Danny Shelton/3abn Seeks Protective Order, ... Again Options

[Pickle]

In our status conference on Friday, Dec. 14, after Attorney Hayes said that they were working on a protective order, Judge Saylor said that it would need to be narrowly tailored.

On the 18th they filed a motion for a potective order, a proposed protective order, a supporting memorandum, and affidavits by Jerrie Hayes, Mollie Steenson, and Danny Shelton. The proposed order, if granted, would allow the plaintiffs to declare almost anything to be either non-discoverable or confidential, unless it was already published, and it would take a court order to reverse the confidential status.

That's not narrowly tailored, in my opinion.

The documents are all available on PACER.

Suppose you sent me a letter or a document to use as I see fit. If I produce it in discovery, they could declare it confidential and under seal, and I would have to give it to them after the case is over, leaving no copies in my possession. Whatever truth came out in court would therefore never see the light of day.

At any rate, that's how I read the proposed order.

How many times have the already tried this kind of thing? What are they so desperately trying to hide?

Part of paragraph 4 is interesting: "... or documents produced to the Department of Justice in connection with any investigation or compliance matter ...." Department of Justice?

[Pickle]

In other news, before Remnant will turn over any information, including anything about how much royalties they were allegedly holding on their books so that the 3ABN Board and Linda wouldn't know how much Danny was getting, they will require a motion to compel. And they want a protective order so that the public won't know the details.

And 3ABN's independent auditor will require a motion to compel as well before they turn over documents.

[Daryl Fawcett]

I am also wondering what it is they feel they need to keep from the eyes of the public?

If they are that concerned, then why don't they simply drop the lawsuit against the two of you?

[Panama_Pete]

Part of paragraph 4 is interesting: "... or documents produced to the Department of Justice in connection with any investigation or compliance matter ...." Department of Justice?

The Internal Revenue Service works in cooperation with the Justice Department.

This is what I found on that general topic, although I'm not claiming or implying that it is related to the current 3ABN Massachusetts lawsuit in any way, especially since the date on the memorandum is April 11, 2006.

http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/txdv06212.htm

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2006
WWW.USDOJ.GOV
TAX
(202) 514-2007
TDD (202) 514-1888

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IRS HIGHLIGHT TAX ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS


WASHINGTON, D.C. - The Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service have continued their vigorous criminal tax enforcement and civil injunction efforts against people who engage in tax fraud and other forms of non-compliance with federal tax laws.

Since 2001, the government has successfully prosecuted hundreds of tax cheats and promoters of abusive tax schemes; it has sought and obtained civil injunctions to stop the promotion of tax scams and the preparation of false and fraudulent tax returns; and it has continued to identify and pursue any company or individual who used an abusive tax shelter, while, at the same time, pursuing the professionals who designed, facilitated, or accommodated the underlying tax shelter transactions. These efforts have continued during 2005 and 2006.

“The Department of Justice is committed to using all available law enforcement tools to recover tax revenue, punish tax offenders, and to prevent future misconduct,” said Eileen J. O’Connor, Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. “People who promote, facilitate, or engage in plans or schemes to avoid reporting their income or another person’s income are risking penalties and, where appropriate, criminal prosecution.”

“The vast majority of Americans pay their taxes honestly and accurately,” said IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson. “With the help of the Justice Department, the IRS holds those who don’t accountable.”

[appletree]

How many times have the already tried this kind of thing? What are they so desperately trying to hide?

Pickle don't play the ignorant game. 3abn was advised of the possiblity of all information being made public, or not, depending on the judge. If they were afraid they could have nixed the whole thing right there. They didn't. They filed a lawsuit. Now, trying to put limits on what is public is a standard practice in lawsuits. In this particular one, they are not afraid of the truth coming out. The only concern is what you and your cronies will do to twist the truth right into lies and speculation.

It's funny how many on this forum predicted that 3abn would never file a lawsuit because they were afraid of the "truth" coming out. Somehow after the suit was filed, all that speculation was just swept under the carpet and you all went to the "lawsuits are wrong" mode. If they were afraid of anything, they would have never filed in the first place.

[Seraphim7]

...
It's funny how many on this forum predicted that 3abn would never file a lawsuit because they were afraid of the "truth" coming out. Somehow after the suit was filed, all that speculation was just swept under the carpet and you all went to the "lawsuits are wrong" mode. If they were afraid of anything, they would have never filed in the first place.

So what, they filed a lawsuit. Attempt to hide information by filing a suit to have anything kept from the public says clearly suggests there are things that are not above board in the 3abn camp. I am inclined to ask what color is the sky in your world, but I will not bother since there are those of you who would attempt to cover up or evade an honest answer.

Back to the regularly scheduled programing of: As the 3abn World Turns.

[awesumtenor]

It's funny how many on this forum predicted that 3abn would never file a lawsuit because they were afraid of the "truth" coming out. Somehow after the suit was filed, all that speculation was just swept under the carpet and you all went to the "lawsuits are wrong" mode. If they were afraid of anything, they would have never filed in the first place.

Actually, most remarked that they'd be stupid to file a lawsuit because that would mean being deposed and facing cross-examination under oath... but didnt speculate whether they would or would not file. The fact that 3abn's lawyers are doing their level best to minimize discovery and what will be a matter of the public record says that we were right. Filing the suit was about playing chicken; it has been their expectation that if they make it expensive enough, Pickle and Joy will flinch first. Their having filed the suit is not evidence of their having no fear; if anything the motions and machinations of the 3abn/DS legal team says that they are trying to make as little of these proceedings and the evidence produced therein to be made public as possible precisely in order to minimize damage.

If their concern was "the truth" they could have laid that out years ago and prevented all of this... but it's never been about the truth.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Seraphim7]

Actually, most remarked that they'd be stupid to file a lawsuit because that would mean being deposed and facing cross-examination under oath... but didnt speculate whether they would or would not file. The fact that 3abn's lawyers are doing their level best to minimize discovery and what will be a matter of the public record says that we were right. Filing the suit was about playing chicken; it has been their expectation that if they make it expensive enough, Pickle and Joy will flinch first. Their having filed the suit is not evidence of their having no fear; if anything the motions and machinations of the 3abn/DS legal team says that they are trying to make as little of these proceedings and the evidence produced therein to be made public as possible precisely in order to minimize damage.

If their concern was "the truth" they could have laid that out years ago and prevented all of this... but it's never been about the truth.

In His service,
Mr. J

Amen AMEN and

[Richard Sherwin]

And this is the crux of the matter, they, if they have the truth, could have prevented it years ago and this 3abn forum would not exist, the truth would be known and DS would have been off the hook. Instead hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent on legal fees, donations are allegedly down and God is being make a mockery of. This is an issue that the defenders dodge and sidestep while hiding behind internet nicknames, unlike the accusers who in their own names confront the issue head on.

If their concern was "the truth" they could have laid that out years ago and prevented all of this... but it's never been about the truth.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Pickle]

Now, trying to put limits on what is public is a standard practice in lawsuits. In this particular one, they are not afraid of the truth coming out. The only concern is what you and your cronies will do to twist the truth right into lies and speculation.

Sorry. That does not compute. What they are asking the court to do is put a lid on information the Internal Revenue Code says the public has a right to know, and prevent a trial of fact of some of the very issues they raised in their own lawsuit.

And I personally think such behavior is extremely shady, and should disqualify 3ABN from ASI membership until they get these issues resolved.

[LaurenceD]

Most judges with experience are familiar with the tricks and artifice used by lawyers and their clients. These judges often refrain from showing their disgust until later when they begin to make certain rulings. I can't help but recall the impression I was left with reading Judge Barbara Rowe's recommendation. She sounded to me like she'd had enough of 3abn's dodgery and evasiveness. And that may have affected her recommendation more than 3abn would ever want to acknowledge.

[fallible humanbe...]

Most judges with experience are familiar with the tricks and artifice used by lawyers and their clients. These judges often refrain from showing their disgust until later when they begin to make certain rulings. I can't help but recall the impression I was left with reading Judge Barbara Rowe's recommendation. She sounded to me like she'd had enough of 3abn's dodgery and evasiveness. And that may have affected her recommendation more than 3abn would ever want to acknowledge.

Do you mean tricks like filing for bankruptcy to place ones self in a "safe" position in the event a court rules against you in another case? Or do you mean suddenly telling the court you can handle your debt and requesting an end to said bankruptcy case in order to keep 3ABN from owning your domain and the content of the domain? Oh yes, the courts saw through the second one since they allowed 3ABN's purchase of the debt that included the domain name.

Judge Rowe's decision was an abdication of responsibility to a higher court. She made her ruling knowing full well it would be appealed and a decision favorable to 3ABN would hold more weight coming from a higher court.

Your responses are filled with your assumption that the courts will fall for the tomfoolery of Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle. We will see how pleased the courts are when the evidence is revealed and they realize that they have been hoodwinked into wasting their time on the nonsense of the defendants antics.

- FHB

[fallible humanbe...]

If their concern was "the truth" they could have laid that out years ago and prevented all of this...

Mr. J

To whom and in what manner? You seem to have all the answers.

What sort of responsibility did 3ABN have to Linda to keep her private life out of the public purview? Don't go on some bent about "Danny said this on the air" or "Danny said that on the air" - if you do please include links to either a transcript from a third party source or to the actual video that can be used to underpin your assertions.

What about the responsibility 3ABN had to its constituents? When they asked what should they have said? Maybe a packet of photos, telephone records, and reproductions of other evidence should have gone out even before questions were asked.

Maybe you would have been satisfied if there would have been a massive PR blitz that paraded all of this to the public. Actually, it appears that nothing would be satisfactory to you - you enjoy being cranky about this.

- FHB

[Fran]

I used to work for The Department of Justice. My experience has always been that only those who are guilty want to hide the findings. All others wanted the findings printed in full page ads in the newspaper and on the evening news showing everyone that there was no problem after all.

Since DOJ oversees broadcasting in other countries like Russia and Australia the investigation will reach far and wide. Remnant Publications should be investigated too. Then there are all those corporations and ...

So, they want the findings sealed, Oops.

There is a saying that says, "If you find yourself in a hole, STOP DIGGING!"

[LaurenceD]

Judge Rowe's decision was an abdication of responsibility to a higher court. She made her ruling knowing full well it would be appealed and a decision favorable to 3ABN would hold more weight coming from a higher court.

And furthermore, her recommendation was based on this kind of record in court, provided by 3abn...

not recorded in the financial statements. In our opinion, generally accepted
accounting principles require that such donated property be recorded at its fair value at the date of receipt.

We were unable to obtain sufficient evidential matter in connection with the estimates of fair value.14 (Applicant’s Ex. Nos. 14,15)15

14 The financial report for 2000 contains additional concerns found by the independent auditors.

15 Applicant’s financial reports raise additional questions and concerns. For example, the unrecorded contribution revenue related to charitable gift annuity agreements were not recorded in conformance with generally accepted accounting principles. The “related party transactions” were acknowledged without identifying the parties.

There is nothing in the record to identify the donors or
the assets. None of the trust agreements were supplied. (Applicant’s Ex. Nos. 14, 15)

Although Danny Shelton testified that he has written three books about the teachings and principles of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, (Tr. pp. 155-157) those books were not admitted into evidence, nor were the circumstances regarding the religious nature or financial information about the books admitted into evidence.

In addition, there is discrepancy in the testimony of Linda Shelton. She stated she did not receive royalty payments for the CDs (Tr. pp. 595, 617) and later admitted that she did (Tr. p. 619).

Danny Shelton uses the airplane to allow him to speak to groups around the world and to advertise that 3ABN is available. Unspecified donations for his speaking come as an added bonus. Applicant provided no information in its financials as to where the amounts listed as contributions come from and/or who contributes. Nor is there any indication in the record that Danny Shelton is traveling to advocate the Seventh-day Adventist doctrine or faith.

Applicant did not provide a break down of those wages.

Applicant did not explain those amounts and to whom the wages were given. Applicant did not verify or establish the assertions of Danny Shelton regarding the retirement benefits and wage amounts with copies of the Shelton’s W-2’s or any other evidence. No evidence was given to establish how the wage amounts in the financial statements should be broken down, or even for how many employees these wages apply. The estimated liability for future group medical insurance claims in 2000 was $37,399.30 and in 2001, $24,482.41. Those amounts were also not explained.

And catch this:

I take administrative notice of the fact that applicant did not supply a federal form 990, “Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax” that must be filed with the Internal Revenue Service to support Shelton’s assertions about wages, lack of compensation for directors, pension plan contributions, or other financial considerations.

Applicant failed to produce any evidence that this is not a closely held business with profits inuring to the family. Applicant failed to establish what the relationship is between Kenneth Joel Shelton, Emma Lou Shelton, Danny Shelton and Linda Shelton or that the relationship of Kenneth Joel Shelton and Emma Lou Shelton with Linda and Danny Shelton is not one of direct family. This is of import because these are the only names of the directors of the applicant, and two of them are controlling corporate officers. Applicant has produced no evidence to negate the supposition that Danny and Linda Shelton maintain control of this organization. Although the by-laws state that the number of directors of the corporation is seven (7) to fifteen (15), applicant failed to
explain the discrepancy between these numbers and the four Shelton directors shown on the articles of incorporation.

I must conclude from the evidence of record, that applicant is controlled by Danny and Linda Shelton, and all final decisions are made by them and not by a disinterested impartial board of directors.

Applicant has failed to establish that it is not charging everyone that purchases or uses its products, facilities, and programs at prices above the cost of operation. On the contrary, these appear to be armslength transactions producing fees no different than a non-exempt business enterprise would
generate. Programming and broadcasting are done for profit on this property, as clearly shown by applicant’s financial statements.

Section 15-40 expressly forbids this type of management by barring exemption where the property is “used with a view to a profit.”

Applicant has, therefore, not established that it does not profit from
the enterprise conducted on the subject property, a fatal flaw to its exemption claim.

Applicant has not established that it conducts charitable activities when it clearly has the resources to extend the use of the property and equipment on the property to charitable and/or religious entities at no cost. The record does not indicate that it did so.

With respect to guidelines cited above as (1), (4) and (5) of Methodist Old Peoples
Home, supra, applicant’s by-laws are totally devoid of any references to a gift to be given to an indefinite number of persons, or a reduction of a governmental burden. Applicant was unable to establish that any satellite materials or dishes were given away or that there is a set policy that if one is in need of charity, they can obtain it.

Even assuming, as applicant asserts, that satellites and/or programming systems are sold to purchasers at or slightly below cost, no documentary evidence was offered on this issue and I cannot reasonably conclude this as a fact based solely upon the oral testimony provided.
It is unclear exactly what the relationship is between applicant and Sky Angel and/or the financial arrangements between the two.

And finally...

This case is not about applicant’s beliefs, contrary to what was asserted consistently at the hearing.

"beliefs" and "consistently?" hmmmmm....I guess the court didn't fall for that one either.