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

[Pickle]

Oh yes, the courts saw through the second one since they allowed 3ABN's purchase of the debt that included the domain name.

I think that once again you are incorrect on this one.

[Fran]

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.

Yep, it was these same words that said it all for me. From the moment I read this, I have been convinced the problems run DEEP at 3ABN and outside of 3ABN by Danny Shelton. These statements are proof that things were being done that were not kosher. You know, those split agreements talked about in footnotes 14 & 15. To define what and how much they are, go to save3abn.com and look at the 990's for 2000 and 2001. Check the Notes to the 990. Find changes to the Financial Income Statements and Balance Sheet Funds. They are talking about trust funds. Low and behold approx $2.45 million was not recorded in 2000. Then again in 2001 there was approximately $1.7 million not posted!

Why were they not posted?

Just where were these assets during the time they were received and the time they got posted?

Why were they not posted?

Why such large amounts?

Did Nick have it all figured out. Walt knew about it and asked AToday not to print anything about it in the article AToday published about 3ABN finances. That was in January or February 2006!

Walt said the problem was being looked into at that very moment and would be taken care of. AToday believed Walt.

These questions are in my mind.

Did any of the board members receive annuities on trust funds they did not invest?

When people died, many left Danny as the person to control distribution; how did he distribute these 3ABN assets?

How many people holding a trust fund/s died and 3ABN never received a penny of the proceeds?

How were the annuities distributed?

How serious is it to borrow from trust funds?

Let me rephrase that. No, I changed my mind. Think about it for a minute and figure out what you next question would be.

[Noahswife]

Oh yes, the courts saw through the second one since they allowed 3ABN's purchase of the debt that included the domain name.
- FHB

FHB~

Do I understand this statement by you to mean that GAJ's:

DEBTORS' MOTION TO DISMISS CASE (see: http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...t&p=227844) was denied by the Bankruptcy Court or that the request:

5. That this Motion to Dismiss should be heard before any decision on the sale on any of the
property of the debtor's estate is considered.

was not granted and the sale to 3abn occurred?

I think that once again you are incorrect on this one.

Bob~

I may have misunderstood what FHB means here but I assume that you have discussed this with GAJ and can confirm that the court has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss and/or that no ruling has been made regarding the sale to 3abn of the domain name and other assets?

nw

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Dec 23 2007, 08:16 PM

[Pickle]

Bob~

I may have misunderstood what FHB means here but I assume that you have discussed this with GAJ and can confirm that the court has not ruled on the Motion to Dismiss and/or that no ruling has been made regarding the sale to 3abn of the domain name and other assets?

nw

The motion to dismiss was denied. The issue of the sale of the domain names was continued till Jan. 31. That is my understanding.

[Clay]

The motion to dismiss was denied. The issue of the sale of the domain names was continued till Jan. 31. That is my understanding.

so why didn't you post the denial earlier? share all the info good and bad and resist the urge to spin it... we have seen enough spin as it is..... IMO.....

[Pickle]

Sorry about that, Clay. Didn't think about it.

[fallible humanbe...]

The motion to dismiss was denied. The issue of the sale of the domain names was continued till Jan. 31. That is my understanding.

so why didn't you post the denial earlier? share all the info good and bad and resist the urge to spin it... we have seen enough spin as it is..... IMO.....

The issue is whether or not the amount paid by 3ABN is a fair market value for the debt it purchased. The judge is seeking advice on the value, not on the sale of the debt which has already been approved.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 24 2007, 09:15 AM

[LaurenceD]

Yep, it was these same words that said it all for me. From the moment I read this, I have been convinced the problems run DEEP at 3ABN and outside of 3ABN by Danny Shelton.

The one quote from the court record that stands out to me is...

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

To me, this spells out the problem in a nutshell. 3abn has experience moving people, convincing people, perhaps even fooling people through this method. If it worked in the mission, why not in court. That way no real legal scholarship would really be needed, therefore no full disclosure. Trouble is, they apparently didn't allow for the fact that the court had seen this kind of maneuvering before.

Any reasonable person, trying to justify 3abn's court response as shown in the record, should be dumbfounded at the apparent disgust in Judge Rowes recommendation. But, one would have to be familiar with what goes on inbetween the lines in the legal field to see it.

[awesumtenor]

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.

Buying the domain name does not buy the content currently displayed under said domain name. If some other who is not currently in a bankruptcy proceeding were to purchase another domain name and put the same content up, it would remain out there. The only reason to purchase the domain name is to prevent all who go to that site for information on this issue from getting it there... but that would only have a minimal effect...seeing that much of what is there is also here and other places and if a new site with the same info were to be set up, one who did so would only have to post the new location.

So, in the overall, it's nothing more than a "close, but no cigar"; another weapon of mass distraction and even if they get the domain name, it will do little to prevent news of the alleged miscreant deeds of danny and his merry men from being broadcast far and wide; it merely prevents it from being broadcast under the domain name of save3abn.com.

In His service,
Mr. J

[fallible humanbe...]

So, in the overall, it's nothing more than a "close, but no cigar"; another weapon of mass distraction and even if they get the domain name, it will do little to prevent news of the alleged miscreant deeds of danny and his merry men from being broadcast far and wide; it merely prevents it from being broadcast under the domain name of save3abn.com.

Mr. J

I suppose you could spin it that way in an attempt to avoid the real issues the situation reveals. The bankruptcy case was filed to achieve two things - to attempt to create a protective barrier around Mr. Joy in the event that the case (3ABN v Joy/Pickle) results in a monetary decision against him (putting Mr. Pickle in a precarious position), and to slow the case (3ABN v Joy/Pickle) in an effort to run up the legal bills for 3ABN (the thinking there that whomever is funding the case would run out of funds or grow weary of funding it).

The judge smelled a rat and basically decided that if Joy had the capital to buy himself out of the bankruptcy case then he either filed dishonestly or he secured a large loan in an effort to undo what he had done - and deciding that the purchase was legal and the only question was the value. In either case Mr. Joy's strategy seems to have blown up in his face.

Now I am not in on the legal strategy meetings, but is seems that the current request for a protective order coupled with the purchase of the domain name might create a situation where Mr. Joy and Mr. Pickle wouldn't be able to replicate the site under a new domain name - just a theory. Mr. Pickle's constant whining about the legal maneuvering by 3ABN's legal team not withstanding, they have every right to carry this case on in a manner that is in their client's best interest.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 24 2007, 11:35 AM

[awesumtenor]

Now I am not in on the legal strategy meetings, but is (sic) seems...

For all of your 3ABN apologetics, it boils down to the above... You are NOT in on the legal strategy meetings... which puts you in the same place as me.

Your persistently Pollyanna-ish spin is like something out of a 50's sitcom... Donna Reed... Ozzie and Harriet... Leave it to Beaver... or Father Knows Best peut-etre...

In His service,
Mr. J

[PeacefulBe]

What would be swell is if all posting here could simply provide the straight story instead of spinning or belittling. It could save big time on embarassment at some point down the road when all of the facts are finally and undeniably out there for all to see.

If you set a top to spinning, there is no way to guarantee which course it will take, but the end is always certain...when the inertia is gone it will stop spinning and fall over.

It also seems that it would be far less stressful on those doing the spinning... JMO

[lurker]

Isn't it beside the point as to whether Pickle and Joy are able to replicate the website since the information is out there and is already stored by so many people in so many different places. Probably much or all of it is stored by the interested governmental bodies also. And anyone or everyone may still copy the whole thing now and keep it wherever they choose.

Then it wouldn't be up to those bound by rulings in the lawsuit to re-release it. Anyone who has it could release parts or all of it in a blog for instance where their identity wouldn't be known. And it could be done in a form that wouldn't subject anyone to questions about copyrights. It could be quoted for instance in a discussion of the involvement of anyone or of any organization in the dispute. A history if you will of the Advent movement at the present time much as a history of Kellogg and Battle Creek includes quotes and documentation of various actions of the adversaries back then.



This post has been edited by lurker: Dec 24 2007, 01:49 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

For all of your 3ABN apologetics, it boils down to the above... You are NOT in on the legal strategy meetings... which puts you in the same place as me.

HHmmm, in the same place - I have listened to the principals, the glory hounds, and made a decision . . . you have listened to the glory hounds and decided not to listen to the principals therefore your position. You and I are not in the same place and I am guardedly certain you know that.

Your persistently Pollyanna-ish spin is like something out of a 50's sitcom... Donna Reed... Ozzie and Harriet... Leave it to Beaver... or Father Knows Best peut-etre...

Mr. J

I had to laugh out loud at your contention that my words here have been Pollyanna-ish, if that were true then your comments would have to be akin to Nostradamus . . . and since I choose to think more highly of you than that, I would have to assume you were attempting to use hyperbole to its extreme in an effort to make a very weak point as opposed to anything Nostradamus might have predicted.

- FHB

This post has been edited by fallible humanbeing: Dec 24 2007, 06:01 PM

[awesumtenor]

HHmmm, in the same place - I have listened to the principals, the glory hounds, and made a decision . . . you have listened to the glory hounds and decided not to listen to the principals therefore your position.

You are not and have never been a principal... when your... source... comes here and posts under his actual name... then we will have heard from a principal on your side. The patent unwillingness of said... source... to do that taints your second-hand... or worse.. reports. Given that we both know your... source... isn't going to come here and say anything, it does nothing to aid your cause to put yourself forth as if you are a prinicpal when you have repeatedly admitted that you are not.

Send your principals here and they will be heard... continue to argue against the statements of opposing principals with anonymous hearsay and you will continue to be a running joke. But we both know that DS et al will not be coming here and openly and knowingly rebut, refute or admit anything...they are willing instead to allow you to be said joke. What I don't understand is why you are so eager to fill that role... although I must admit... you are good at it.

You and I are not in the same place and I am guardedly certain you know that.

I was being kind; it is, after all, Christmas.

I had to laugh out loud at your contention that my words here have been Pollyanna-ish, if that were true then your comments would have to be akin to Nostradamus . . . and since I choose to think more highly of you than that, I would have to assume you were attempting to use hyperbole to its extreme in an effort to make a very weak point as opposed to anything Nostradamus might have predicted.

- FHB

Fixating on one part of what I said in order to draw attention away from other parts... you are, if nothing, consistent.

Joyeux Noel.

In His service,
Mr. J