General Conference Suspends 3abn's Status, Supportive Ministry Status suspended by GC announcement Options

[Pickle]

I would bet that Fran really doesn't have a clue what she is saying about not using GAAP, ....

Have the auditors ever given 3ABN an adverse opinion or anything even close? I bet the answer is NO.

Shiny Penny, if you would take the time to read the auditor's reports, you would see that year after year they explicitly state that 3ABN doesn't follow GAAP in regards to certain issues, such as how the payments to operations in Russia, Peru, and Brazil are handled.

Now I think an apology to Fran would be in order.

[Stan]

The trouble is this..

I had thought she was giving a professional opinion, or a semi-professional one. I only glanced over what she had said but thought it was valid. I only really read closely recently.

If my friend Bob viewed this the same way I did, and if others acted upon this as somewhat credible, and it caused him to say other things then she really, in my opinion, needs to come up to the plate with a significant amount $$$$$$ to help him cover his expenses. The same with the others.

Posting an adverse opinion from the auditors would be a different thing, but also these matters are years old. AND I doubt if Danny did the bookkeeping transactions.

Now I wonder what other erroneous things you posted...

AND calling me names like Dannykins, or phishing or whatever it is, does not change the matter of your authoritative type remarks on something you seem to know not that much on.

Quite frankly, I am very disappointed, shocked maybe a better word.

[Stan]

Shiny Penny, if you would take the time to read the auditor's reports, you would see that year after year they explicitly state that 3ABN doesn't follow GAAP in regards to certain issues, such as how the payments to operations in Russia, Peru, and Brazil are handled.

Now I think an apology to Fran would be in order.

Bob, do you know what the board's response to that was?

I do not know about Peru or Brazil, but i have been told that the best way and the right way to get money to Russia differs a lot.

[Shiny Penny]

Shiny Penny, if you would take the time to read the auditor's reports, you would see that year after year they explicitly state that 3ABN doesn't follow GAAP in regards to certain issues, such as how the payments to operations in Russia, Peru, and Brazil are handled.

Now I think an apology to Fran would be in order.

The truth is that Fran needs to apologize to all of you for misleading you with her "analysis." Her analysis is incomplete and misleading. But still you fall for what she says.

[Pickle]

Hi Stan.

If my friend Bob viewed this the same way I did, and if others acted upon this as somewhat credible, and it caused him to say other things then she really, in my opinion, needs to come up to the plate with a significant amount $$$ to help him cover his expenses.

I've tried not to repeat anything I couldn't verify in some way or another.

Bob, do you know what the board's response to that was?

I do not know about Peru or Brazil, but i have been told that the best way and the right way to get money to Russia differs a lot.

Don't know. But I do know that it is an ongoing issue year after year after year. The 2000 and 2001 reports list different GAAP violations than what I cited, but they do list some. 2002 through 2006 list the GAAP violations regarding not properly accounting for money sent to Russia, and at least one of the entities in the Philippines, Peru, and Brazil.

The issue is not about getting the money to Russia, but rather how to account for it.

An easy one for the auditor in his report is: "In connection with the recording of real estate revocable trusts, the fair values of the trusts were based on internal estimates performed by the orgnization. We were unable to obatin sufficient evidential matter in connection with the estimates of fair value." It's an esay one because it reads about the same each year from 2000 through 2006, so all they have to do is copy and paste. But it should be pointed out that they don't call this a GAAP violation. They merely point to this as an ongoing problem. How serious or minor it is, I cannot presently say.

At any rate, it is fair to say that Fran is correct when she says that there are unresolved issues that go on year after year, and at least some of those issues are violations of GAAP.

[Pickle]

The truth is that Fran needs to apologize to all of you for misleading you with her "analysis." Her analysis is incomplete and misleading. But still you fall for what she says.

So one doesn't have to apologize if the other side is partly wrong too? Your spouse agree with that? Does the Bible support that? Does the lawsuit support that and thus I don't have to apologize for anything even if I got some teensy weensy little thing not quite 100% accurate somewhere?

Sorry. If I'm wrong, I will apologize, regardless of whether the other side is wrong too or not.

[Ian]

Cindy, I hate to put it this way, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Danny said what he said on the air AFTER Walt told him that a former 3ABNer had called him and told him that the IRS had contacted them. And that former 3ABNer passed on the agent's contact info to Walt, and Walt was going to call that IRS agent.

The same week Walt took that call, Danny said what he said on the air.

So does Danny think Gregory Scott Thomspon is an enemy of the gospel? My question has nothing to do with outing him.

Yet you continue to call him by his full name after freaking out that you were addressed as "Robert" or "Robert Pickle"?

Please call me "Ian" only henceforth. (as I have repeatedly and nicely asked on this forum, "BOB".) I would hate to have to make this the issue you and so many here did about being "respectful" , but will as I don't like hypocricy. Jesus called it the leaven of the Pharisees. Not a good thing, as just a little ruins the whole lump..

Moving on..

The problem here is the same problem with so much of your accusations, you don't bother to give people the benefit of the doubt or consider all in your rush to judgement.

The answer to your question is simple, Dr Thompson didn't get the chance to talk to Danny, or the others before the Live. It is just as I said, DS did not know.

As to your question about whether Danny thinks Greg Thompson is an enemy of the gospel, it's contemptable and stupid.

This post has been edited by Ian: Mar 16 2008, 01:15 PM

[Stan]

Hi Stan.
An easy one for the auditor in his report is: "In connection with the recording of real estate revocable trusts, the fair values of the trusts were based on internal estimates performed by the orgnization. We were unable to obatin sufficient evidential matter in connection with the estimates of fair value." It's an esay one because it reads about the same each year from 2000 through 2006, so all they have to do is copy and paste. But it should be pointed out that they don't call this a GAAP violation. They merely point to this as an ongoing problem. How serious or minor it is, I cannot presently say.

At any rate, it is fair to say that Fran is correct when she says that there are unresolved issues that go on year after year, and at least some of those issues are violations of GAAP.

I do not know the accounting team nor the trust team.

I suspect what happened is similar to this.

Lets say there were 6 properties that are given to 3ABN, but can be revoked anytime by the donor.

You really do not know what the value is until you sell.
So they have a choice, give an estimate, or get a yearly professional evaluation. You have to pay for the professional, and it could be an intrusion on the person living in it.

Personally, I would give an estimate and have the auditor make note of that, and that covers them should the estimate be way off.
OR
I could pay, with no real benefit, to have an expense of an evalution on something that is revokable.

NOW I could very well be wrong, but that is a likely scenario.

If that is the case, it is hardly worth making the stink over that she did. IF that is the case.

[Stan]

At any rate, it is fair to say that Fran is correct when she says that there are unresolved issues that go on year after year, and at least some of those issues are violations of GAAP.

The key here is to find if the was a response by the board. They, I believe should have all had a copy of the audited report. Sometimes boards have to rule out costs vs benefits. Sometimes we do that in real life. Like everything else I am saying, that is just my opinion. If there was something illegal I beleive the auditors would have made other statements.

I appreciate adding on the information you did about the overseas funds. It would have been best if she would have had that as a caveat to her statement about GAAP. When I first read her statement about not using GAAP I thought it was for everything.

[Pickle]

The answer to your question is simple, Dr Thompson didn't get the chance to talk to Danny, or the others before the Live. It is just as I said, DS did not know.

As to your question about whether Danny thinks Greg Thompson is an enemy of the gospel, it's contemptable and stupid.

And how do you know that Walt hadn't talked to Danny? Did Danny or Walt tell you that?

My question was valid, and I would like an answer.

[Ian]

And how do you know that Walt hadn't talked to Danny? Did Danny or Walt tell you that?

My question was valid, and I would like an answer.

I don't really care what you like or dislike. Who isn't important here. The point is that I simply did the same exact thing you could have done before assuming, and falsely accusing someone.

[Pickle]

The key here is to find if the was a response by the board. They, I believe should have all had a copy of the audited report. Sometimes boards have to rule out costs vs benefits. Sometimes we do that in real life. Like everything else I am saying, that is just my opinion. If there was something illegal I beleive the auditors would have made other statements.

I appreciate adding on the information you did about the overseas funds. It would have been best if she would have had that as a caveat to her statement about GAAP. When I first read her statement about not using GAAP I thought it was for everything.

I don't know the response of the board. We did ask to meet with them multiple times and they refused. But I don't recall asking any questions along such lines at that time.

I have not analyzed all of Fran's contentions, so I cannot say whether they are valid or invalid. To what extent GAAP isn't being followed, I can't say. But I'm told that not documenting certain expenses with receipts has been an issue.

See http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-financ...ements-2006.pdf for the actual wording of the auditor's concern about the foreign entities.

Stan, maybe you can be of help on another issue, since I think you have some experience with trusts. In early 1998 a piece of property was deeded in May Chung, Danny, and Linda's names, stating at the top, "Life Estate Only." I've been told by a couple folk that it is unusual to deed a property to someone if they have a life estate. My understanding is that none of the three had ever owned the property previously.

Later that year May surrendered her interest back to 3ABN, and Danny and Linda bought 3ABN's remaining interest on 9/25/1998 for $6,139, selling it one week later to Ma Ford for $135,000.

Danny denied on 3ABN's 1998 Form 990 that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction had taken place, which is a transaction in which a founder or director or officer obtains an economic benefit for less than Fair Market Value. Yet the same 990 had an attachment that acknowqledged that 3ABn had sold that house to some unnamed person at a substantial loss.

I think it was shiny penny that contended that all Danny did was buy the remainder interest, and Attorney Hayes told the magistrate judge the same on March 7 in court.

Does such a rationale sound valid? Can any officer or director of a non-profit have real estate given to them as a life estate that they never owned, then buy the remainder interest, and then report to the IRS that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction never took place, and everything be on the up and up?

[Pickle]

I don't really care what you like or dislike. Who isn't important here. The point is that I simply did the same exact thing you could have done before assuming, and falsely accusing someone.

You going to answer the question? Did Danny or Walt tell you that Walt hadn't told Danny that the IRS was on their trail?

And what false accusation did I make? And how do you know?

[Stan]

Hi Bob

I do Trust work in Canada, our laws in Trust are significantly different.

I have heard of situations where non-profits boards have given people homes and cars if they worked for years, during a time when there was no money to put into a retirement plan while they worked. Or if they worked years at significancy under valued wages in order to get an organization propped up.

Many things, if they are board approved, can deviate somewhat from policy or GAAP, providing they are not illegal of course.

[Pickle]

Stan, I guess it would be all right if there weren't the regulations against section 4958 excess benefit transactions, and if it had been properly disclosed on the 990.