Linda's Litigation Options

[runner4him]

There has been some question about whether that individual donor is paying only for the lease, or if he is paying for lease, fuel, maintanance, pilots, hangar, and the rest, and that no monies sent to 3ABN by donors other than him are used for that aircraft or travel expenses associated with it. Steffan, is it definitive that that this single donor completely covers every expense related to that aircraft and its use?

Thanks, Beartrap, for asking the very questions that are on my mind. I am sure many would want to know the answers. I would also like to raise the question of why not use those funds for spreading the Gospel and winning souls instead of fueling a jet for unnecessary travel? Encouraging anyone who has that kind of money to donate instead to a more worthy cause would be admirable, Steffan. Why not pray to have the spirit of sacrifice...the same thing 3abn and other ministries ask their supporters to to have? Let's get on the same page as the dedicated people in those pews or on the couches.

P.S. In my mind the thought of taking a commercial flight is not really in the realm of sacrifice but compared to the jet life it might seem that way.

[Panama_Pete]

Pete, your attitude has really deteriorated over time. In the first place it has been explained over and over that a private supporter paid for the lease and expenses of the plane.
Then you said Danny is going bargain with coin dealers.......
Danny doesn't do any of that period. And, who said a few dollars? At times they sell thousands of dollars of coins. As far as they can't get more, just use your head. If you have a few dealers that you are consistently doing thousands of dollars worth of business with, of course they are going to give that person more for coins or bullion. They want to keep the business coming. That benefits they buyer and the seller. I would think anyone would know something like that.

As Beartrap asked: Do the jet expenses include having a pilot "on call" 24-hours, landing fees, jet fuel, maintenance, hangar space - for every single flight every time to everywhere? I have a really hard time believing that one donor is footing the bill for all.

Yes, I'm sure a coin collection could bring in a few thousand dollars. A thousand dollars isn't what it used to be. Decades ago, a ice cream cone was 5 cents. Try that today.

Personally, I think there is the possiblilty that some ministries - which will remain nameless - have been quite reckless with the disposition of their donations. And since these ministries have not been transparent with their finances, there is no way for the little guy to know for sure how donations are handled.

Yes, I've heard the same explanations dripped "over and over" like Chinese Water Torture. Do you have the name of that donor for those jet expenses so I could write and ask? Or, is that a deep secret not to be shared with the little people, like so many other things?

My attitude is, basically, the same as ever. The only difference in attitude that you and I have is that you, apparently, believe what you are being told, and I cannot. However, from this point forward, I would really need more solid evidence than you could provide.

This post has been edited by Panama_Pete: May 18 2007, 08:04 AM

[PeacefulBe]

If you check out 3ABN's eBay store at http://stores.ebay.com/3-ANGELS-GIFT-SHOP_...Q3aUSQ3a3QQtZkm you will find a few NEW items along with all those items that have been there since last year. There are 2 pitchers that look nice. They look ceramic. Doesn't Tammy deal with ceramics as well as ceramic tiles.

There is an eBay Store that is really nice. http://stores.ebay.com/Bright-Star-Ceramic...sQ3amesstQQtZkm This is the place to look if you are needing Ceramic Tiles. There are 4 patterns I am going to get one of these days.

I don't recognize either of the women in the picture on the "ME" page for Bright Star Ceramics.

http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?V...id=tammys_tiles

[LaurenceD]

What I heard is that if the Dept. of Rev. or whoever had done their job better, 3ABN's situation would have been far worse.

I'm sure both the judge and the Dept. of Rev. suspect a lot that hasn't been reported. The department would only have a vested interest in state related taxes--property, sales, B&O, Telecomunications, etc.--I doubt if Bingo/Charitable Games tax would apply, but you never know what's happening out in the barn late at night. The Dept. of Rev. may have a cooperative agreement with federal audtors and may have transfered their findings. Things like this take a while.

What do you think of the stunning silence of the defenders here on BSDA, regarding this case? I've questioned most of them, but none have really commented except for little spurts of bogus information, and nonsignificant, such as Bystander made about board memebers. Shiny Penny disappeared when pressed. Now that most of them are gone, except a couple (maybe), here's the purpose for my asking them. If a case is being appealed, normally participants would not be allowed to comment on the case. Anything they said could be used against them and could destroy their chances of even getting to first base in the next round of hearings, ie, if the judge became aware that comments had been made.

So, based on the silence, and supposing my theory is right (that we have a participant here) how many participants could their possibly be around here? I'm guessing one, even though many have been asked, but none have commented. (heh! heh!) We'll see if this character steffan will step forward and tell us if he understands what 3abn was doing wrong re the Judge Barbara Rowe ruling.

[Clay]

I'm sure both the judge and the Dept. of Rev. suspect a lot that hasn't been reported. The department would only have a vested interest in state related taxes--property, sales, B&O, Telecomunications, etc.--I doubt if Bingo/Charitable Games tax would apply, but you never know what's happening out in the barn late at night. The Dept. of Rev. may have a cooperative agreement with federal audtors and may have transfered their findings. Things like this take a while.

What do you think of the stunning silence of the defenders here on BSDA, regarding this case? I've questioned most of them, but none have really commented except for little spurts of bogus information, and nonsignificant, such as Bystander made about board memebers. Shiny Penny disappeared when pressed. Now that most of them are gone, except a couple (maybe), here's the purpose for my asking them. If a case is being appealed, normally participants would not be allowed to comment on the case. Anything they said could be used against them and could destroy their chances of even getting to first base in the next round of hearings, ie, if the judge became aware that comments had been made.

So, based on the silence, and supposing my theory is right (that we have a participant here) how many participants could their possibly be around here? I'm guessing one, even though many have been asked, but none have commented. (heh! heh!) We'll see if this character steffan will step forward and tell us if he understands what 3abn was doing wrong re the Judge Barbara Rowe ruling.

well to be fair, many of the vitriolic supporters have been banished so they cannot speak.... my point is that you should not misread the silence.....

[LaurenceD]

Specific questions that were asked of them long long before they were banished. None could ever be coaxed to comment. But, you're right, I shouldn't read too much into it. Still thought provoking though...whatever the cause.

[Clay]

Specific questions that were asked of them long long before they were banished. None could ever be coaxed to comment. But, you're right, I shouldn't read too much into it. Still thought provoking though...whatever the cause.

agreed... there were a couple of basic questions that were avoided, or that were not commented on unfortunately...

[Fran]

I don't recognize either of the women in the picture on the "ME" page for Bright Star Ceramics.

http://members.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?V...id=tammys_tiles

I didn't either, ages ago when I first looked. I only looked at the transactions that led me there.

There are more sites that shut down when I first mentioned 3ABN and eBay name changings and other sites back in 2004 or early 2005.

Now, about those coins. Are there records of their receipt. Are there matching receipts of the sale of those coins? Was the sale recorded properly?

I found where the coins listed on 3ABN went. Another seller sold some of them on eBay in his coin store. Yes, that comment about a dealer selling those coins is correct.

[Fran]

I realize Penny went away, but the rest of answering her post has some information that needs to be said. This is my last response to Penny.

61. The Independent Auditor’s Reports for 2000 and 2001 state:

Down-link equipment acquired by gift is not recorded in the financial statements. In our opinion, generally accepted accounting principles require that such donated property be recorded at its fair value at the date of receipt. It was not practicable to determine the effects of the unrecorded equipment on the financial statements,…

Penny:

It appears that 3ABN did not track assets in the proper manner.

Fran:

I totally agree. It goes on to say it had gone on for so long that it was not “practicable” to determine the value of assets and the effects of this error. In other words, their hands were tied!

Penny:

About the amounts due to other ministries, according to the 990 these amounts had previously been classified as temporarily restricted and were now being reclassified to something else. I didn't see what they were being classified to, but since this amount is in parenthesis (meaning it is being subtracted) would indicate that in this correction 3ABN was removing that amount from its fund balance. To get a bit technical here (and probably lose the rest of the readers who would have gotten even this far in my post) we know that the debit was to some restricted account (I assume restricted cash) and was improperly credited to some account (such as donations or something similar) that increased the fund balance. I supposed that this is an easy enough mistake to make and part of the reason books are audited - to find material errors and misstatements. Anyway, the good news is the auditors caught the mistake and that 3ABN made the correction in 2001 as is reported in the 990.

Fran:

Read what you have written very carefully. A not-for-profit entity will sometimes receive funds for others. Preferably, at the end of each month, these funds are forwarded to the appropriate entities along with the information of the person that sent the donation in..

These funds received are called Fiduciary Funds or some other name with a like meaning.

They do not belong to the receiving entity. (3ABN)

These monies received by 3ABN are entrusted into their care to transfer to the desired entities in a timely manner.

The difference is in what 3ABN did vs. what they should have done with these funds.

1. The funds DO NOT belong to 3ABN. They belong to someone else.

2. They are NOT Temporarily Restricted Funds, because temporarily Restricted fund are for 3ABN’s use. Therefore, they were posted into 3ABN’s income an appear on their Profit/Loss Statements. Thus, they have overstated income.

This means they are reporting more income than they actually received. Decisions were made on this data. Can you see what happened?

3. What should have happened is this; the funds were received for another entity. The money is not 3ABN’s money. It is a liability, like a loan you owe to someone such as
a bank. You borrow $5,000.00; it is a liability; as you make payments to the bank, the liability principal gets smaller until it is zero.

4. Because 3ABN did not have these funds in a liability account, their liabilities on the balance sheet were understated. Meaning they had more money owed to others than the Balance sheet reported. Thus, decisions based on a faulty Balance Sheet report resulted.

5. Now we have 2 basic reports every month that are used for financial decisions.

........a. The Profit/Loss or Income/Expense report shows historical transactions over a specific “period of time”. Usually it is produced on a monthly, quarterly, and yearly basis. These reports can be run at any time also to follow trends.
........b. The balance Sheet is different because it gives the financial picture at a given “moment” in time. This report is run when ever it is desired or needed, but usually always at the end of a month, end of a quarter, and the end of the fiscal year, but can be run at any time.

6. In 3ABN’s financial reports there was $14,000 in income that did not belong to 3ABN! Plus the liabilities did not reflect the $14,000. Therefore, the figures show income as up and debt as down.

In essence, 3ABN has been making decisions on faulty, non-current information.

Churches deal with these funds with their Conferences. Tithe does not belong to the local church. It is a Liability owed to the local conference. At the end of the month, before the monthly books are closed, these funds are forwarded to the conference before the 10th of each month. This allows 10 days for closings the churches books.

Penny:

These are perfectly good explanations for what happened. You are correct when you said "3ABN did not post $2.45 MILLION Dollars in TRUST FUNDS in 2001." Well at least partly correct, the year would have been 2000 or earlier. The 990’s shows that they corrected this in 2001.

.

Fran:

This is where I disagree with your thinking, but I readily agree that mistakes were being corrected. 3ABN was almost a 20 year old corporation at the time of this report.. They were a multi-million dollar Corporation. They chose not to follow Generally Accepted Accounting Principals (GAAP).

How can this be?

How many accountants did 3ABN have?

Who was the CFO?

By saying CFO, I do not necessarily mean the person that holds that title.

Read the Lawsuit and find who really controls the money and money decisions at 3ABN.

Consider this: The auditors found evidence to show that $2.45 Million in Trust Funds were not entered/posted. They only audited 2000-2001.

What about 1984-1999 & 2002-2006?

How much do you feel the auditors did not find?

I ask this because auditors ask for information and documentation. It is up to 3ABN to provide the material that they needed.

The IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax Lawsuit is in an Adobe file. You can run “find” and find any words you ask it to find. I will later draw your attention to some eye opening statements about the integrity of the information at 3ABN. I find $ 2.45 Million in Trust Funds not being posted to be very material! I find $ 1.7+ Million in 2002 a major concern also.

Then, another concern I have is that there are NO CORRECTION from 2003-2005, even though they were still having the same problems with their trust funds! These problems extend to at least February 2006 if not longer.

I wonder, is this the reason Nick Miller had to leave?

Did he find out about it?

Did he resign to save his career?

Why were there rumors about Nick’s integrity in dealing with money, even though he never touched the financial ends?

Nick wrote to me and answered some of the questions I asked Linda. He was very selective. I got more out of what he did not say than what he did say. I believe his integrity is very high! I believe he was a very faithful and loyal 3ABN employee. I have not heard from him since that time.

Penny:

But when you say "They also miss-posted over $14,000 of money meant to be forwarded to other Independent Ministries. The funds went straight into the 3ABN coffers. I still wonder what Ministries did not get their money" I beg to differ. Truth be said, of course the money went straight into 3ABN's coffers. It was sent to 3ABN and would go into their coffers before going out of the 3ABN coffers into another ministry's coffers.

Fran:

The money did go straight into the 3ABN coffers. You scenario is incorrect. See above. This error speaks so loud it screams.

How can 3ABN have CPA’s sitting there and let this happen?

Who opens the mail?

Is a check/cash list made before the mail containing checks and cash are forwarded?

When forwarded were the checks and cash signed for?

If discrepancies were found, were they solved at that level?

Management should NEVER EVER TOUCH CHECKS AND CASH PERIOD!

Mail openers should number 2 or 3 and should be rotated on a regular basis.

No two people should work together often. This encourages collusion. Two – three people sign saying what the list is true and accurate.

These items should be taken to accounting to be immediately posted; No delays!

Once this is completed, another person makes a deposit. The total on that deposit should equal the list from the mail openers at all times!

The persons opening the mail should never be the one posting.

The one doing the deposit should never be the poster.

The one making the deposits should never be the one to pay bills.

My understanding from 3ABN insiders says that the mail is opened and given to Mollie and Danny.

THIS IS WRONG! This is against every principal there is! These procedures are called Cash Control. Leave a hole here and CASH WILL LEAK BIG TIME!

Penny:

We don't have any indication that any ministry did not get its money in 2000 - we only know that 3ABN did not record the receipt of the cash properly. In other words, we know that 3ABN made a mistake with the accounting when the cash came into the coffers. This tells us nothing about any transaction transferring the money out of the coffers. And again the 990 tells us that in 2001 3ABN made the correction to its books.

Fran:

My question to you would be this: How much did the auditors NOT find?

I would need to see that their policies and procedures had changed on the Balance Sheet from 2001 forward before I would say that this was only a one time correction!

Old habits die hard. Please remember that I am making these statements from my own experiences. People who get caught will change, but once the police leave, it is back to business as usual.

Penny:

I'll have to take the time to investigate the other points you brought up, to see if 3ABN is correcting mistakes, or just making them and leaving them be. But so far the verdict is the 3ABN is making the corrections.

Fran:

How can you be sure?

Evidence strongly suggests to me that there is more to this than meets the eye.

God bless.

Shiney Penny (now starting to follow the money around)

There are many reports that are available showing ratios. One of those formula used on that giant increase of inventory mentioned in a previous post, should produce some interesting results!

What result do you feel these ratios would show?

The ratios tell about inventory turn around time.

It explains how much inventory is getting sold, or moving out, vs. the increases in the inventory.

It helps understand the cost of carrying such a large inventory. It is supposed to give management a heads up if the inventory is in a runaway trend.

It is used as a red flag to call attention to someone that something is broken and needs to get fixed ASAP..

http://www.netmba.com/finance/financial/ratios/

It is late. Please forgive my spelling and grammatical errors.

http://www.netmba.com/finance/financial/ratios/

[lurker]

Fran, your link didn't work for me.

This post has been edited by lurker: May 20 2007, 08:08 AM

[Shepherdswife]

Fran, I am not an accountant but having been a church treasurer for several years and business owner for several more, I can follow most of it. You are so right about having the checks and balances for money that comes in. Any organization that does not follow these procedure would not be trusted with any donations from me...

I was treasure once where my spouse was pastor--very irregular I know--but there were about 12 people attending and there literally was no one else to do it. I told them that I would do the data entry but would not touch the money. Someone else had to count and deposit and pay bills. It worked well and filled in the gap until we hired someone in a neighboring church to do it.

My aunt is a conference auditor and she told me that when she started her job, when she encountered a church where the books were a mess, her first instinct was to feel sorry for the "poor" treasurer (and in tiny little churches, sometimes people take the job because no one else will and do not know what they are doing) and work to straighten it out. Her boss, who had years of experience, said his first thought was "I wonder what they are trying to hide?" and would begin to look for irregularities. She has seen it too, now, that when there are things to hide, incompetence or carelessness are often blamed, when actually it is being used for cover.

Not accusing here...just observing, looking for clues, following the bread crumbs...

shepherdswife

[Fran]

Fran, your link didn't work for me.

I fixed it. It should work now.

[Pickle]

Her boss, who had years of experience, said his first thought was "I wonder what they are trying to hide?" and would begin to look for irregularities. She has seen it too, now, that when there are things to hide, incompetence or carelessness are often blamed, when actually it is being used for cover.

Not accusing here...just observing, looking for clues, following the bread crumbs...

shepherdswife

After looking at some of 3ABN's FCC applications and noticing so many mistakes, it crossed my mind that perhaps it was an attempt to cover something up. I didn't know why else there would be so many blunders.

For example, the July 2004 Ownership Report lists but 9 board members, each having 0% of the vote.

The March 2004 Ownership Report likewise lists 9 board members, each having 10% of the vote. It lists Linda who was replaced BY Ken Denslow in the July report. In other words, the March report OMITS Denslow. Also, each director has 10% of the equity in the March report, which would not be true for a non-profit.

The August 8, 2003 Ownership Report lists 11 board members, each with 10% of the vote and 10% equity. That means that 3ABN's total equity in 2003 stood at 110% of its total at that time, and that is total nonsense. Ken Denslow IS listed as a board member.

The 4/11/2003 application to assign WDQN to 3ABN identifies 3ABN as "a for-profit corporation." It also lists 10 board members, each with 10% of the vote and 10% of the equity. Ken Denslow is NOT listed as a board member.

See what I mean? Weird, isn't it? You would think that just about anyone could tell that 9 x 10% or 11 x 10% or 9 x 0% doesn't equal 100%.

And you would think they wouldn't have Denslow as a director in August 2003, then not a director in March 2004, and back in as a director in July 2004. It seems so crazy to have all these inaccuracies.

This post has been edited by Pickle: May 20 2007, 10:54 PM

[Johann]

Who knows what is going on?

[ex3ABNemployee]

After looking at some of 3ABN's FCC applications and noticing so many mistakes, it crossed my mind that perhaps it was an attempt to cover something up. I didn't know why else there would be so many blunders.

For example, the July 2004 Ownership Report lists but 9 board members, each having 0% of the vote.

The March 2004 Ownership Report likewise lists 9 board members, each having 10% of the vote. It lists Linda who was replaced BY Ken Denslow in the July report. In other words, the March report OMITS Denslow. Also, each director has 10% of the equity in the March report, which would not be true for a non-profit.

The August 8, 2003 Ownership Report lists 11 board members, each with 10% of the vote and 10% equity. That means that 3ABN's total equity in 2003 stood at 110% of its total at that time, and that is total nonsense. Ken Denslow IS listed as a board member.

The 4/11/2003 application to assign WDQN to 3ABN identifies 3ABN as "a for-profit corporation." It also lists 10 board members, each with 10% of the vote and 10% of the equity. Ken Denslow is NOT listed as a board member.

See what I mean? Weird, isn't it? You would think that just about anyone could tell that 9 x 10% or 11 x 10% or 9 x 0% doesn't equal 100%.

And you would think they wouldn't have Denslow as a director in August 2003, then not a director in March 2004, and back in as a director in July 2004. It seems so crazy to have all these inaccuracies.

And yet they want folks to believe that the books are "without spot or blemish" in the accounting department. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but if there are this many mistakes on the FCC documents, isn't it safe to assume that there may be other mistakes elsewhere?