Linda's Litigation Options

[calvin]

Why are you wanting to know such minute details?

Daryl, I would ask the same question too. Just seems unseemly that folks want to dwell on the details of their divorce settlement and proceedings. Divorces are often messy, with a lot of anger and hard feeling involved. Not to mention a very stressful time in one’s lives. People may say and do things that our out of character of them during this time as they relate to one another. I have never been through one personally but been a witness to them, including my parents as a early age.

I don’t behoove Linda for fighting for what she believes in rightly hers. Just think it is nobodies business but theirs.

[LaurenceD]

I wonder if 3abn uses a cash-base or accrual-base accounting system. That would make a difference in the numbers for reporting.

[SoulEspresso]

Well, aside from the 990s, this board hasn't really delved into the minutae of the financial dealings of 3ABN. Those are entwined with the divorce proceedings because it looks like Danny made a killing on 10 Commandments Twice Removed and didn't report it. Shiny Penny has more guts than I do to tackle it. Maybe we'll learn something new.

[calvin]

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):
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)

It appears 3abn got a little sloppy with their bookkeeping five years ago by mis-classifying some transactions and underreporting an unrealized gain. As you said Shiny Penny these are accounting errors or mistakes and most likely would not be considered gross negligence or fraud. Not sure what the $14K is about, maybe is a misappropriate of funds but even at that according to GAAP, would not be considered material to a $14MM in contributions organization. I don’t see much here…and this was 5 years ago.

Well, aside from the 990s, this board hasn't really delved into the minutae of the financial dealings of 3ABN. Those are entwined with the divorce proceedings because it looks like Danny made a killing on 10 Commandments Twice Removed and didn't report it. Shiny Penny has more guts than I do to tackle it. Maybe we'll learn something new.

A board typically would not get into the details of the accounting. That is one of the reasons you have external auditors and other controls for checks and balances.

What does the 10 Commandment book have to do with the divorce? They were already divorce and Danny remarried by time of the book.

I wonder if 3abn uses a cash-base or accrual-base accounting system. That would make a difference in the numbers for reporting.

Can’t believe an organization of this size and very publicly known non-profit (known in Adventist circles) would not use accrual based, fund accounting.

[LaurenceD]

Can’t believe an organization of this size and very publicly known non-profit (known in Adventist circles) would not use accrual based, fund accounting.

You might be surprised. I know of several municipalities, that would dwarf 3abn in size, in terms of assets and annual budget, that only changed systems last year, due to a recommendation by the state auditors. (first hand knowledge)

[awesumtenor]

Shiny Penny has more guts than I do to tackle it. Maybe we'll learn something new.

I'm not yet convinced that SP is tackling anything... the inquiries being made could very easily be someone walking point for DS, trolling to see if there is something else to be dealt with that hasnt come to light previously... as Zechariah chapter 3 shows us... everyone by your side aint necessarily on your side...

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

Whew!!! I thought it was just me! He really did come in telling us where he stood on this. i believe same game, new player, new strategy. I will more than apologize if I am wrong. However, we have seen some of this before. Coming in claiming to know nothing, not asking, but demanding facts, and this one needs details.....now). Fran graciously supplied some for him. The last one that came in like this, asked for help to nevigate the site, whilst she was off on another site trashing BSDA, and offering to help others navigate through the mud here. Sorry, I am going to sit back and watch this one for a while.

I'm not yet convinced that SP is tackling anything... the inquiries being made could very easily be someone walking point for DS, trolling to see if there is something else to be dealt with that hasnt come to light previously... as Zechariah chapter 3 shows us... everyone by your side aint necessarily on your side...

In His service,
Mr. J

[inga]

Whew!!! I thought it was just me! He really did come in telling us where he stood on this. i believe same game, new player, new strategy. I will more than apologize if I am wrong. However, we have seen some of this before. Coming in claiming to know nothing, not asking, but demanding facts, and this one needs details.....now). Fran graciously supplied some for him. The last one that came in like this, asked for help to nevigate the site, whilst she was off on another site trashing BSDA, and offering to help others navigate through the mud here. Sorry, I am going to sit back and watch this one for a while.

I was beginning to think the same thoughts: We've seen the pattern:
1) Coming on here bright & cheerful, claiming innocense and the desire to arrive at truth.
2) Demanding detailed proofs without bothering to read previous posts.
3) The innocense and cheerfulness wearing off and turning to vindictiveness.

We're at 2). Let's see if 3) will follow ....

[Jnana15]

I'm not yet convinced that SP is tackling anything... the inquiries being made could very easily be someone walking point for DS, trolling to see if there is something else to be dealt with that hasnt come to light previously... as Zechariah chapter 3 shows us... everyone by your side aint necessarily on your side...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Shiny Penny]

I was beginning to think the same thoughts: We've seen the pattern:
1) Coming on here bright & cheerful, claiming innocense and the desire to arrive at truth.
2) Demanding detailed proofs without bothering to read previous posts.
3) The innocense and cheerfulness wearing off and turning to vindictiveness.

We're at 2). Let's see if 3) will follow ....

Inga - thank you for spelling out what everone is suspicious of.

Yes, you are right about #1 - I desire to arrive at the truth.

However, I would beg to differ with you about #2 - I have asked for detailed proofs and for facts - I've seen others demanding information around these precincts, but I think I've been asking for (or demanding as some perceive it) information that is available. Even whatever court papers have been filed by this new attorney are available, perhaps not from the court, but from someone around this forum, so I'm thinking, put the papers out here for us to digest as well. And as I have said before I have read previous posts and been reading for months.

But as to your 3rd point - turning vindictive: That's not my style. Please read my response to the facts that Fran sent me. I was not vindictive, but rather saying, really look at what's being reported in the 990 and you will see, as I did, that things were not as Fran presented them. Vindictiveness is not my style and you will be disappointed if you are looking for that from me.

In the mean time - I wish you and everyone else on this forum a special Sabbath Day's blessing.

Shiny Penny

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: May 4 2007, 06:32 PM

[runner4him]

Whew!!! I thought it was just me! He really did come in telling us where he stood on this. i believe same game, new player, new strategy. I will more than apologize if I am wrong. However, we have seen some of this before. Coming in claiming to know nothing, not asking, but demanding facts, and this one needs details.....now). Fran graciously supplied some for him. The last one that came in like this, asked for help to nevigate the site, whilst she was off on another site trashing BSDA, and offering to help others navigate through the mud here. Sorry, I am going to sit back and watch this one for a while.

I must be in the groove even being a new one around here....I was thinking the same thing from the first of his posts. Too many questions and too much of I am not sure what but it all seemed like a digger at work looking for something. He comes across dense and then suddenly after being fed a little info he sounded like an expert and able to tear apart documents and their meaning in the one post. So sorry Penny Penny if my vibes are wrong. I would not want to discourage you but not sure about you and I guess I am like others who have a hard time not questioning motives too. Advice - just be up front with where you are coming from and just line up where you feel convicted and comfortable.....maybe you have been doing that.

[awesumtenor]

However, I would beg to differ with you about #2 - I have asked for detailed proofs and for facts - I've seen others demanding information around these precincts, but I think I've been asking for (or demanding as some perceive it) information that is available. Even whatever court papers have been filed by this new attorney are available, perhaps not from the court, but from someone around this forum, so I'm thinking, put the papers out here for us to digest as well. And as I have said before I have read previous posts and been reading for months.

If you have, in fact, been reading for months, you'd know that the questions you are asking have largely been asked and answered already... and thus your asking them again is, at best redundant.

But as to your 3rd point - turning vindictive: That's not my style. Please read my response to the facts that Fran sent me. I was not vindictive, but rather saying, really look at what's being reported in the 990 and you will see, as I did, that things were not as Fran presented them. Vindictiveness is not my style and you will be disappointed if you are looking for that from me.

Time will tell how true you stay to this... others have come in the same sheep's clothing making very similar promises... only to produce outwardly over time the ravening wolf's behavior that was always inwardly present

So you may indeed be a sheep in sheep's clothing... but I'm keeping watch over the flock just in case... now where did I put that rod...

In His service,
Mr. J

[LaurenceD]

Awww...lets giver her some slack. Of course the others jumped right into the fray of things too, and needed lots of attention, but he may actually read the few short paragraphs of Barbara Kerr's letter I recommended, which none of the others ever admitted doing, and actually get back to us.

Looking for answers, but ignoring our question would not be a good sign.

[princessdi]

It's all good, Lawrence, him gots all the rope him need............

Awww...lets giver her some slack. Of course the others jumped right into the fray of things too, and needed lots of attention, but he may actually read the few short paragraphs of Barbara Kerr's letter I recommended, which none of the others ever admitted doing, and actually get back to us.

Looking for answers, but ignoring our question would not be a good sign.

[Shiny Penny]

It appears 3abn got a little sloppy with their bookkeeping five years ago by mis-classifying some transactions and underreporting an unrealized gain. As you said Shiny Penny these are accounting errors or mistakes and most likely would not be considered gross negligence or fraud. Not sure what the $14K is about, maybe is a misappropriate of funds but even at that according to GAAP, would not be considered material to a $14MM in contributions organization. I don’t see much here…and this was 5 years ago.

Neither did I - which was precisely my point. And it was not only 5 years ago, but more like 6 or 7 years ago. Fran was the one making a big deal in bold print and big letters. Reread her post (I don't yet know how to put a link to it here).