Proofs, Or Lack Thereof, A concern of causing false assumptions Options

[princessdi]

I do not claim to have in depth knowledge of not for profit corporations (and any book I have on the subject is in storage and unreachable), but I do not believe linda was cheated out of anything as a cofounder. She was basically given a severance pay that from what I have read elsewhere at BSDA was inline with what is customary in the industry for the position she held. Remember, she did not have an employment contract or the severance pay would have been covered in it should something go wrong. (Remember, like many SDA christians I have met that work for the denomination or do business with each other, we presume as christians we will treat each other fairly.......and I have a bridge too ) I have no doubt that Illinois like most states is an "employment at will" state so she could have been fired like anyone else without a contract. Now she might have sued for wrongful discharge if she had not signed the contract but she gave up the right for the security of the agreement she signed.

She was co founder, and you can still go many places on the internet that will tell you that. As co-founder she should have been bought out. Danny is also an employee, if he leaves, I really want to see what happens if they offer him $250,000.00. Not talking about what she had or didnt' have, I am talking aobut doing right when you call yourself a leader in [SDA]Christian Living. Man's law should not have been necessary for them to treat her fairly. Now 3ABN is pure big business then get them some big subiness programming and go for it, but while they are claiming to be agents to lead people to the life changing power of God, they need to do better. You can't claim buisness when it is convenient, your chirstianity should not stopat the door to your board room. She keeds to take the whole mess to Gloria Allred.........


When 3ABN chose to be a not for profit under IRS laws and state law, they benefited in many ways that other corporations do not. I also believe this means that Danny and Linda were no longer "owners" in the sense of one having ownership in a corporation. Someone with more knowledge of not for profits should quickly correct me here if I am wrong (which I may be).

The problem that I see (among many) is that Danny still acts like 3ABN is "his" to do with as he wishes. In his position on the board and in the day to day running he has the authority to still do things like an owner but he is not an owner anymore. He gave that up to get the benefits (tax) of having a not for profit. That is why the court in Illinois was concerned that 3ABN does not really function like a not for profit and I see little evidence to the contrary myself.

Exactly! Choosing to acknowledge that little loop hole when it suits him.........


I am sorry Linda did not seek legal counsel before signing the agreement. I am disgusted that the people who presented her with the contract did not believe it would stand the test of legal scrutiny as to its fairness. The courts are not there to protect us from our merely dumb or uneducated mistakes unless they are illegal. I am sorry she was naive enough to think the ministry she has apparently given so much to would not betray her. I do not know her and have only seen her briefly when asked to watch something by my parents. I know from personal experience with lots of mistakes in my own life that realizing and accepting my role in that I "volunteered" to be part of the whole equation that in the end left me feeling betrayed for whatever reason and taking responsibility for my role is REALLY hard.

Right once again, exactly my point. Had they not all checked their christianity at the board room dorr, they would not have even presented such a document to her. We are called to a higher standard in every area of our lives. If Linda was as wrong as she could be, caught int he act, 3ABN should have been the leader in showing God's loving correction, discipline, healing and forgiveness. Not resorting to tatics that rival Donald Trump.

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay women equal salaries "for the good of the ministry" or ask people to subvert the law and "donate" their overtime hours rather than get paid for them or as I have read elsewhere, not use "GAP standards in their accounting practices. I am sorry but lack of education is NOT an excuse. As an SDA we are trained from childhood to "sacrifice" for the good of presenting the message to the world but I have seen too many instances of unfairness result and certainly a lack of commensurate sacrifice by those doing the asking (GW for example will never lose his child in Iraq or worry that he might).

Go ahead!! you preachin' now!!

It is my understanding that the property settlement is still being litigated. Therefore, what Linda is entitled to as an asset from their marriage is still in the process of resolution. But, unless I am wrong, she is not entitled to any assets of 3ABN just because she was a co-founder. Not on legal grounds.

She would be had she not signed them away in that document..........

As for Danny's evidence that he was morally entitled to divorce his wife and remarry, I have yet to see or hear anything I find supported by "evidence" in the legal sense. That is why civil and criminal courts have burdens of proof and rules for what constitutes evidence or even makes a prima facie case. The moral standard that Danny is being held to is on its face pretty clear. There either was adultery or there was not. I have no idea what kind of evidence the church normally requires in reaching that conclusion. I obviously do not know what evidence those in authority to decide such things were shown and why they found it allowed Danny to morally do what he did. But based on all I have seen and heard here, this is a perfect example why I have not (and would never) trust this church as a trier of facts.

OK. Off my soap box.

Ain't nothing legal about "spiritual adultery".
nw

[Bystander]

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay
women.....
[/quote]



I agree but in this case, Linda made a larger salary than Danny..You can check it out

[Observer]

Re: "I am sorry Linda did not seek legal counsel before signing the agreement.

Linda did have legal advice prior to signing that contract.

However, in spite of that signed contract, and the fact that she had legal advice there is still reason to litigate.

1) Most people do not realize that in complex issues you must obtain the services of an attorney who specializes in those issues. Many do not realize the care that goes into the preparation of legal advice.

I have a friend who until recently was a Senior Partner in a national law firm. He practiced law in a specialized area of law, and became a recognized expert. He would not even consider thinking about giving legal advice outside of his area of expertise.

When he was a Senior Partner in that national law firm, every written opinon that left the office where he worked, had to be reviewed and signed by two Senior Partners. That made it very expensive. His lowest fee was several hundred dollars an hour, and his fees went up from that level. Two of the senior partners, regardless of who wrote the opinon, brief, or whatever, had to review, check, and sign off one before the document left the office.

2) It is not enough for a person to sign away legal rights that they have, even if they retained counsel. The Court will want to know that they signed away their legal rights after fully understanding what they had done, and the consequences of that.

I once needed to retain an attorney to draft an agreement with me on a matter involving another person. I developed a list of ten expert lawyers in that field. I narrowed it down to three, and selected one. During my initial interview with him I told him: I want you to give X everything that they are legally entitled to recieve, without exception, but nothing more. The resposne from the attorney was: That is the way I will operate in representing you. In order to protect you, and the agreement that you want signed you must give them everything that they are entitled to.

The other person decided not to retain an attorney, and to represent themself. In order to protect me, and to prevent litigation to throw out the terms of the agreement, my attorney inserted several paragraphs into the document that clearly stated the issues and consequences of doing so. The other person persested in a refusal to retain an atorney, and the agreement was filed with the Court.

Folks, why are issues still in litigation? Very simply because the agreement signed by Linda and Danny was written is such a way that it has not prevented the presented litigation. That is the bottom line.

Prior to the present litigation, I discussed it with lawyers whom I know, and was told that it contained clauses that could be challenged, and likely would not be enforced by a judge.

[Chez]

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay
women.....
I agree but in this case, Linda made a larger salary than Danny..You can check it out

I saw someplace where Danny made $50,000 and Linda made $49,000. This was a legal document submitted by Danny.

[Bystander]

I saw someplace where Danny made $50,000 and Linda made $49,000. This was a legal document submitted by Danny.

That must have been an older document. Before she left, she was making several more thousand than Danny because the board offered them a raise and Danny refused his and LInda took hers. Not saying there was anything wrong with that just that, in this case, the woman was making more.

[quote name='Observer' date='Feb 6 2007, 12:56 PM' post='175829']
Re: "I am sorry Linda did not seek legal counsel before signing the agreement.

Linda did have legal advice prior to signing that contract.

Greg, you just refuted the statements that have been made on here over and over that 3abn forced Linda to sign the contract without legal counsel. That has been hashed and rehashed here. You obviously found differently, and you are correct.

My question would be: If that information was false, (and it was), then how many other things told here for fact could be false.
Also I am quite sure, had I not pointed this out, none of the Linda apologists here, would have ever commented on it.

[inga]

I agree but in this case, Linda made a larger salary than Danny..You can check it out

Evidence, please?

I understand that court-filed documents demonstrate that Dan and Linda each received the same salary.

[Noahswife]

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay
women.....
I agree but in this case, Linda made a larger salary than Danny..You can check it out

Actually, I was not referring to Linda here and should have clarified my statement. I have read on BSDA that other positions are not paid the same for equal work and experience and that an EEOC investigation may or may not be pending or possibly brought at some point.

I wrote on another post some time ago that when I brought this possibility up with my mother several weeks ago that if it were true it bothered me. Her first response was it could not be true. Then when I asked how she felt if it were true as I have seen it in denominational employment in the past, she said it did not matter to her if it were true........

nw

[Observer]

Bystander:

I stated that Linda had legal advice prior to signing the agreement because that is fact.

However, if that agreement had fully settled all matters, or if it was fully satisfactory, there would be no litigation going on now.

In regard to Linda's salery, vs Danny's: I once obtained some 990s from the IRS. According to my memory, which may be faulty, of the three 990s that I obtained, Danny was listed as being paid slightly more than Linda, or the same (?) in two, and Linda was listed as being paid slightly more than Danny in one.

My memory may be wrong.

However, if you were reading the posts that I made at that time in Club Adventist, I posted a statement that both Danny and Linda had been underpaid, according to the amounts listed in the 990s. I suggested that a fair wage for Danny, at that time, would have been in the $70,000 to $75,000 range, as I remember.

Of course there remain issues that were mentioned by Judge Rowe in her 40 page decision in regard to other compensation that Danny and Linda might have recieved. I certainly cannot, and do not deal with those isseus.

But, Bystander, I call it as I see it. I always have. I am on Linda's side, and I do not attempt to hide that fact. I do not believe that Danny had a Biblical reason to divorce Linda. But, I have not criticized him in regard to the divorce and remarriage. You know that if you have regularly read my posts.

Yes, I have been critical in other areas, as I believe it to be justified.

[Noahswife]

She was co founder, and you can still go many places on the internet that will tell you that. As co-founder she should have been bought out. Danny is also an employee, if he leaves, I really want to see what happens if they offer him $250,000.00. Not talking about what she had or didn't' have, I am talking about doing right when you call yourself a leader in [SDA]Christian Living. Man's law should not have been necessary for them to treat her fairly. Now 3ABN is pure big business then get them some big subiness programming and go for it, but while they are claiming to be agents to lead people to the life changing power of God, they need to do better. You can't claim buisness when it is convenient, your chirstianity should not stopat the door to your board room. She keeds to take the whole mess to Gloria Allred.........



Right once again, exactly my point. Had they not all checked their christianity at the board room dorr, they would not have even presented such a document to her. We are called to a higher standard in every area of our lives. If Linda was as wrong as she could be, caught int he act, 3ABN should have been the leader in showing God's loving correction, discipline, healing and forgiveness. Not resorting to tatics that rival Donald Trump.

[/quote]


I could not agree with you more that on the face of it the concept of fairness (and that is not only a christian principle) does not seem to be at play here.

Again, I thought the agreement only had to do with her position on the Board and her employment at 3ABN.

Let's think about this for a minute. Can someone remind me if her removal from the board was before or after the divorce was obtained. If after, then she would still be entitled to her share of the marital property if Danny still would be considered to have something he was entitled to as a co-founder of 3ABN. Can someone help me on that?

[Noahswife]

Linda did have legal advice prior to signing that contract.



1) Most people do not realize that in complex issues you must obtain the services of an attorney who specializes in those issues. Many do not realize the care that goes into the preparation of legal advice.


Prior to the present litigation, I discussed it with lawyers whom I know, and was told that it contained clauses that could be challenged, and likely would not be enforced by a judge.

Thank you for the clarification. I had been under the false impression that she did not seek legal counsel. I have made that statement several times on this board and how unhappy that made me and no one has corrected my impression before.

As to obtaining the services of an attorney who is competent in the area you are seeking legal advise in, you cannot be more correct or accurate. You have given good examples and everyone who reads your post should take it to heart. In a local matter where I live I have seen people rely on totally incompetent legal counsel merely because he/she was an SDA attorney. Obviously, like the selection of any other professional, you have some responsibility to exercise due diligence in making your selection.

You have raised a couple questions that I doubt you can answer but I will ask them any way.

Has the person who gave her legal counsel been accused of malpractice?

Alleging you did not understand your rights when you have legal counsel I would think is going to be a harder sell if you challenge the countract. I am also wondering about the order of litigation if there is or is going to be a challenge to the contract. Observer do you know what the statute of limitations is for challenging the validity of the contract?

nw

PS Observer, I finished reading about an hour ago the latest postings at the Save3ABN site and commend you for your questions and analysis I found therein as you attempted to create a fair forum with ASI.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Feb 6 2007, 02:16 PM

[Clay]

But, I am going to be honest here. I am tired of SDAs (or anyone else) thinking it is ok to not pay
women.....
I agree but in this case, Linda made a larger salary than Danny..You can check it out

distraction by minutiae..... clearly he had the perks, he didn't need the salary......

[Observer]

Re: "My question would be: If that information was false, (and it was), then how many other things told here for fact could be false."

Bystander you have stimulated me to respond to you in a manner that you are probably not expecting. :-)

We here are a group of independent people. We have differing backgrounds, and personalities. We have different life experiences. We have different perspectives in some aspects in regard to this 3-ABN mess. I am certain that some will disagree with some of what I post. But, we are united in a common set of objectives. That is what is bringing us together.

That unity means that we do not challenge and argue with every little comment that someone posts that differs from our personal belief. We are comfortable enough in relating to each other out of our common goals that we can be comfortable with someone posting something with which we disagree in some point. e.g. The example of whether or not Linda had legal advice prior to signing the agreement.

None of us considers ourselves to be perfect and 100 per-cent accurate in everything that we post. I do not have the slightest doubt that you can find some error in posts made here, and even, potentially, in mine. I recently posted, by implication, a clear error, of some significance. I publicly corrected it. My implication (I did state I had made an assumption.) was incorrect, and I corrected it.

My pont is: Some will disagree with some of what I post. But, comming our of our common committment of unified objectives/goals, or whatever you want to call them, we are not going to get involved in taking pot-shots at each other. We are going to live and let live. We are not going to be distracted by secondary (or more) issues from the real core of matter. We are not allowing ourselves to be divided over the areas where we may disagree.

As I posted earlier, in relating to each other in this manner, we are demonstrating the unity that could exist in the SDA Chruch between people who differ in some aspects of doctrine and lilfe style.

[Noahswife]

Bystander:


However, if that agreement had fully settled all matters, or if it was fully satisfactory, there would be no litigation going on now.

That statement does make sense to me legally as I doubt from even the little I know of the facts that all matters were fully settled by the agreement I have seen posted. IT makes more sense to me than challenging the validity of the contract to have it set aside.

Others have speculated here the idea that Linda signed the agreement under duress (and I indicated before it had been my understanding without an attorney) and that duress might be a reason to set the contact aside. Although I doubted that possibility from the facts (not speculation) I had, your statement as I said above makes more sense to me.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Feb 6 2007, 02:19 PM

[Observer]

Re: "Has the person who gave her legal counsel been accused of malpractice?

Alleging you did not understand your rights when you have legal counsel I would think is going to be a harder sell if you challenge the countract. I am also wondering about the order of litigation if there is or is going to be a challenge to the contract. Observer do you know what the statute of limitations is for challenging the validity of the contract? "

Question # !: When you are dealing with malpractice and incompetence as they relate to a licensed attorney, you have a hard legal standard to meet.

I would never make such a statement about a licensed attorney.

My focus would be on other issues. But, then that would be for licensed lawyers to review and decide. My assumption is that since there is some litigation there must be some agreement that the agreement that Linda signed did not cover everything in a manner that prevented litigation.

Other questions and comments: You are getting into areas where I really do not know enough to make specific comments. So, I shall refrain from doing so.

[Noahswife]

Re: "Has the person who gave her legal counsel been accused of malpractice?

Question # !: When you are dealing with malpractice and incompetence as they relate to a licensed attorney, you have a hard legal standard to meet.

I would never make such a statement about a licensed attorney.

I would not want you to make such a statement and commend you for not doing so. However, as part of Linda's support team you would have knowledge if any action with local or state bars has been taken.

I agree it is a very high standard but attorney's really do police themselves much better than the medical profession has ever done.

I have also known attorneys willing to give a statement that they had not given competent legal advise in the hope of helping the former recipient of that advise that was challenging the "fruit" of that advise.

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Feb 6 2007, 02:27 PM