Linda's Litigation Options

[runner4him]

IMO, I do not think forming an opinion of someone quickly is a good idea. Shiny Penny came here a few days ago and starting asking a lot of questions. Encouraging him to read more was an excellent idea because there are no easy answers to the many subjects here. If we want to understand, then we have to be committed to spending the time to consume the plethora of information here and being willing to spit out the bad and digest the good.

Challenging others on their stance or statements is a good idea. Pushing them too much one way or another may influence them to reject your views all together.

I mean really think about it, those here to only defend DS make it pretty obvious over time. They are not hear to learn, but to only defend DS at any cost. Most of them have eventually been banned, but may comeback with new usernames.

That is just my opinion and my opinion is the one subject that I am an expert in.

Shiny Penny, Keep digging while keeping an open mind.

You make some very good points and since I am new around here I needed that. Thanks for the comments and I will try to follow your suggestions. I guess with the lawsuits hanging out there, I was somewhat quick to jump to conclusions without much basis other than the way the questions were flying and then some of the comments he made. Thanks again!

[princessdi]

I agree and disagree with you. SP did not come here not just asking questions, asking for details and for them now. Granted t his has been cleared up a bit, however, we all know about first impressions, right. Also, the statement about saying thing pro Linda and con Danny doesn't help.


As far as his comments on anything now, he has stated plainly that he takes his time to go over the information, quite meticulously it seems, and then forms an opinion. Lawrence asked him about what he thought after reading Barbara's letter, and to re read it. he did. He is also at the beginning of his research, not really starting at the beginning either. I would reserve judgement. Also, I believe we have sufficiently conveyed the message that we pay attention here.


Proceed!

IMO, I do not think forming an opinion of someone quickly is a good idea. Shiny Penny came here a few days ago and starting asking a lot of questions. Encouraging him to read more was an excellent idea because there are no easy answers to the many subjects here. If we want to understand, then we have to be committed to spending the time to consume the plethora of information here and being willing to spit out the bad and digest the good.

Challenging others on their stance or statements is a good idea. Pushing them too much one way or another may influence them to reject your views all together.

I mean really think about it, those here to only defend DS make it pretty obvious over time. They are not hear to learn, but to only defend DS at any cost. Most of them have eventually been banned, but may comeback with new usernames.

That is just my opinion and my opinion is the one subject that I am an expert in.

Shiny Penny, Keep digging while keeping an open mind.

[Shiny Penny]

SP, if i may, i'd like to ask you a few questions. are you are were you ever an avid watcher and/or contributor to 3ABN?
if so, did you watch the shows with Barbara Kerr?
if so, did you find her to be a truly warm and loving person?
did you see the surprise birthday party for danny show?
have you ever read Barbara Kerr's tesitimony on her website or elsewhere?
the reason i ask these questions is to see if you have any idea what kind of person Barbara Kerr is?

I'd also like to say that when i read the part about A. giving danny a prescription because she felt sorry for him, i never thought it was a careless or reckless act on her part. she didn't give the prescription appropriate or in accord to the pity she felt for him! that skew would be the height of irresponsibility. he probably had a stopped up nose due to allergies and she gave him a prescription for that. i am quite sure it was not for something serious. also, i have a doctor that lived in another state from me and often i would call him for prescriptions when i didn't have a local doctor or my local doctor and i didn't agree on a particular situation that the doctor in the other state and i did agree on. he would provide that as long as it wasn't of a narcotic or sedative nature. he was an Adventist doctor.
i think when we read things with an agenda in mind, it can read quite differently depending on what we want to get out of it.

Mozart,
As I have said in my earlier posts I do watch 3ABN, though not very consistently, because I have to watch it or listen to 3ABN radio through the internet. Yes, I have contributed to 3ABN, as I have to other TV ministries. I have watched a few of Barbara Kerr's cooking programs - at least parts of programs. I found her not only to be warm and personal, but also professional and an expert in the kitchen. No, I did not see the surprise birthday party show. Actually, I didn't even know there was a surprise birthday party show. I did read Barbara's testimony in one of her books. I don't recall the details at this point, since I read it at least three years ago, but I know that health-wise she's been through a lot.

You have no argument with me regarding Barbara's character and I can very much appreciate her utter frustration at seeing her ministry disappear over night. In reading through the email communication between her and Danny - both are vindictive, slinging around mud and saying the sorts of things that most people come to later regret that they ever said or wrote.

About A giving a prescription to Danny - since you bring it up again, I will say again. Barbara said A gave D the prescription only because A felt sorry for him. This means that if she hadn't felt sorry for him she wouldn't have written the prescription. If Barbara meant something else, then she should not have said "only." I have commented on the exact words that Barbara wrote.

Well...... you asked......... I responded.

Carry on......

........... .............

Yes, I asked, but my question/post was actually directed to LaurenceD, since he was the one to ask me to comment on the letter and court case. I'm glad you responded though.

IMO, I do not think forming an opinion of someone quickly is a good idea. Shiny Penny came here a few days ago and starting asking a lot of questions. Encouraging him to read more was an excellent idea because there are no easy answers to the many subjects here. If we want to understand, then we have to be committed to spending the time to consume the plethora of information here and being willing to spit out the bad and digest the good.

Challenging others on their stance or statements is a good idea. Pushing them too much one way or another may influence them to reject your views all together.

I mean really think about it, those here to only defend DS make it pretty obvious over time. They are not hear to learn, but to only defend DS at any cost. Most of them have eventually been banned, but may comeback with new usernames.

That is just my opinion and my opinion is the one subject that I am an expert in.

Shiny Penny, Keep digging while keeping an open mind.

Whtz Happenin, thanks for your post. I'm reading, I'm digging, I'm asking questions and I'm trying to spit out the bad and keep the good and I'm calling things as I see them - and I'm trying to stick to the facts as presented. Probably not doing it perfectly, but then I suspect that few are to that point yet.

[SoulEspresso]

I would reserve judgement. Also, I believe we have sufficiently conveyed the message that we pay attention here.
Proceed!

I agree. My tendency is to come into a group and play devil's advocate. Shiny has a lot of reading to do, let's give him time to digest.

[mozart]

I'm perfect!!! Di? You perfect? how bout you NW? SE? you prefect?
according to Di, we'z perfect heathens.
'cept for Calvin of course.
hey cal

Mozart,
As I have said in my earlier posts I do watch 3ABN, though not very consistently, because I have to watch it or listen to 3ABN radio through the internet. Yes, I have contributed to 3ABN, as I have to other TV ministries. I have watched a few of Barbara Kerr's cooking programs - at least parts of programs. I found her not only to be warm and personal, but also professional and an expert in the kitchen. No, I did not see the surprise birthday party show. Actually, I didn't even know there was a surprise birthday party show. I did read Barbara's testimony in one of her books. I don't recall the details at this point, since I read it at least three years ago, but I know that health-wise she's been through a lot.

You have no argument with me regarding Barbara's character and I can very much appreciate her utter frustration at seeing her ministry disappear over night. In reading through the email communication between her and Danny - both are vindictive, slinging around mud and saying the sorts of things that most people come to later regret that they ever said or wrote.

About A giving a prescription to Danny - since you bring it up again, I will say again. Barbara said A gave D the prescription only because A felt sorry for him. This means that if she hadn't felt sorry for him she wouldn't have written the prescription. If Barbara meant something else, then she should not have said "only." I have commented on the exact words that Barbara wrote.


Yes, I asked, but my question/post was actually directed to LaurenceD, since he was the one to ask me to comment on the letter and court case. I'm glad you responded though.
Whtz Happenin, thanks for your post. I'm reading, I'm digging, I'm asking questions and I'm trying to spit out the bad and keep the good and I'm calling things as I see them - and I'm trying to stick to the facts as presented. Probably not doing it perfectly, but then I suspect that few are to that point yet.

This post has been edited by mozart: May 6 2007, 06:43 PM

[LaurenceD]

LaurenceD - As I told you I reread Barbara's letter on Friday night. In my earlier reply to you I said that I thought Danny should have released the tapes to Barbara - this is my opinion based on what I read.

I wouldn't take this "opinion" thing too serious. I never used the word when I asked for your thoughts on the letter. We can visit w/o and share views w/o everything being carefully scrutinized as an official opinion. For example, you can say "I was horrified that DS would talk about his wife that way" -which is a reaction, not an opinion.

But you have asked me to give further opinion on or reaction to her letter. It's a long letter, and since you didn't ask me to respond to any particular part of her letter and it would take too long to try and give my opinion on everything (and at this point I am saddened by nearly all of what she related). So I have decided to respond to the one part of the letter where Barbara shares both what Danny and what Alyssa told her about the same situation/circumstances. My purpose is not really to express an opinion, but rather to give what could be called another interpretation of what she's written.

This helps us get to know you better. You picked the part of the letter you wanted, and avoided other parts that have logical and precise relevance to the matter.

According to Barbara Danny says "he and Alyssa were great friends, they were buddies, and that he called her often and they had wonderful conversations." This is his take on their relationship.

According to Barbara Alyssa says "We are NOT friends, he won't quit calling me." This is her take.

Perfect. Thanks.

Is Danny lying when he says they are great friends? Probably not. He perceived the relationship as great. Is Alyssa lying when she says they are NOT friends - again probably not.

Good to see you're not afraid to offer an opinion. But...these are very easy and uninteresting oinions as you might have guessed.

This is one take on what Barbara said in a part of her letter. And I've only addressed this part because there are two points of view to compare. Keep in mind though that I'm presenting what could be another interpretation of the facts as presented by Barbara.

Would you like to comment on the other important parts of Barbara's letter, or should I quote from other important parts of the letter and ask for your comments?

Now I'd be interested in knowing what you think this says about me!

That will unfold as time expires.

I won't go on much more on her letter, because you have asked me to also comment on the State of Illinois case. Other than reading a paragraph here or there I have not read it. It is a long document. Perhaps if there is a particular point that you would like me to give my take on or to present another point of view on, let me know. That way I can focus on something that is of particular interest to you.

I asked a very simple question: do you understand what 3abn was doing wrong? A simple yes or no will suffice. (The judge ruled against 3abn. They lost the legal challenge in court. It all had to do with rules for which Not-for-Profit organizations are required to abide by under Illinois State law. 3abn was in violation of those rules).

Let's hope that getting views from you on the court case will not be like pulling teeth. But if so, now I will understand a little better. Thanks for sharing. That helped a lot. Lots more to come!

[Fran]

Shiny Penny:

Response Part #1

I have taken time to allow you to read and get familiar with BSDA without being chased off by my blunt remarks, which I do not intend to be so brash, but it comes out and it is just me. So do not take offense over anything that I say because it is not given to be offensive. I have a tendency to really believe that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Many others go the scenic route. We are just different thank God! Both ways are correct. There is no one way to say something. I will post this reply in several post so none will be too long. Stay with me ok?

Penny:

Fran, Wow! Thank you for taking the time to provide the links, details and interpretations of the data found. I'm writing a rather long, detailed and technical response, in part because your post was also detailed.

Fran:

Actually, my post was not really that detailed to me, but to others I guess it could be. I only hit some light points to start people asking questions. Thank you so much for your response. Since you say you are into details, we should have fun reviewing even more items in those afore mentioned details. It is exciting to get a response from someone that has an understanding of the form 990’s and non-profit accounting.

I feel as if I have died and gone to heaven. I sure hope the Lord has accounting in heaven. I want to count the stars and the sand of the sea. I want to know the number of the hairs on my head! Of course, once we get to heaven, God will have so much going on that accounting will fall by the wayside naturally.

http://www.revenue.state.il.us/legalinformation/hearings/pt/pt04-1.pdf

This is link to the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax lawsuit. This comes from page 17. # 61.

[/b][/color]
Then read the footnotes #14 & #15 at the bottom of page 17.
http://www.save3abn.com/3abn-form-990s.htm

Choose the 2001 Form 990. An Adobe document will appear (All Documents cited here are in PDF format. Save them to your hard drive for future reference) Go to page 17 of this document.

Read Statement #2 . This is where the $ 2,451,034 in Trust Fund information is found. It also includes the $14,282.00 of other ministries money being posted to 3ABN Income. Also they had not declared $13,862 in gains on certain Marketable Securities. Oops.

Open the 2002 Form 990 and go to page 13 and read statement #2 again.

Trust Funds not posted in the amount of $ 1,708,918.00

The other entries are relevant too, but I need further information.

How do I know these numbers deal with Trust Funds? The auditors told us! Refer back to footnote 15 page 17 of the Lawsuit.

The auditor's answer that by telling us the Split Interest Agreements deal with Trust Funds. Just by reading the IRS Form 990's you can't tell what Split Interest Agreements are! However, the auditors informed us as to what it was.

The other concern is that 3ABN is not following Generally Accepted Accounting Practices, GAAP. This raised the eyes of the auditors, as it should have. It certainly raised mine!

A Corporation should have copies of every major accounting publication. Many are provided. The Journal of Accountancy covers new Accounting practices that keeps up with all of the new technologies that will affect Accounts and Accounting. It will also let you know about inportsnt publications. It also has lots of FASB's. (OK, so I am a sick woman!) An updated GAAP book is published every year.

Read these documents through different eyes. This Lawsuit is full of information that has NOTHING TO DO WITH PROPERTY TAX at all! Keep your eyes open. The auditors are probably talking about their findings!

Find how many times you read that the auditors were not provided information. Take note of those instances and ask yourself, "Why didn't they provide this requested information?"

Read the reports and ask your shelf, "Why?"

The information provided here comes from the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax Lawsuit and the IRS Form 990's for 2001-2005.

The link to the lawsuit is at the beginning of this post.

The links to the Form 990's are at http://save3ABN.com

On the left column click the title Danny Shelton
Select Financial Allegations
Select Form 990's

This will get you to the IRS Form 990's. Remember, Documentation, Documentation, Documentation.

[Fran]

Response Part #2

I hope this post does not attach itself to my previous post. I wanted a while before posting this. Sorry if it does.

Penny:


I haven't had the chance to check all of what you sent me, but I did check the 2001 990. The auditor's concerns (as reported in the lawsuit documents) and what you had posted - gravely concerned, even alarmed, me. But, as I show below, there is no reason to be alarmed - at least not about the 990 in 2001.

Fran:

You said, “…there is no reason to be alarmed about the 990 in 2001.”
Are you sure? I was and am still shocked after three years of looking at it. However, that is OK! It would be quite a boring world if we all agreed on everything; Right?

I never meant I was “alarmed” at the 990’s alone. The 990’s reflect exactly what you stated; corrections to errors the auditors found.

It is the Lawsuit and the Auditor’s responses that cause/caused me to pause and contemplate exactly what they really trying to say. The 990’s are an accounting Statement of Historical Transactions. That is exactly what accounting is in actuality.

Do you feel these amounts are “material?”

Do you feel the “number of mistakes” listed are a reflection of grossly, incompetent management?

Or, do you see/feel these large errors were flukes?

Since I have read about so many corrected mistakes in the 990’s and in the audit reports, it gets harder for me trust the numbers in front of my eyes.

In all honesty, do these corrections reflect to you in some way that all mistakes were corrected?

Do you ask questions about what happened in all the previous years of 1984-1999?

Do you wonder what happened once the auditors left?

Was it back to business as usual?

Did 3ABN take strong actions to correct these policy/procedural black holes?

Or do you feel it just put a band aid over the hole as a temporary plug to massive seepage?

Did the same mistakes fall back into place once no one was looking?

What is it that makes you feel that all is well because they corrected a gross error?

Penny:

The 990 states (and please correct me if I am wrong) - the information posted in Statement 2 (page 17):

So I went back to part 1, Line 20 and that line reads "Other changes in net assets or fund balances (attach explanation)"

Fran:

This is correct! The 900’s are similar to the 1040 where you must take a number that you have calculated and put it on another form, another line, in another place to add into the whole. This is the IRS’s clever way to double check figures and calculations. In fact, the IRS will ask different questions that should result in the same answer, or one that the IRS can do a calculation on. Very clever they are!

Of course, there would be a change in Net Assets / Fund Balances and/or Income and Expense, because changes cause the old figures to become the new improved figures! That is what accounting is all about. It is impossible to make such changes and the balances of something NOT change.

Penny:

I interpret this to mean that this 990 is correcting prior mistakes/errors and sometime in 2001 3ABN had recorded the previously unrecorded split interest agreements and also recorded the unrealized gains on marketable securities.

Fran:

I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation. The auditors audited in 2000 & 2001 respectively. The corrections made stem from these findings. Being familiar with audit procedures, I know there is no such thing as a 100% audit of accounts. These figures are numbers the auditors FOUND. However, I find, in the Property Tax Lawsuit, the auditors were not provided enough information to be able to perform a comprehensive audit. Repeatedly you will find that information was “not available” or “it was not provided.”

[Grith]

I agree wholeheartedly with your interpretation. The auditors audited in 2000 & 2001 respectively. The corrections made stem from these findings. Being familiar with audit procedures, I know there is no such thing as a 100% audit of accounts. These figures are numbers the auditors FOUND. However, I find, in the Property Tax Lawsuit, the auditors were not provided enough information to be able to perform a comprehensive audit. Repeatedly you will find that information was “not available” or “it was not provided.”

Now that my non-mathematical brain can comprehend. The auditors could only audit the records that were provided to them.

This post has been edited by Grith: May 10 2007, 06:09 PM

[Fran]

Now that my non-mathematical brain can comprehend. The auditors could only audit the records that were provided to them.

Exactly ! This was not a good audit! More to come.

[Shepherdswife]

[b][color=#000099]Shiny Penny:



Actually, my post was not really that detailed to me, but to others I guess it could be.

Fran--or someone else who might know,
Since you seem to be accounting-savvy, could you tell me whether people who donated back when 3ABN had non-profit status could be effected if 3ABN lost that status--could the donors be held liable for the deductions they took in previous years? Someone alluded to that, but I didn't know if it was reality or not.

No, I have never sent them anything, but am just curious. :-)

shepherdswife

[Fran]

Response Part #3

Penny:

To go into a little more detail on the unrealized gains - these gains were described as unrealized. Meaning that the end of year value of the securities was greater than the beginning of year value, but the marketable securities had not been sold during the year - hence the gain is unrealized.

This is a paper gain that should have been recorded in an earlier year (2000?), but had not been. It seems to me that you are familiar with accounting and so would know that prior period adjustments (such as this unrealized gain) are made directly to retained earnings in the case of a corporation and in the case of not for profit organization would be an adjustment to the fund balance. Which is exactly what 3ABN did. Therefore, I am relieved to see that 3ABN had made the correction to the prior periods error!

Fran:

It is a down right, dirty shame that GAAP makes us reveal unrealized gains! They are a gutsy crew all right; “Trivial” too; detail upon details; it just never ends!

Many times, you must make year-end entries, then turn around only to reverse them. Many companies/corporations have software that has 2 accounting reports. One is for regular Financial Statements and another is just for IRS statements! What Fun, Fun, and more fun! These entries are the reason fiscal year end closing of the books are held open for maybe 10 or more days to make sure all is taken care of before closing that door.

That is probably why we receive all those annoying statements at the end of the year about investments. They are for reporting to the IRS! Even though it is only on paper, it is still a gain. If that asset sold, it must have the proper valuation.

This is actually a good rule for any business to insure assets do not walk out the back, or, well, the front door, so to speak! Keeping these issues up to date is essential. How else does the business know the true value of any asset without this information? It gives information that is considered when deciding to dispose of their investment or to hang on to it for further future gains. For Farmers, this is vital information on a daily basis. You have to know when to “hold” them and when to “fold” them when crops in storage are considered.

If you do not know the value of your assets, you will never know your true worth. If you have no clue as to what you have, it WILL ABSOLUTELY walk out the door. Therefore, in actuality, these GAAP Principals are for the benefit/protection of the company as well as the IRS.

When/if a company leaves a hole in an accounting link, or skims from the top, there WILL ABSOLUTELY be others that WILL do the same thing. I will guarantee that! How will you know? Forget it; you will have no way of knowing.

Many companies find balancing checking accounts impossible. They have bank accounts just for payroll, for projects and so forth. This is a vital step in accounting. It should be done before the EOM books close! In accounting, timing is very important. Some say it is everything! Corrections after the fact skew the data on which current decisions are based!

I have, in the past, actually received Invoices for purchases never made or received. Thanks to the Purchase order system, payments are not allowed on such invoices. I went to work for a company and found five such invoices in the first month. I could not find receiving reports, purchase orders, authorizations to buy or any evidence the items were actually purchased or received.

The accounts payable clerk had set up companies and started sending the company invoices and she paid these invoices into her companies. Inside of 3 weeks, she no longer worked for the company. She had been doing that for years! She was also padding Petty Cash with her personal receipts! The Petty Cash had $6,000.00 in it. Three weeks later, it had $250.00. The company was too embarrassed to press charges! Go figure? She also had the company paying for her life insurance policies. She just added herself to the owner’s payments. That was a really fun job!

Not recording everything contaminates the picture of the company as a whole. Please accept that general mistakes are always made. Nothing is perfect. These errors are expected by auditors in general. It is when they find these mistakes are consistently done that causes them to realize that something is not right somewhere.

Please realize this general information is in simple language. This is not a comprehensive course in accounting. These are just thought that I have tried to put in a way for everyone to understand. Please excuse my oversimplifying the process.

Also, if you are an honest business person, embrace the GAAP. It will protect you and your company. The principes are there to protects you and your assets.

GAAP is a "GODD THING:" right, Martha Stew ... ?

More later.

[Pickle]

So Fran, when you speak of 3ABN not using GAAP accounting, are you saying that they use GAP instead?

[Eirene]

Fran--or someone else who might know,
Since you seem to be accounting-savvy, could you tell me whether people who donated back when 3ABN had non-profit status could be effected if 3ABN lost that status--could the donors be held liable for the deductions they took in previous years? Someone alluded to that, but I didn't know if it was reality or not.

No, I have never sent them anything, but am just curious. :-)

shepherdswife

In answer to your question, no they wouldn't be. But you said "back when 3abn had non profit status." They have non profit status presently and will continue to while the tax case is in appeal. The attorney's feel the appeal case is very promising.

[Fran]

Fran--or someone else who might know,
Since you seem to be accounting-savvy, could you tell me whether people who donated back when 3ABN had non-profit status could be effected if 3ABN lost that status--could the donors be held liable for the deductions they took in previous years? Someone alluded to that, but I didn't know if it was reality or not.

No, I have never sent them anything, but am just curious. :-)

shepherdswife

This would be decided by the recommendations of the Governing Agency that takes the status away. These folks have rules for everything! It would depend on many different things.

We, of course, desire 3ABN to continue with its Ministry of providing air pathways for the gospel to go to the world. I believe 3ABN should be saved along with its 501 © 3 status.

In my opinion, once the management, accounting processes and corporate culture are completely changed; when 3ABN completely reflects Christ as well as accountability; when 3ABN is healthy again, and I believe this will happen; then we will see how quickly things will begin to happen to hasten the return of our Lord.