, can have customers for these products and services, and this can certainly affect trademark and service-mark registrations, but the church can also have members.

It just depends on which part of a very large church organization is under discussion. It is highly possible a court ruled that some entity of the church had customers, not members. But we would have to see the case, itself, to know for sure.

Pete

Thanks a lot as I do not have a legal mind & those that share legal things here I really look forward to reading these posts. I knew that Wal-Mart & Shell Oil had customers but for a court of law to determine that the General Conference of SDA also has customers…it has me wondering would this be different than shareholders that could be held liable for the corporate debts? I grew up in Adventism thinking that “all ye are brethren”, now should I worry if my bank account is safe to pay debts I never had any say over. Some have said here that Danny is not going down alone.
=========
Pete I will get this case in question for you.

[Aletheia]

The Seventh-day Adventist church has all kinds of different registered marks.

1. They have trademarks for products, because they publish books.

2. They have service-marks for services they provide. They own hospitals and such.

3. There's another option called a collective membership mark.

The SDA Church, itself, is comprised of both the association and the corporation, with the corporation owning the assets.

One non-adventist example I know about is Sky Angel:

With Sky Angel, TV services are part of the non-profit service, but the satellite assets are owned by a separate corporation, because corporate ownership works best for assets. For instance, if they launch their own satellite, it would be insured, and the insurance company would prefer a corporate form of ownership for the satellite.

Back to the Adventist Church:

The Adventist Church, with its books, hospitals, schools, and TV network, can have customers for these products and services, and this can certainly affect trademark and service-mark registrations, but the church can also have members.

It just depends on which part of a very large church organization is under discussion. It is highly possible a court ruled that some entity of the church had customers, not members. But we would have to see the case, itself, to know for sure.

Pete

I now don't know about "customers" but I think he was referring to the trademark lawsuit in Florida, 2000, the Eternal Gospel Church were sued by the conference for using the name "Seventh-day Adventist" and lost. The name "Seventh-day Adventist" (small "d" on day only and don't forget the hyphen) was registered as a trademark in 1981, several very small groups were sued first the first a home church in Africa with 11 members, 3 of which left when they found out they were being sued. There was only one setback where a Gay Church claimed kinship and won, but several months later the trademark case in Florida set a precident. For the first time ever the state ruled on the definition of a Denominational Church, and defined who is and who is not entitled to use the name Seventh-day Adventist or call themselves that, (we aren't like the baptists!)

According to the conference we aren't supposed to say SDA either, (as in BSDA) the official abrieviation is "Adventist" which is also trademarked.

Since then, no one, layperson or not is allowed to use the name seventh-day Adventist or call themselves that without the conference's aythorization.

'Church trademarks, such as "Seventh-day Adventist," "Adventist," and "Ministry," may be used only in connection with denominational ministries and non-commercial activities of approved lay and professional groups. Use of these trademarks shall be controlled by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists through its Trademark Committee."

For more info go here:

http://www.adventist.org/namelogo.html

(shades of Rome and the Inquisitions! I've read the transcripts, and even the Catholic Judge in the Florida trial rebuked the GC with the scripture about not taking brethren to law before the unbelievers, and asked them to resolve it amongst themselves, but they didn't. Not something I can ever agree with those who were in leadership then about,)

[seeshell]

Snip...

'Church trademarks, such as "Seventh-day Adventist," "Adventist," and "Ministry," may be used only in connection with denominational ministries and non-commercial activities of approved lay and professional groups. Use of these trademarks shall be controlled by the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists through its Trademark Committee."

For more info go here:

http://www.adventist.org/namelogo.html

(shades of Rome and the Inquisitions! I've read the transcripts, and even the Catholic Judge in the Florida trial rebuked the GC with the scripture about not taking brethren to law before the unbelievers, and asked them to resolve it amongst themselves, but they didn't. Not something I can ever agree with those who were in leadership then about,)

I am puzzled over the church's apparent claim to the word "Ministry". Surely they cannot trademark a word like that standing on its own...does it mean the word cannot be used in conjunction with the other trademarked words without approval?

[Richard Sherwin]

Ed I know there are different types of stocks, but in general I don't believe that stockholders can be liable for the debts of a corporation. Of course if a company you owned stock in folded up your stock would only make a fairly good fire starter! Same with non-stock holding investors, I once had several investors that put money in one of my companies and our lawyer assured them that the most they could lose would be their investments. (And with God as my partner they profited quite nicely)

Basking in Gods generous love,

Richard

Thanks a lot as I do not have a legal mind & those that share legal things here I really look forward to reading these posts. I knew that Wal-Mart & Shell Oil had customers but for a court of law to determine that the General Conference of SDA also has customers…it has me wondering would this be different than shareholders that could be held liable for the corporate debts? I grew up in Adventism thinking that “all ye are brethren”, now should I worry if my bank account is safe to pay debts I never had any say over. Some have said here that Danny is not going down alone.
=========
Pete I will get this case in question for you.

[PeacefulBe]

I now don't know about "customers" but I think he was referring to the trademark lawsuit in Florida, 2000, the Eternal Gospel Church were sued by the conference for using the name "Seventh-day Adventist" and lost. The name "Seventh-day Adventist" (small "d" on day only and don't forget the hyphen) was registered as a trademark in 1981, several very small groups were sued first the first a home church in Africa with 11 members, 3 of which left when they found out they were being sued. There was only one setback where a Gay Church claimed kinship and won, but several months later the trademark case in Florida set a precident. For the first time ever the state ruled on the definition of a Denominational Church, and defined who is and who is not entitled to use the name Seventh-day Adventist or call themselves that, (we aren't like the baptists!)

Just to keep the record straight, from what I read on their web site, the SDA Kinship is a non-profit organization, a ministry not a church. They support former and present gay members of our church and try to educate the denomination about homosexuality.

http://www.sdakinship.org/about.htm