Linda's Litigation Options

[Observer]

Well, there must be some paperwork that has been submitted to the court that can be submitted here as well for us to scrutinize.

Enquiring minds want to know and to know now!
Yes, but what property are we talking about? House, car, stocks, bonds, gold, silver -- can anyone be specific?

Later today, or early tomorrow, I will write a more involved answer to your question.

[Shiny Penny]

Later today, or early tomorrow, I will write a more involved answer to your question.

Thanks. I look forward to reading it, though I would be best satisfied with a copy of the actual court documents (I meant documents submitted to the court). It's good to know that you have access to these materials.

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: May 3 2007, 06:53 PM

[YogusBearus]

Thanks. I look forward to reading it, though I would be best satisfied with a copy of the actual court documents. It's good to know that you have access to these materials.

Welcome to BSDA penny. I've noted with some amusement the volume of your posts as a newbie and the fact that each post is requesting someone to provide something you need, right now. I read the back threads here for many months before making my first post. You certainly don't need me as an example, but I might suggest you would be well served to do some extensive reading of at least the pinned threads before you make to many more demands for information.

Just a thought from a old bear.

[Shiny Penny]

Welcome to BSDA penny. I've noted with some amusement the volume of your posts as a newbie and the fact that each post is requesting someone to provide something you need, right now. I read the back threads here for many months before making my first post. You certainly don't need me as an example, but I might suggest you would be well served to do some extensive reading of at least the pinned threads before you make to many more demands for information.

Just a thought from a old bear.

Old bear - thanks for your suggestion. I am naturally inquisitive and have been an unregistered reader of this forum for some weeks before posting anything. Are my questions for information redundant - ie, are the answers already posted somewhere here? Have I said tell me "right now"? In the case of the divorce litigation I am surprised that no one asked for the court papers to be made available for our perusal. That's all. Shiny Penny

[princessdi]

The litigation just started last week, and nothing ws really done. I dont' really believe there is anything to post at this point. I think it is as Obsrver says, when the trial is done then the records are made public.

[runner4him]

Old bear - thanks for your suggestion. I am naturally inquisitive and have been an unregistered reader of this forum for some weeks before posting anything. Are my questions for information redundant - ie, are the answers already posted somewhere here? Have I said tell me "right now"? In the case of the divorce litigation I am surprised that no one asked for the court papers to be made available for our perusal. That's all. Shiny Penny

Penny Penny....from one Newbie to another.... a word of advice. Read, Read, and Read some more. Spend time going through all the postings here at blacksda like everyone has been telling you and then go to the www.save3abn.com site and read everything there. Amazing how much you will learn and it will be best for you to take the time to read and learn for yourself....better retained and you will have a really clear picture of what is going on. Beware...there are some clones around here and you can easily spot them after only being here a short time. So many questions without searching things for yourself...one begins to wonder...

Anyway welcome to a great forum where the climate is great and acceptance abounds!

[Chas]

1) The pinned materials at the top. The one entitled "The Unauthorized 3abn History Threads: all 10 chapters linked here..." consists of two posts. The first one consists of links to the beginning of each of the 10 chapters. The second post is a guide in table-of-contents fashion to the most significant posts in those 10 chapters. "Table-of-contents fashion" means that it is the order in which they come in the threads... and also means that there is a one sentence description of the specific post to which you can go directly to by clicking on the urls given. By reading straight through this "guide" you can see the scope of the mateirial and can quickly find posts that have to do with different topics, such as financial matters. Once you click on a link, you will be live in the thread where it is, so you can read the discussion around that post... or you can return to the "guide" and continue to the next item of your choice.

2) By using the search engine of BSDA. Choose "Search" on the top line menu, enter your search criteria, and change one default parameter... the one which says "Show results as topics", to one which says "Show results as posts".

3) By clicking on the name of a member whose messages you want to view, you will be taken to their profile. Once there you may click on "Profile Options", then on "Find Member's Posts". This will give you all of the posts by that member since they have joined BSDA. Thus if Fran mentions something she has posted, this may be the quickest way to find the item to which she refers.

Generally speaking the posts which have given the most information come during the first 6 months after Danny's remarriage. Posts after fall of last year tend to have a larger percent of criticism from one side about the postings of the other than they do of additional facts. Though it is certainly true that there has been a lot of additional information brought for the first time to the boards since that time.

I hope this helps.

Watchbird,
Thanks! You taught me several things I have wondered about.

CWS

[Whtz Happenin]

...
That's all. Shiny Penny

Welcome Shiny Penny!

[Fran]

Can you please let me know (or point me to where I can find) more details about these statements?

NEXT QUESTION: What is this litigation ("Linda's Litigation") about - ie the details of what is particular is being litigated? Can anyone post court documents? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

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.

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

Dowlink 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,

In connection with the recording of real estate revocable trusts, the fair values of the trusts were based on internal estimates performed by the organization. We were unable to obtain sufficient evidential matter in connection with the estimates of fair value.14 (Applicant’s Ex. Nos. 14, & 15)

Then read the footnotes #14 & #15 at the bottom of page 17.

14 The financial report for 2000 contains additional concerns found by the independent auditors.

15 Applicant’s financial reports raise additional questions and concerns. For example, the unrecorded contribution revenue related to charitable gift annuity agreements were not recorded in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The “related party transactions” were acknowledged without identifying the parties. The notes refer to “split interest agreements,” where applicant received the assets funding the trusts and applicant is to pay certain amounts for specified periods of time to the donors. There is nothing in the record to identify the donors or
the assets. None of the trust agreements were supplied. (Applicant’s Ex. Nos. 14, 15)

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.

[Shiny Penny]

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.

...

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, 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. 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.

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

Form 990, Part 1, Line 20

Record split interest agreements previously unrecorded, $2,451,034
Reclassification of amounts due to other ministries previously classified as temporarily restricted, ($14,282)
Net unrealized gains on marketable securities, $13,862.

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

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. 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!

About the amounts due to other ministries, according to the 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.

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 shows that they corrected this in 2001.

But when you say "They also mis-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. 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.

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.

God bless.

Shiney Penny (now starting to follow the money around)

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: May 4 2007, 07:16 AM

[Observer]

Thanks. I look forward to reading it, though I would be best satisfied with a copy of the actual court documents (I meant documents submitted to the court). It's good to know that you have access to these materials.

Questions have been asked in regard to Linda’s litigation to divide the marital property. So, I thought that I would respond to these questions.

There are several parts to getting a divorce. The first part involves dissolving the marriage. The second part may be to determine custody issues if minor children are involved. The third part may be to determine the divisible marital assets and to divide them, and the forth part may be to determine what marital payments should be made, how much, and to whom. In general terms people who obtain divorces in these courts often find the those courts lack the jurisdiction to deal with all of the above issues. In some cases the court will only be able to dissolve the marriage, and all other aspects will have to be decided in further litigation.

In lawsuit to divide the marital assets there are two issues that the court faces. The first is to determine the divisible marital assets, and the second is to divide them. Under U.S. law, it is essential for there to be a determination of what the divisible marital assets are. As part of the divorce the court is expected to determine those divisible marital assets. It is not enough for the parties to a divorce to state that they have agreed to divide them. Such a statement only lays the groundwork for one of the parties to come back at a later time and ask for a division of some newly discovered asset.

One possible marital asset which much be dwelt with is retirement benefits. Many people living in the U. S. are covered by laws that declare that future retirement assets are a divisible marital asset. If the divorce decree does not deal with future retirement benefits, one or both parties may claim that they never agreed on that asset. I do not mention retirement assets because I think that they are an issue. I do not know the laws of IL, and therefore I do not know if future retirement benefits are a divisible marital asset.

Another important issue is whether either party has an undisclosed financial interest. A common ploy will be for one party to establish an individual bank account. If this is not disclosed to the other party, that party may come back to court to claim that they did not waive any rights to that account.

These issues are very serious. A charge of failing to disclose potential marital assets can even result in a criminal prosecution. I am personally aware of an individual who potentially faced such.

There is nothing in the Shelton divorce decree that indicates, in a manner acceptable to a U.S. court that the court in Guam attempted to determine the divisible marital assets. That is understandable as the Shelton’s obtained a divorce in which they were informed that they would have to have the marital assets determined and divided in a U. S. court.

That is exactly where the Shelton’s are today. Linda has filed a petition with a U.S. court for the divisible marital assets to be determined and divided. At this point there are no great legal documents to be made public. The court will typically not change what has already been done. Let us say that the parties to the divorce had decided that the wife will obtain ownership of an automobile. The court is unlikely to change that. The issues will be with any marital assets on which there is no agreement. So, if the court determines that Danny and Linda are entitled to a portion of the other’s future retirement assets, the court will determine how they shall be divided.

NOTE: Determination of retirement assets is generally a result of several factors. If the court were to determine that at the time of the divorce Danny and Linda each had exactly the same retirement entitlement, it would likely award Danny a greater share of Linda’s retirement package than what it awarded Linda from Danny’s package.

At this point in time, there is really nothing to share with the public. The court has simply been asked to determine what assets are marital, and therefore divisible. As part of this process, both Danny and Linda will be required to disclose such things as their bank accounts at the time of the divorce, and any other financial interests that they might have. I personally expect that the court will not change anything that has already been disclosed to the other, and divided. Retirement benefits are a possible exception to this. And they may not be an exception.

The court is not going to release to the general public the personal information that come out in this disclosure process. Let us say that it is discovered that at the time of the divorce Danny had a bank account which held $5,281.23. Let us say that Linda had an account that held $5,282.33. The court is not going to release such personal information to the public. It is not going to release a lot more personal information that comes out in this litigation. It will declare that such is personal, and that the public does not have the right to know. The final decree may or may not be released to the public by the court. That remains to be seen. There are circumstances where some information will come out which will be finally released to the public. But, until then the public will simply have to wait and see.

Folks, there are areas of legal practice where the court will clearly rule that documents are not available for public view. Family matters are one such area.


This post has been edited by Observer: May 4 2007, 04:57 AM

[Observer]

Link to Franklin County Court Info


For any of you who wish to access all public records in this case, go to the above link.

NOTE: It is the court that decides what to make public. In family matters, the court is more conservative than in other matters. But, there you have it. Go to that link, and read at will.


You will note from going to that site, that the documents are not impounded. The court has simply not posted them for the public record. That is a common practice.

SP, you may be able to obtain them. You can contact the clerk of that court, and request copies. That might be one way. You can also contact either LInda's or Danny's attorney and request that they send you copies. That might be another way. Or, you can hire your own attorney to obtain them.

Go for it. If they are that important to you, spend the time, effort and money to obtain them.


This post has been edited by Observer: May 4 2007, 06:00 AM

[Observer]

Link to Franklin County Court Info
For any of you who wish to access all public records in this case, go to the above link.

NOTE: It is the court that decides what to make public. In family matters, the court is more conservative than in other matters. But, there you have it. Go to that link, and read at will.
You will note from going to that site, that the documents are not impounded. The court has simply not posted them for the public record. That is a common practice.

SP, you may be able to obtain them. You can contact the clerk of that court, and request copies. That might be one way. You can also contact either LInda's or Danny's attorney and request that they send you copies. That might be another way. Or, you can hire your own attorney to obtain them.

Go for it. If they are that important to you, spend the time, effort and money to obtain them.

GREED with capital letters is often at the basis of litigation. People in their litigation often take one of the following approaches:

1) Give the other party everything that the law entitles them to have, but nothing more.

2) Make them fight for everything, and yield nothing without a fight.

Those who take the first approach will typically have lower legal expenses. In addition they reduce the likelihood of future litigation. In a sense, by giving all that the law requires, they end up with an iron-clad legal ruling.

Those who take the second approach generate more billable hours in initial legal expenses. In addition, they make it more likely that there will be future litigation.

In the case involving the division of marital property, in the name of GREED, one party will typically decide not to disclose specific property on the basis that it is not marital property.

e.g. Aunt Sue gives John $5,000. John knows that his marriage is in trouble. So, he places that $5,000 in an individual bank account, and John does not declare that account to the court.

Or:

John wins the lottery. He takes the proceeds as an annual payment over the next 30 years, and does not declare that financial interest to the court.

In the first case, the court might very well agree that the $5,000 was not divisible marital property. It therefore might give it all to John. On the other hand, it might divide the future lottery winnings with Mary. In both cases, it is not the right of John to decide what is and what is not divisible marital property. That is the function of the court. John’s responsibility is to fully disclose and allow the court to do its work.

The common expectation of the court is that one can not waive a right of which they have not been informed. On the basis the Mary was not informed of either the lottery winnings, or the $5,000, the court would likely open up case for further consideration of the division of the marital property.

In these examples, GREED was the ruling factor that in the end resulted in future litigation and more billable attorney fees.

[Daryl Fawcett]

Why are you wanting to know such minute details?

[runner4him]

Link to Franklin County Court Info
For any of you who wish to access all public records in this case, go to the above link.

NOTE: It is the court that decides what to make public. In family matters, the court is more conservative than in other matters. But, there you have it. Go to that link, and read at will.
You will note from going to that site, that the documents are not impounded. The court has simply not posted them for the public record. That is a common practice.

SP, you may be able to obtain them. You can contact the clerk of that court, and request copies. That might be one way. You can also contact either LInda's or Danny's attorney and request that they send you copies. That might be another way. Or, you can hire your own attorney to obtain them.

Go for it. If they are that important to you, spend the time, effort and money to obtain them.

You are so right. In most if not all states you can go to any court to request copies of anything with no questions asked and in some counties you can view online quite a bit of information regarding criminal, civil, or domestic matters. It can be very helpful in sorting out the details.

Why are you wanting to know such minute details?

Just wondering who you are referring to....who seems to need minute details....I have a thought but wondered what you were thinking?