Dannyshelton.com, Huh? Options

[Clay]

Hey Clay, we have beat this dead horse enough, moving on.

true enough... but Calvin you brought that stick out again and starting beating... I was just adding my cent and a half.....

[Clay]

One last thing for your consideration Calvin... if one is assessing what is fair and stating that what linda got was fair....does it not make sense to find out if now that 3abn confronted that issue they would provide for that situation if it happened again? IMO it was poor legal/business planning to start off with not to have settled that question and to not be prepared to do it if it happened again either means a stupid board or they are delusional despite good legal advice.... but that's just me....

[Pickle]

Then I am going to ask all those who think this was fair one more time, to tell me what Danny would do if he was dismissed with $250,000.00, and would you think that was fair?

Depends on if he discloses all his assets, and what those assets are worth. How much has he already made off of 3ABN that he wasn't supposed to? I don't know the answer, but it should be figured in.

I agree, since Danny owns none of 3ABN, Linda's half of none is none.

Not sure if that is technically true. Depends on whether 3ABN is operating as a non-profit or as a family business.

[Lee]

Depends on if he discloses all his assets, and what those assets are worth. How much has he already made off of 3ABN that he wasn't supposed to? I don't know the answer, but it should be figured in.
Not sure if that is technically true. Depends on whether 3ABN is operating as a non-profit or as a family business.

Pickle, what kind of assets do you have? How much do you make? Actually: do you even work??? How successful has your business been? What is your business? Would you please disclose your financial statement? Have you been audited? Do you pay taxes? What is your current personal checking bank balance? What do you have in savings/cd's/investments? Please supply us with numbers so we can verify your information. Also include a copy of your federal tax information.

If you think it is fair to publish to the whole world what Danny has in his personal bank account and then insinuate that he is being dishonest--then I think you would be happy to supply us with the same information about yourself. Afterall, if the shoe fits.....

[Clay]

Pickle, what kind of assets do you have? How much do you make? Actually: do you even work??? How successful has your business been? What is your business? Would you please disclose your financial statement? Have you been audited? Do you pay taxes? What is your current personal checking bank balance? What do you have in savings/cd's/investments? Please supply us with numbers so we can verify your information. Also include a copy of your federal tax information.

If you think it is fair to publish to the whole world what Danny has in his personal bank account and then insinuate that he is being dishonest--then I think you would be happy to supply us with the same information about yourself. Afterall, if the shoe fits.....

I don't think Pickle is trying to divorce his wife, and marry someone younger.... neither is he running a ministry and calling himself the face of adventism..... so you are not even comparing apples and oranges... sheesh.....

[Observer]

No she is not an average Joe. A two year salary compensation for executives is consider very fair by corporate standards....and by the way, a gag order is standard practice too...and it is not considered in any way Unethical . I would have done the same. A business has the right to protect itself from disgruntle employees. They are paying you to keep quiet. If you want to talk, don't take the money.

O.K. Let us take as fact your statement that a 2-year salary for a corporate executive is very fair. So, Exxon fires a VP, and gives that VP a 3-year salary, and there is a gag clause in the contract. You will note that the gag clause in the contract likely appllied to Exxon as a corporateion, its business practices, and trade secrets. Fair enough.

Would Exxon fire that VP because she and the President got divorced?

Would Exxon put a gag clause in the contract that prevented the VP from commenting adversely in regard to the specifics of the divorce? Would that be considered fair?

My point: The seperation agreement mixes up the litigimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation, and the business and the personal are confused and combined.

That is (was) not appropriate. Any litigimate gag order in the seperation agreement should have been severely limited to that of the interests of the corporation, and not the personal lives of Danny and Linda.

In regard to whether or not the money given to Linda was fair, that is a very complex question that may not be totally clear at this point in time.

It is claimed that 3-ABN is a ministry, and much more than either Danny or Linda. O.K. If that it true, one might have one answer.

It should also be noted that Judge Rowe ruled that 3-ABN was, at least in some aspects, a business. To the extent that such is true, then it just might be the another answer might be correct.

It has been stated that Linda was just an employee. I would not believe such a statement to be true about Danny. I think that he was much more than just an employee, and that he contributed much more that that of just an employee. So, also, I think the same of Linda. Both are (were) much more than just employees. So, perhaps both shoud be compensated much more than just an employee.

[calvin]

You cant be serious. You think someone who has been steeped in this church will just pick up and go to the Baptist church down the street to minister there knowing they embrace doctrine Adventism believes to be error and not of God? BTW... if she is blocked in Adventist circles... and there is extensive evidence that she has been and continues to be... then her ability to work is, in fact, impinged.

Yes I am serious. Linda's ministry was not beating people over the head with the Sabbath. She recorded Christian music and wrote devotional books. She could marketed this to the Christian community. Like Danny was all powerful to keep her out of Christian book stores.

true enough... but Calvin you brought that stick out again and starting beating... I was just adding my cent and a half.....

Yeah, I know man. But I got to pick my spots when I can. Like when I got a slow day at work

Would Exxon fire that VP because she and the President got divorced?
That depends. Businesses often make decisions for very pracitical reasons..and from a pracitcal view point it would not make much sense for Linda and Danny being on camera after the divorce like everything is AOK. So one of them had to go....and the boss is usually going to win that battle.
Would Exxon put a gag clause in the contract that prevented the VP from commenting adversely in regard to the specifics of the divorce? Would that be considered fair?
Probably if the wife is and officer of the company and married to the president. If the VP is married to a disinterested party, then no.My point: The seperation agreement mixes up the litigimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation, and the business and the personal are confused and combined.
I agree, the marriage/business relationship muddy the water.

[Pickle]

If you think it is fair to publish to the whole world what Danny has in his personal bank account and then insinuate that he is being dishonest--then I think you would be happy to supply us with the same information about yourself. Afterall, if the shoe fits.....

If I will, will you?

[simplysaved]

Even Sonny and Cher had to call it quits with the show after a year or two!

O.K. Let us take as fact your statement that a 2-year salary for a corporate executive is very fair. So, Exxon fires a VP, and gives that VP a 3-year salary, and there is a gag clause in the contract. You will note that the gag clause in the contract likely appllied to Exxon as a corporateion, its business practices, and trade secrets. Fair enough.

Would Exxon fire that VP because she and the President got divorced?

Would Exxon put a gag clause in the contract that prevented the VP from commenting adversely in regard to the specifics of the divorce? Would that be considered fair?

My point: The seperation agreement mixes up the litigimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation, and the business and the personal are confused and combined.

That is (was) not appropriate. Any litigimate gag order in the seperation agreement should have been severely limited to that of the interests of the corporation, and not the personal lives of Danny and Linda.

In regard to whether or not the money given to Linda was fair, that is a very complex question that may not be totally clear at this point in time.

It is claimed that 3-ABN is a ministry, and much more than either Danny or Linda. O.K. If that it true, one might have one answer.

It should also be noted that Judge Rowe ruled that 3-ABN was, at least in some aspects, a business. To the extent that such is true, then it just might be the another answer might be correct.

It has been stated that Linda was just an employee. I would not believe such a statement to be true about Danny. I think that he was much more than just an employee, and that he contributed much more that that of just an employee. So, also, I think the same of Linda. Both are (were) much more than just employees. So, perhaps both shoud be compensated much more than just an employee.

[princessdi]

I don't know Bob, I don't even think I want to see what will happened if somebody tried to pay out Danny for $250,000.00. Especially, is as you are saying it has been a "cash cow" for him, and definitely not the way he plays that "miracle" story to the max..........Naaawww, can't see it!

Depends on if he discloses all his assets, and what those assets are worth. How much has he already made off of 3ABN that he wasn't supposed to? I don't know the answer, but it should be figured in.

[princessdi]

That is what I have been saying from the beginning. 3ABN acted on behalf of Danny with that separation order. It was more about keeping her quiet about the marriage/divorce then about company secrets. Now, I understand why they did it. The nature of their business being "ministry" they could not have her out there saying anything contrary to the story they were telling. IOW, her talking would have hurt the business, but it is phrased and considered that it would hurt the 3ABN, the ministry. Then we switch back to buisness mode and she is just an employee and we are giving you an extremely generous severance package. It is just that swtiching backa nd forth between corporation and ministry when convenient that is not right. As I said it was a Donald Trump move, not a move for Danny, leader in Adventist Christian living.

My point: The seperation agreement mixes up the litigimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation, and the business and the personal are confused and combined.
That is (was) not appropriate. Any litigimate gag order in the seperation agreement should have been severely limited to that of the interests of the corporation, and not the personal lives of Danny and Linda.

Lee, just take it down a notch or two. I am sure Bob will answer for himself, however, I don't think he meant that Danny needed to disclose his fianaces here. I presented a scenario and he was giving some factors in that scenario. That is it. All that you said in the post was totally unnecessary. That is why I always say to get a good understanding before posting. For this one even went back to look at why Bob posted what he did to make sure.

Pickle, what kind of assets do you have? How much do you make? Actually: do you even work??? How successful has your business been? What is your business? Would you please disclose your financial statement? Have you been audited? Do you pay taxes? What is your current personal checking bank balance? What do you have in savings/cd's/investments? Please supply us with numbers so we can verify your information. Also include a copy of your federal tax information.

If you think it is fair to publish to the whole world what Danny has in his personal bank account and then insinuate that he is being dishonest--then I think you would be happy to supply us with the same information about yourself. Afterall, if the shoe fits.....

[Snoopy]

O.K. Let us take as fact your statement that a 2-year salary for a corporate executive is very fair. So, Exxon fires a VP, and gives that VP a 3-year salary, and there is a gag clause in the contract. You will note that the gag clause in the contract likely appllied to Exxon as a corporateion, its business practices, and trade secrets. Fair enough.

Would Exxon fire that VP because she and the President got divorced?

Would Exxon put a gag clause in the contract that prevented the VP from commenting adversely in regard to the specifics of the divorce? Would that be considered fair?

My point: The seperation agreement mixes up the litigimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation, and the business and the personal are confused and combined.

That is (was) not appropriate. Any litigimate gag order in the seperation agreement should have been severely limited to that of the interests of the corporation, and not the personal lives of Danny and Linda.

In regard to whether or not the money given to Linda was fair, that is a very complex question that may not be totally clear at this point in time.

It is claimed that 3-ABN is a ministry, and much more than either Danny or Linda. O.K. If that it true, one might have one answer.

It should also be noted that Judge Rowe ruled that 3-ABN was, at least in some aspects, a business. To the extent that such is true, then it just might be the another answer might be correct.

It has been stated that Linda was just an employee. I would not believe such a statement to be true about Danny. I think that he was much more than just an employee, and that he contributed much more that that of just an employee. So, also, I think the same of Linda. Both are (were) much more than just employees. So, perhaps both shoud be compensated much more than just an employee.

I so agree with you, Observer. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and wonder just how many sophisticated businesses would even allow a husband/wife team at the executive level, for precisely this reason.

[roxe]

thanks, Observer and Pdi... you've just cleared up the confusion that's been bothering me ever since coming here and learning about this.

not only Sonny and Cher, but Ricky and Lucy Ricardo (I love Lucy) couldn't make it work either... then you add non-profit to it??

no wonder its such a convoluted mess...

then add to the mix at least three people supposedly telling Danny that his every thought, dream and idea was coming directly from God...
supposedly that he could do no wrong... supposedly being called God's last day prophet...

wow, talk about being set up!!

This post has been edited by roxe: Mar 28 2007, 02:09 PM

[Aletheia]

....Would Exxon put a gag clause in the contract that prevented the VP from commenting adversely in regard to the specifics of the divorce? Would that be considered fair?

My point: The seperation agreement mixes up the litigimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation, and the business and the personal are confused and combined.

That is (was) not appropriate. Any litigimate gag order in the seperation agreement should have been severely limited to that of the interests of the corporation, and not the personal lives of Danny and Linda.

I have read the contract many times, and also the claims above many times both from you and many others, and have yet to see how they are factual.

The contract is between 3ABN the entity and L.S. and is not between Linda and Danny. Itactually goes out of it's way to avoid your interpretation of it, as it doesn't even call Danny Shelton by name, or refer to her husband at all. She was only bound to "not make public statements critical of Three Angels, the board of directors, or any of its officers or employees" during that 2 year period.

IOW she could not during that time make public negative statements about D.S. in his role as President or a 3ABN board member. She was NEVER restricted of speaking of him outside those two positions, which meant she was free to speak of him as her husband and ex-husband.

The contract also clearly says:
"Nothing in the above shall prevent Mrs. Shelton from seeking a fair and equitable split of her marital property, which shall not include any property owned by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, in or out of court, in any separation or divorce proceeding. Any moneys received by Mrs. Shelton under this agreement shall be considered her separate and personal property, and not marital property"

Even if she signed under duress as people here keep claiming and had no choice; it also clearly allows arbitration in a fair and Christian manner, if she later has a problem with any of it. She never availed herself of this recourse...

Mr Matthews, Why don't you highlight the words in the contract which support and demonstrate your claims here:

1. a gag clause in the contract that prevented Linda from commenting adversely in regard to the specifics of the divorce
2. the separation agreement mixes up the ligitimate business concerns of 3-ABN with personal issues.
3. It elevates the personal aspects of the lives of Linda and Danny to the level of the 3-ABN corporation.
4. The business and personal lives are confused and combined.

I've provided it here for your convienience:

Separation Agreement Between Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.
and Linda Shelton

Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc. ("Three Angels") and Linda Shelton ("Mrs. Shelton"), hereby agree to the following terms and conditions:

1. Three Angels agrees to pay Linda Shelton, within seven days of the signing of this document by both parties, the sum of $45,000. Three Angels agrees to transfer to Linda the rights, including the masters, to the five musical CD projects that she has had a primary role in (two solo projects and three duet projects with Danny and Linda) and the eight musical songs on video from the I Think About Grace album.

2. Three Angels agrees to pay Linda Shelton, within seven days of the signing of this agreement by both parties, a further sum of $45,000.

3. Three Angels also agrees to pay Linda Shelton $75,000 for each of the years 2005 and 2006. This money will be paid out in 24 equal installments ($6,250.00) beginning the first Monday of January, 2005, and continuing to be paid on the first Monday of each month for the next 23 months, ending with the payment on the first Monday of December 2006. These payments shall continue to be made only insofar as Mrs. Shelton complies with the conditions specified below.

4. All the above payment amounts represent gross severance pay and settlement figures, and the actual amount given to Mrs. Shelton will be reduced by the amount that employers are required to withhold by law for state and federal income taxes and other mandatory withholdings.

[page 2]

5. Linda Shelton agrees that, in consideration for the $90,000 which she will receive in seven days from the time that both parties sign this agreement, she will not bring any lawsuit, legal action, or other claim against Three Angels Broadcasting Network, any of its officers or directors, or any of its employees, in any court, forum, tribunal or proceeding for damages, whether compensatory or punitive, compensation, or other relief.

6. Linda Shelton agrees that, in consideration for the $90,000 and for the monthly payments that will commence in January 2005, that she will not make public statements critical of Three Angels, the board of directors, or any of its officers or employees. Public statements include those made on the air, whether via radio or television, in print, whether in newspapers, magazines, books or other printed sources, or circulated on the internet in the form of e-mail or web-postings, or made at churches or other public meeting sites. She also agrees that she will not make statements in private for her friends, agents, or third parties to attribute to her in a public manner as described above. If her friends, agents or other third parties make public statements critical of Three Angels, Mrs. Shelton shall immediately, upon notification by Three Angels, cooperate with Three Angels and request in writing and by telephone, if reasonably possible, that public statements made by third parties discontinue. If she does not so cooperate, any such public statements by third parties will be considered to be those of Mrs. Shelton, will be viewed as violation of this section, and will result in the termination of the payments to her described in Section 3.

7. Any dispute that arises out of this contract or the relationship between Mrs. Shelton and Three Angels or any of its officers and directors, whether during the period of payment to Mrs. Shelton or afterwards, concerning its terms, application, or whether its standards have been met by the parties, shall be reso1ved through Christian arbitration, and shall not be taken up in

[page 3]

any court system, whether judicial or administrative. Both parties hereby waive any legal recourse and agree that they will submit to binding arbitration, with no appeal, by a panel of three Seventh-day Adventist Christians. This panel will be chosen in the following manner: Each side shall choose one Adventist Elder or Pastor in the North American Division. Those two persons shall then choose one other person that they can mutually agree on to chair the panel to arbitrate the dispute. The panel will hear testimony from both sides, consider any necessary evidence, and render a written decision that will be binding on the parties, with no further appeal allowed.

8. Nothing in the above shall prevent Mrs. Shelton from seeking a fair and equitable split of her marital property, which shall not include any property owned by Three Angels Broadcasting Network, in or out of court, in any separation or divorce proceeding. Any moneys received by Mrs. Shelton under this agreement shall be considered her separate and personal property, and not marital property.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Mar 28 2007, 02:52 PM

[princessdi]

Cindy, would you say that Danny falls into the categories I have bolded............ it did not have to mention him by name. I am almost sure Linda didnt' realize for those two years should could be talking aobut the facts surrounding her divorce. Are you saying she could have discussed it?

She was only bound to "not make public statements critical of Three Angels, the board of directors, or any of its officers or employees" during that 2 year period.