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

[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.

Respectfully, the only place I saw May Chung's name associated with any of this was in your "sheer speculation".

So, because Dr. Thompson signed the document we should assume that the board questioned the matter?? And you would know that how??

Are you posting anonymously? I wonder why???

This post has been edited by Snoopy: Jun 13 2007, 11:35 PM

[Shiny Penny]

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.

Your assumption that Linda thinks there was a windfall is probably false, based on what she says she recalls.
What does she say she recalls? Can you share that tidbit with us?


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.Does Linda think they did not pay the taxes and so is concerned about her own personal potential liability in the circumstances? Actually, since you have no idea what the transactions were really about I don't think you know what is at issue. It is too bad that Linda cannot help you with more specifics. But if she is concerned about their potential tax liabilities, then she can call Danny and ask to be reminded of the circumstances...then maybe that would help her to put her mind at ease...assuming that everything was above board.


Sheer speculation blames private inurement on Linda? Sheer speculation can be anything you want. Over on the SAVE site there is heaps of sheer speculation written between those documents. Real investigators will take the information, documents, interviews and consider many different ways that they can be interpreted and try to determine, given the evidence, given the people's memories, given a whole host of other stuff, what is the most reasonable and unbiased interpretation of the data.

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. I believe you are right here, but there are exceptions to every rule. I believe that if donated property is later returned to the donor for whatever reason (the children are mad and force the parent to get the donated property back) then the tax deduction that was taken on the property would need to be reversed.

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 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?

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?

Did I say alter the paperwork? There are several documents with the property it seems going back and forth...this is what I was speculating about

What she recalls and what the documents show appear to be different. Not surprising based on the fact that, as was stated in an earlier post, Linda doesn't recollect well. 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.

Legal implications? Where is this coming from?

[Shiny Penny]

Respectfully, the only place I saw May Chung's name associated with any of this was in your "sheer speculation". If you go over to the SAVE site you will see May Chung's names all over those documents.

So, because Dr. Thompson signed the document we should assume that the board questioned the matter?? And you would know that how?? Or should we assume that the board did not discuss? Remember that there must have been some discussions prior to these papers coming into existence and prior to their being signed. Since no one here seems to know what these papers refer to exactly and since Linda can't remember, I would suggest that the board discussed whatever the circumstances were, decided to proceed in a given manner and then these documents were produced to carryout those decisions.

Are you posting anonymously? I wonder why??? I am posting as Shiny Penny. The rules allow me to do so without giving a reason.

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.

Yes, I believe all of us have signed documents without reading all of what we are signing our names too - just look at credit card agreements...how many have read all the fine print with the terms and details?

But in this case, since Linda signed the tax forms and if she doesn't have a copy herself, she can request a copy from the IRS. I have requested old tax returns from the IRS and they will get them to you within a week or 10 days, though I don't know if even they will keep the records going back to 1998. And it very well may be that Danny doesn't have the tax returns going back that far either.

[Shiny Penny]

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

Wasn't this mortgage acquired to provide means to buy out Linda's half of the house? I'm speculating here, so please correct me if I am wrong. Re-mortgaging the house seems a quicker prospect to me than listing and selling (I'm guessing about the real estate market in that neck of the woods).

But about how this affects the independence of the board...if a board member loans the president money then who is beholden to who? I would suppose now that Danny would be in the pocket of Fjarli (btw, how do you pronounce that name?) There is an old saying 'he who pays the piper, calls the tune." I would not think that the loan would make the board or a particular member more beholden to Danny. Was this what you meant?

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: Jun 14 2007, 12:28 AM

[Snoopy]

Apologies, Shiny Penny. I had not looked at save3abn.com for some time, but I do see that Ms. Chung was a party to the transaction. And I thought I saw your response to my post without seeing you listed as signed in, but I must have been wrong. It happens a lot!

~~Snoopy~~

[PeacefulBe]

SP,

Fjarli is pronounced far-lee.

[Pickle]

Wasn't this mortgage acquired to provide means to buy out Linda's half of the house?

That was my understanding. But then, if that is true, why was the mortgage done on what I think was August 1, 2005? Are we talking about an unsecured loan prior to that, and that Fjarli decided he wanted something to back the loan?

Legal implications? Where is this coming from?

The legal implications simply have to do with whether everything was correctly reported on the W-2's, 990's, and 1040's, and whether it was reported as a short- or long-term capital gain. Did Danny and 3ABN comply with the law as it read at the time? That's the question. What people recall and recollect is irrelevant, in my opinion.

[runner4him]

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

Idea.... Some of us here could contact Mr. T. and ask him about the details of this property transfer. That way we could post his responses and that should clear up the confusion

Problem is....is that scurrying around that I hear.....? Have any of you tried that and heard the response..."we cannot recall WHAT happened?"

[Whtz Happenin]

Idea.... Some of us here could contact Mr. T. and ask him about the details of this property transfer. That way we could post his responses and that should clear up the confusion

Problem is....is that scurrying around that I hear.....? Have any of you tried that and heard the response..."we cannot recall WHAT happened?"

Did someone say my name?


Mr. T

This post has been edited by Whtz Happenin: Jun 14 2007, 02:46 PM

Attached thumbnail(s)