Looks Like Ds Already Has His, "reward In Full!" Options

[Pickle]

The Fjarli Foundation lists notes and loans receivable on page two item 7 of their 2005 990 at Guidestar. Beginning of the year - $200,000 - Book value $150,000 - Fair Market value $150,000.

On the 2004 990, notes and loans receivable $200,000. I would think it is the same loan but if you have the document you spoke of, you would know for sure.

Quite interesting, lurker. So in July 2006, under penalty of perjury I assume, Danny Shelton says that he had at that time a $200,000 "Mortgage loan" from "Merlin Fharli." Besides wondering why Danny doesn't know how to spell his own board member's name, one has to wonder why he would say it was from Merlin if it was from the Foundation, and why it was $200,000 if it was $150,000 by the end of 2005.

Is it at all possible that Danny had to increase the loan amount in 2006 back to $200,000? Or did he overstate his liabilities by $50,000? And did Merlin assume the mortgage from his foundation sometime between January 1 and July 13, 2006?

PB,

It appears from the 2004 990 that the plane was sold in 2004. See page 1, lines 8a and 8b.

Could be wrong, but that's my guess, if the 990's are accurate. But given the discrepancies on the FCC applications and Danny's affidavit, who knows if they really are accurate?

A big test may be to see if any royalty payments are reported on the 2006 990 for the TCTR book, if such things really are required to be reported.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jun 13 2007, 01:14 PM

[Shiny Penny]

SP,

If you've ever talked to Linda about such things, you will get the idea pretty quickly that she isn't as informed as she ought to be.

Is this an excuse? Or is this the general situation- she is not as informed as she ought to be? Who knows, maybe Danny isn't as informed as he ought to be either.

At any rate, Danny's the one that still holds a position of trust within a supporting ministry of the Adventist church, and if he wants to safeguard his reputation, he will be immediately forthcoming with whatever documents are necessary to answer questions raised by publicly available documents.

Clearly he cares nothing about safeguarding his reputation, because he has not been forthcoming, immediately or otherwise, to the demands made here on bsda.

Or do you think that he should consider suing the courthouse instead for making such documents publicly available? And if he does sue, should he try to get the suit impounded?

Should I countenance this facetious question?

The Save website says that the property in question was their home. Linda must have known something about the family home, especially if it was selling for a pittance, then suddenly resold for $125,000+ more.

If someone can figure out which home it is, then perhaps that would add some light onto the subject.

My point is...if one party isn't responding then by gum get the information from the other party.

[Pickle]

Go ahead and try, SP.

The problem is that not everyone has a steel trap memory, and this particular case is complicated by the fact that Linda's recollections may be based on what Danny told her at the time.

Yet really, why concentrate on recollections and reconstructions nine years later when the 990 and 1040 for 1998 can settle the matter once and for all? Call up Danny and see if he will finally do what it takes to properly and professionally answer legitimate questions. Stonewalling and evasion don't cut it, but only give the impression that he's trying to hide something.

[Artiste]

SP,

If you've ever talked to Linda about such things, you will get the idea pretty quickly that she isn't as informed as she ought to be.

At any rate, Danny's the one that still holds a position of trust within a supporting ministry of the Adventist church, and if he wants to safeguard his reputation, he will be immediately forthcoming with whatever documents are necessary to answer questions raised by publicly available documents.

Or do you think that he should consider suing the courthouse instead for making such documents publicly available? And if he does sue, should he try to get the suit impounded?

Definitely think DS should sue the courthouse and get the lawsuit impounded!


*************************************************

[Fran]

Go ahead and try, SP.

The problem is that not everyone has a steel trap memory, and this particular case is complicated by the fact that Linda's recollections may be based on what Danny told her at the time.

Yet really, why concentrate on recollections and reconstructions nine years later when the 990 and 1040 for 1998 can settle the matter once and for all? Call up Danny and see if he will finally do what it takes to properly and professionally answer legitimate questions. Stonewalling and evasion don't cut it, but only give the impression that he's trying to hide something.

Bob;

JMO, the above, bolded statement should be worded as "only reveals there is much hidden, about a lot." Of course, my opinion is based on statements from information in the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax Lawsuit and the current Shelton/3ABN vs. Joy & Pickle where the whole mess has been hidden from the public. This action speaks the loudest to me. That was clearly done to hide MUCH!

No one has a steel trap memory. Therefore, we have documents to record historical transactions. This was done to insure accuracy, if at some later date, a questions arise, we are able to look back at the documentation to find what happened. With the documents spread out in front of everyone, memories should wake up and remember the intent.

To Anyone;

What happened to Mom Ford at 3ABN? She departed not too long after Linda. Did she leave or pass away?

[Pickle]

Ma Ford is still kicking. Seems like a nice lady.

[Shiny Penny]

Go ahead and try, SP.

The problem is that not everyone has a steel trap memory, and this particular case is complicated by the fact that Linda's recollections may be based on what Danny told her at the time.

Yet really, why concentrate on recollections and reconstructions nine years later when the 990 and 1040 for 1998 can settle the matter once and for all? Call up Danny and see if he will finally do what it takes to properly and professionally answer legitimate questions. Stonewalling and evasion don't cut it, but only give the impression that he's trying to hide something.

You are suggesting that I call him? Rather the person who is originally asking the questions on the public forum should be asking both Linda and Danny to get a start on finding the answers.

Honestly, none of us probably has a steel trap memory, but that doesn't mean we have no memory. Linda is a intelligent woman. But she has absolutely no recollection of any details? This was only 9 years ago, not 40. Most of us around this forum, if we had a windfall of $129,000 back in 1998, would remember it.

But at least she should remember if she was living in the house in question at the time, which house is it, why did they sell it. These are basic sorts of questions that would shed some light on the matter and surely Linda must remember something like this.

But let me try and develop a possible scenario (and this is sheer speculation). Linda wanted a new and nicer house, they had tried to sell the house in question, but of course in that grand metropolis there is no ready market and after sitting unsold for a while May Chung or whoever suggests to them that MC will pay off the mortgage, but the house will be donated to 3ABN. But of course the house is worth more than what is left on the mortgage. and there is an agreement that if some other kindhearted soul wishes to come along and buy the balance of the value of the house from them, then so be it. So poor Linda and Danny in order to buy/build the new and nice house really needed the equity from the old house...so along comes a kind E Ford who wants to help Linda and Danny so she buys the remaining balance. However, they discover that the paperwork needs to be rewritten or something?

Does this seem half plausible? Maybe, maybe not. But certainly, Linda can shed some light on the matter that may help to show what you will not find in any 990 or other documents.

[Shiny Penny]

I think you are correct about his personal tax return. Wonder if he will clear the air by releasing it? It would be a smart PR move on his part if he proved that he has done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide by releasing that tax return.

Pickle...seems to me that Linda would have signed the 1998 tax return. She can release a copy herself, can't she? That would be a smart PR move on her part, proving she had done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide?

[beartrap]

Pickle...seems to me that Linda would have signed the 1998 tax return. She can release a copy herself, can't she? That would be a smart PR move on her part, proving she had done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide?

Ummm, as lately as 2005 Linda (in front of a witness) signed the tax return document for the 2004 taxes. Danny brought her the page that needed a signature and told her where to sign. She did not read through it, have her lawyer go over it, or an accountant. She simply signed where Danny indicated her signature needed to be. That is how Linda's signature has landed on many documents. Smart? No! But I am not going to judge her on intelligence in that area as I have done the same thing, to my eternal regret, and that of people who I love.

[Pickle]

Ummm, as lately as 2005 Linda (in front of a witness) signed the tax return document for the 2004 taxes.

BearTrap,

This point illustrates what I am trying to say regarding Linda's recollection of events not necessarily always being correct in every little detail. I really think that the event you are referring to happened in 2004, though Linda thinks it happened in 2005. From what I can tell they filed a joint return for 2003, but not for 2004. If they didn't do a joint return for 2004, I can't see why Danny would have asked her to sign the 2004 return in 2005.

Am I wrong on this?

By the way, I have no problem with someone not recalling things correctly. There's no sin in that.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jun 13 2007, 10:12 PM

[Pickle]

You are suggesting that I call him? Rather the person who is originally asking the questions on the public forum should be asking both Linda and Danny to get a start on finding the answers.

Remember? I'm not allowed to contact Danny due to some sort of stupid rule that says that you can't follow Matthew 18 with a party that's suing you.

Most of us around this forum, if we had a windfall of $129,000 back in 1998, would remember it.

Your assumption that Linda thinks there was a windfall is probably false, based on what she says she recalls.

But at least she should remember if she was living in the house in question at the time, which house is it, why did they sell it.

None of those points are at issue. At issue is whether this compensation was properly reported on Danny's W-2, 3ABN's 990, and Danny's 1040, and whether he treated it as a short-term or long-term capital gain.

But let me try and develop a possible scenario (and this is sheer speculation). Linda wanted a new and nicer house, ...

Sheer speculation blames private inurement on Linda?

... they had tried to sell the house in question, but of course in that grand metropolis there is no ready market and after sitting unsold for a while May Chung or whoever suggests to them that MC will pay off the mortgage, but the house will be donated to 3ABN. But of course the house is worth more than what is left on the mortgage. and there is an agreement that if some other kindhearted soul wishes to come along and buy the balance of the value of the house from them, then so be it.

The experts I spoke with told me they get asked about such all the time, but it can't be done. You can't donate a property to a non-profit and then later get it back.

If Danny's name was already on the title, there would be little point to the Feb. 1998 transaction, and the Sept. 1998 transaction would not have been claiming to have transferred the property to Danny. Correct?

So poor Linda and Danny in order to buy/build the new and nice house really needed the equity from the old house...so along comes a kind E Ford who wants to help Linda and Danny so she buys the remaining balance.

So they buy the remaining balance from Danny instead of from 3ABN, even though it is 3ABN that owns the property, not Danny? And in order to pull it off, 3ABN transfers the property to Danny for $6,139?

Regardless, did it get reported on the appropriate W-2's, 990's, and 1040's, and was it reported as a long-term or short-term capital gain?

However, they discover that the paperwork needs to be rewritten or something?

Interesting that you would bring up that possibility. Did you know that one of the allegations out there is that they alter paperwork after the fact?

But certainly, Linda can shed some light on the matter that may help to show what you will not find in any 990 or other documents.

What she recalls and what the documents show appear to be different. But that is irrelevant, since the legal implications of it all depends on what is reported on the documents, not on what someone somewhere thinks they just might possibly maybe remember.

[Snoopy]

You are suggesting that I call him? Rather the person who is originally asking the questions on the public forum should be asking both Linda and Danny to get a start on finding the answers.

Actually, Shiny Penny, I respectfully disagree with the bolded statement above. In my humble opinion, THE 3ABN BOARD OF DIRECTORS should be asking these questions. No, they SHOULD HAVE ASKED these questions long ago, and they SHOULD HAVE FORCED THE ISSUE until they received a satisfactory response. So, if the shoe fits............go for it!

~~Snoopy~~

This post has been edited by Snoopy: Jun 13 2007, 11:21 PM

[Snoopy]

Quite interesting, lurker. So in July 2006, under penalty of perjury I assume, Danny Shelton says that he had at that time a $200,000 "Mortgage loan" from "Merlin Fharli." Besides wondering why Danny doesn't know how to spell his own board member's name, one has to wonder why he would say it was from Merlin if it was from the Foundation, and why it was $200,000 if it was $150,000 by the end of 2005.

Isn't it a bit odd for an anointed one I mean, a ministry executive to get a loan from a board member (or his foundation) in the first place?? I have a problem with that. One more strike against the independence of the board...

Has anyone considered asking LInda to explain what this is about? Her name and signature are on the documents and there are some on bsda who are in contact with her...why wait for Danny? You know full well that he isn't going to be responding here - let's be real! As honest and forthright as Linda is there must be a perfectly good explanation for these transactions - or are we to believe that both Linda and Danny were crooked?

Perhaps Dr. Thompson could shed some light on this - his name is right there, too!!

[Shiny Penny]

Actually, Shiny Penny, I respectfully disagree with the bolded statement above. In my humble opinion, THE 3ABN BOARD OF DIRECTORS should be asking these questions. No, they SHOULD HAVE ASKED these questions long ago. So, if the shoe fits............go for it!

~~Snoopy~~

Isn't the chairman of the board's signature on those papers? And May Chung another board member as well? Evidently the board questioned and likely made whatever decisions that were made on a lot more information than these documents floating around today which were produced and signed afterwards.

[Rosyroi]

edited for content.....
Rosyroi

This post has been edited by Rosyroi: Jun 13 2007, 11:24 PM