Reaping The Whirl Wind, IRS Criminal Investigation of 3ABN Options

[Pickle]

And? What is the point here?

Most know Gilley had a income outside his ministry.

It's a nice house.

So what!?!

I didn't say what. But given real estate in America right now, he would probably appreciate our prayers that his house sells as soon as possible. Don't you think?

[Clay]

let me get this straight, some are begrudging a man because of a house he wants to live in? That's not the case is it? If it is, that is ummmmm petty..... IMO of course...

[Snoopy]

I certainly can't prove every point that Gailon made, but I can address this one:

So as you can see, Danny is the one who told Gailon, via his building permit, that he thought his house would cost $165,000. Was Danny telling the truth, or was he lying?

Notice that Danny said he was the property owner, even though he wasn't. Why would Danny claim to own the property when he didn't?

Darn those publicly available documents...can't seem to get away with anything.

So, appletree, if DS doesn't even know if he is building it himself or contracting it out, I wonder how he came up with a cost of $165,000? Any ideas?? You know, I hear that Franklin County just recently began requiring building permits - like in the last couple of months. I wonder what might have prompted them to do that?

[Clay]

someone please enlighten me as to why there is concern about what kind of house Danny is building? I mean seriously.....

[SoulEspresso]

someone please enlighten me as to why there is concern about what kind of house Danny is building? I mean seriously.....

I think it has to do with the assertion that he was hiding assets from Linda long before the divorce.

But I'm not sure.

[Pickle]

The long and the short of it, in my opinion, is this:

• 3ABN has probably engaged in private inurement again, based on 3ABN sources, by deciding to give Danny about 40 acres of land.
• Possibly the house he sold should partly belong to 3ABN, if he built it with money he gained from the 1998 real estate deal.
• Given everything else that has gone on, questions arise as to who is paying for the materials and who is paying for the labor. If 3ABN pays for either, if Danny builds the house on company time, it could be private inurement again.
• A real estate agent told me that around here, you can't get a permit to build a house on land you don't own. I don't know what it's like in Illinois.

I'm not sure of any connection any of this would have with Linda, except for this: He claimed in July 2006 that he had a $200,000 mortgage on the old house, but it was already paid down to $150,000 in 2005, and by the end of 2006 was $0. Yet the courthouse didn't know that until this past October.

This arrangement and Danny's inaccurate reporting in July 2006 could have artificially made his debts look higher than they were, which would then result in Linda possibly getting a smaller settlement.

This post has been edited by Pickle: Dec 2 2007, 10:03 PM

[Johann]

Appletree can say whatever he wants but he has little credibility because he's never shown us who he is. I'm not fishing for names but just saying that any of us that are on here anonymously can say what ever we wish but without showing concrete evidence or proving we have inside info our words ring somewhat hollow.

There is little sense in us trying to verify that document here. It is written by Gailon Arthur who is in a court case, so he knows what he is doing. He may have to defend it, not here on BSDA, but in court. In the meantime Ian and Appletree might be phishing to see what arguments we have so that they can meet them before the judge.

[jakann]

And? What is the point here?

Most know Gilley had a income outside his ministry.

It's a nice house.

So what!?!

I would be interested to know the origins of Elder Gilley's outside income. The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are too clear as to not be mistaken that pastors are not to engage in business enterprises (even those within the church!) as it would detract from their ordained mission to spread the Gospel. Additionally, it would be a condemnation of the church salary structure that the tithe was not enough to support him and his family. I would believe that this is not the current case in North America although in some foreign fields there may be a lack of adequate funding for pastoral workers.

I guess I just wouldn't want my 3ABN president up late at night tracking stock quotes or making calls throughout the day to make sure that his business interests are well-kept while there might be more pressing matters such as being (in part) in charge of proclaiming the Three Angels' Messages.

And yes, it is a nice house. It is worth nearly 8 times what mine is but you couldn't pay me a million to take it off his hands!

[jakann]

I'd like to address one other topic. Here we have Danny who needs to go from 3ABN, and Jim Gilley came to replace him. So Gilley buys Danny's house for $295,000, one fellow telling me that that figure was way too low. And Gilley lets Danny hold the mortgage for $220,000.

Is that wise? Does that not create a conflict of interest, potentially jeopardizing one's objectivity when dealing with someone who needs to go? If this kind of thing becomes a habit, at what point do such things disqualify one from holding such an office?

Now having posed such questions, I want to come to Gilley's defense. Under the definitions section of the mortgage, which spells out no payment terms, under "Note" it says that the mortgage was to mature on November 16, just one month after it was executed.

So if I had to guess, I'd say that this was supposed to be a temporary thing, maybe until Gilley's house sells.

Has it sold yet? A friend sent me two links. Dallas Central Appraisal District lists Jim as owning a house built in 2005 at 6315 Velasco Ave, which supposedly has a market value of $596,700. Estimated property taxes, after homestead and over 65 exemptions, are $11,145.73.

Melissa Maroney and Maureen Skeeters are selling a house at 6315 Velasco Ave, asking $619,000, so it appears that the Gilley home is still for sale. I'm sure they would appreciate it if we all prayed that it would sell soon, as property taxes like that are probably not easy for a retiring minister to pay.

It really looks like a nice home.

For comparison to the rest of the community there, that Dallas Central Appraisal District page, which says that Gilley's home is in the Dallas ISD school district, has a link to a page on Average House Values. Click the values for 2007 and you will find that the average market value for homes in that school district is $172,518.

Pickle,
We can only hope he doesn't have to pay them (the property taxes). As an ordained minister he may be able to claim a partial or full exemption from all property taxes for his own domicile; but, I'm not familiar with property tax law in Texas.

[SoulEspresso]

As far as Gilley's house goes, it may or may not have been outside business income that allowed the purchase. He could have bought it with money from the sale of another house that appreciated greatly. A change in a local real estate market could allow an innocent pastor to make a killing on the sale of his home--and I hear you ought to buy as much house as you can afford.

As for Biblical counsel on outside business ... did the apostle Paul make his tents for free? The New Testament doesn't depict paid local pastors. Paul makes the case for paid church planters (missionaries) who are supported by churches away from where they're working, but also says he opened his own business (well, at least worked on his own independent of his converts' offerings) so as not to be a burden to anyone.

Early on in the history of the Adventist church there was quite a debate over whether or not to pay local pastors, because then there might be some who would do it for the money--a "hireling" ministry. This is off topic, but I wonder how much our churches would grow if pastoral salaries were tied to performance.

[Observer]

I would be interested to know the origins of Elder Gilley's outside income. The Bible and Spirit of Prophecy are too clear as to not be mistaken that pastors are not to engage in business enterprises (even those within the church!) as it would detract from their ordained mission to spread the Gospel. Additionally, it would be a condemnation of the church salary structure that the tithe was not enough to support him and his family. I would believe that this is not the current case in North America although in some foreign fields there may be a lack of adequate funding for pastoral workers.

I guess I just wouldn't want my 3ABN president up late at night tracking stock quotes or making calls throughout the day to make sure that his business interests are well-kept while there might be more pressing matters such as being (in part) in charge of proclaiming the Three Angels' Messages.

And yes, it is a nice house. It is worth nearly 8 times what mine is but you couldn't pay me a million to take it off his hands!

Unfortunately, in North America the denomination is not able to pay some pastors enough for them to live in the areas where they pastor. We have cases where pastors live 100 miles from the congregations that they pstor. Such does not make for good pastoral care.

The result of the issues with pastoral pay is that in some cases the Conference will allow the pastor to have a second income.

As to investmenrts: The current denominational retirement system has a defined contribution element. This means that the employee makes decisions in regard to how certain monies are invested. They only way that the employee can do that is to actively manage that part of the investment program. Doing such requires knowledge, experience, and tracking the investments. That takes time out of the 24 hour day.

This post has been edited by Observer: Dec 3 2007, 04:57 AM

[Richard Sherwin]

We once had a pastor who was quite well off, not from his pastor salary but from a business he had grown before entering the ministry but one that he still reaped an income from. It really was not any of our business where that money came from, and I think the same should be here with Jim Gilley. If he wants to let people know, and likely he has, that's fine but it would only have a bearing to this discussion if it was paid to him by 3abn.

In fact the if he was a good money manager and therefore could afford a expensive home that just makes him more qualified to head up an organization such as 3abn. (Maybe he is paying for the of building his own office complete with the (shocking) private loo).

There is nothing wrong or wasteful with owning a fine home that you can afford. Expensive homes have a trickle down effect, from the laborers who built it to the kid mowing the large lawn, not to mention the taxes that support the local schools and libraries.

This post has been edited by Richard Sherwin: Dec 3 2007, 06:07 AM

[Clay]

The long and the short of it, in my opinion, is this:

• 3ABN has probably engaged in private inurement again, based on 3ABN sources, by deciding to give Danny about 40 acres of land.
• Possibly the house he sold should partly belong to 3ABN, if he built it with money he gained from the 1998 real estate deal.
• Given everything else that has gone on, questions arise as to who is paying for the materials and who is paying for the labor. If 3ABN pays for either, if Danny builds the house on company time, it could be private inurement again.
• A real estate agent told me that around here, you can't get a permit to build a house on land you don't own. I don't know what it's like in Illinois.

I'm not sure of any connection any of this would have with Linda, except for this: He claimed in July 2006 that he had a $200,000 mortgage on the old house, but it was already paid down to $150,000 in 2005, and by the end of 2006 was $0. Yet the courthouse didn't know that until this past October.

This arrangement and Danny's inaccurate reporting in July 2006 could have artificially made his debts look higher than they were, which would then result in Linda possibly getting a smaller settlement.

even if all the above is true, it really is NOT your business... if it is legal, then so be it.... if its not report it and let those who are suppose to handle it, handle it..... While I have no dog in this fight, it is really starting to trouble me that some who are following the 3abn thing have gone to such lengths to "find something" on Mr. Shelton..... I mean its like some of you are stalking his every move... I am sure there is something else that can be done with the time spent scrutinizing every detail of Mr. Shelton's life and business practices..... when is enough enough?

[SoulEspresso]

even if all the above is true, it really is NOT your business... if it is legal, then so be it.... if its not report it and let those who are suppose to handle it, handle it..... While I have no dog in this fight, it is really starting to trouble me that some who are following the 3abn thing have gone to such lengths to "find something" on Mr. Shelton..... I mean its like some of you are stalking his every move... I am sure there is something else that can be done with the time spent scrutinizing every detail of Mr. Shelton's life and business practices..... when is enough enough?

Personal financial benefits--and hidden ones--from a nonprofit to this $-tune are not just "something."

If Danny wanted to make 3ABN for-profit, that'd be different.

[Shepherdswife]

if it is legal, then so be it.... if its not report it and let those who are suppose to handle it, handle it.....

Clay, in one sense I agree with you--I too have been saddened and frustrated by some of the finger pointing and name calling and unrelated minutia and trivia over all this. But what if you report "it" (philosophically speaking, something that is illegal or immoral or not right) and the powers that be are crooked, or not motivated to deal with it for whatever reason, or are prone to covering it up because they don't want a stink--then what? If those who are supposed to handle it are not handling it, and the damage is continuing, what is the responsibility of those who see it--or experience it?

Through history, we have lots of examples of cover-ups--in our government, the nations of history, the church, and major corporations. Whistle blowers are rarely met with "Oh, NOW I see it--thanks so much for pointing it out--we will immediately fix it!" In fact, typically, the coverup deepens and intensifies, until the weight of evidence (like with ORU) becomes heavier than their ability to blow smoke and hide the evidence, and finally change takes place. Wars have been fought, impeachments have been conducted, trials have taken place. So it doesn't surprise me that this is playing out the way it is, or that both sides are looking for any pebble to add to their pile to help tip the scale in the favor of the direction they are fighting for. This process is usually not pretty, but if it did not happen, some things would never get handled...just my opinion...

shepherdswife