Save3abn.com Options

[appletree]

You mean like when you admitted you weren't here to answer any questions or to prove anything?

In His service,
Mr. J

Are you mistaking me for someone else? I hope not because a warning was just given today about accusing people here of using other's identities.

[appletree]

What about the courthouse documents that show that Danny bought a house from 3ABN for $6,139 and sold it a week alter for $135,000? How much proof did you need?

Or are you suggesting that the courthouse documents were forged or something?

Why did you jump to another accusation instead of addressing the ones I was referring to?
Show the proof.

[appletree]

My attempt was futile. Another spin

I see I made a mistake - it was about 41 months ago, not 21! I counted too fast.

So no one from the Linda side is going to comment that, when challenged, Johann is not backing up what he said with the emails he says he has in his possession? Wow, what a biased group.

You counted too fast....it is 41 and not 21????? To paraphrase Ozzie you just blew your accusations into smitherines.

[Pickle]

a no-no according to whom? shady does not mean illegal....

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think the IRS has decreed that that kind of thing is a no-no. The 1998 real estate deal, I had a conference official tell me that that kind of thing could cause a loss of tax exempt status, and the IRS doesn't revoke that status if what you did was a yes-yes.

[Pickle]

Why did you jump to another accusation instead of addressing the ones I was referring to?
Show the proof.

Sorry. I must have misunderstood. I thought you wanted proof that Danny had done something shady or illegal, and that's why I brought up the 1998 real estate deal.

If you want another one, we've got Danny for the 2003 tax year saying that he gave money when he gave a horse or horses. That was a no-no. Whether that was a civil no-no or a criminal no-no, that's not for me to decide. But anytime you do what the rules tell you not to do, it's a no-no.

[Pickle]

So no one from the Linda side is going to comment that, when challenged, Johann is not backing up what he said with the emails he says he has in his possession? Wow, what a biased group.

You counted too fast....it is 41 and not 21????? To paraphrase Ozzie you just blew your accusations into smitherines.

But you know what? Johann actually admitted that he made a mistake. Isn't that commendable? Isn't that the Christian thing to do?

I do wish that your side could follow his example in that regard. It would do a lot toward bringing an end to this madness.

[appletree]

I am ordering the website opened for 48 hours so that we can [/color]

> ******** **********

[/color]

After thinking this over I would like you to answer a question for me. Why just 48 hours? If you have all of these people wanting to copy and post elsewhere, why not just leave it up indefinitely? Makes no sense. Or does it?
Yes, it does make sense when you know what is coming down shortly but you don't know the exact date. So you will gamble with putting it up for 48 hours and hope the court doesn't issue an order before then. That way you can say, again, that after 48 hours you pulled it down of your own accord.

Joy, think over what you have done and are doing here. As you and Pickle have mentioned many times, court records are made public. When they are and everyone sees times and dates and motions, all will know I tell the truth in why you offered to take it down and why you stipulated putting it back up for 48 hours. Unlike edited emails and anonymous letters, court records and transactions don't lie. A word of advice...don't bury yourself any deeper trying to play "big man." It isn't working.

[appletree]

But you know what? Johann actually admitted that he made a mistake. Isn't that commendable? Isn't that the Christian thing to do?

I do wish that your side could follow his example in that regard. It would do a lot toward bringing an end to this madness.

MMM wonder what your side would do had I made such a ridiculous post and then tried to change the numbers. Really doesn't matter. The 41 months definitely doesn't correspond with what was happening at the time.

[appletree]

Sorry. I must have misunderstood. I thought you wanted proof that Danny had done something shady or illegal, and that's why I brought up the 1998 real estate deal.

If you want another one, we've got Danny for the 2003 tax year saying that he gave money when he gave a horse or horses. That was a no-no. Whether that was a civil no-no or a criminal no-no, that's not for me to decide. But anytime you do what the rules tell you not to do, it's a no-no.

Strange, you are still jumping around and not proving the two original accusations. That pretty much says it all. BTW...don't you think you are in enough hot water without repeating false accusations over and over????? It isn't like the attorney's don't document it.

[Pickle]

Strange, you are still jumping around and not proving the two original accusations. That pretty much says it all. BTW...don't you think you are in enough hot water without repeating false accusations over and over????? It isn't like the attorney's don't document it.

Jumping around? I don't understand what you mean. What were the two original accusations?

And what false accusations did I make? It's a matter of public record that Danny bought that house from 3ABN for $6,139 and sold it a week later for $135,000.

And Danny did write Linda in 2005 and he did say that he took a $20,000 cash donation deduction for the 2003 tax year for a horse or horses instead of getting an appraisal and filing the correct form. Or do you not believe Danny on that one?

This post has been edited by Pickle: Jan 6 2008, 10:47 PM

[Pickle]

Unlike edited emails and anonymous letters, court records and transactions don't lie.

But I thought you didn't believe the courthouose records regarding that 1998 real estate transaction. Which is it? Do you believe them or not?

[Johann]

A Little History of the Current Crisis
By early March 2004, 3ABN co-founder Linda Shelton was being accused by her husband and 3ABN co-founder Danny Shelton of having an inappropriate, long-distance relationship with a doctor in Norway. This resulted in her being placed on administrative leave and eventually being terminated in disgrace and divorced. The reason was simple: she was accused of being unfaithful to her husband, and of having committed adultery.

Linda's position as production manager was taken over by Danny's older brother Tommy, even though he had repeatedly been accused of sexual misconduct with men and boys over a period of many years. On November 27, 2006, the 3ABN board chairman, Dr. Walt Thompson, essentially admitted in writing that Danny had been involved in a cover up of these allegations around May of 2003. On December 3, 2006, the Church of God pastor of the Dunn Loring, Virginia, congregation where Tommy pastored from 1995 until about late 2000, announced that there were three new allegations of sexual misconduct there, one involving an individual who was a minor at the time.

Danny Shelton's response to these new allegations is quite different than how he dealt with Linda. Tommy was not placed on administrative leave, and on December 31, 2006, Danny gave Tommy a globally-televised tribute, praising him for His Christian experience and how much better a job he had done than his predecessor. Though claiming that Tommy was going off into retirement three months early because of poor health, Danny promised repeatedly that Tommy would be back, as long as his health continued.

Even if Linda was guilty as charged, the difference in treatment raises many questions. And to complicate things further, while no evidence in support of Linda's guilt has been forthcoming, credible evidence has surfaced in support of the allegations against Tommy, including a letter of "confession" written by Tommy himself.

These actions on Danny Shelton's part brought about the launch of this website.

[sonshineonme]

After thinking this over I would like you to answer a question for me. Why just 48 hours? If you have all of these people wanting to copy and post elsewhere, why not just leave it up indefinitely? Makes no sense. Or does it?
Yes, it does make sense when you know what is coming down shortly but you don't know the exact date. So you will gamble with putting it up for 48 hours and hope the court doesn't issue an order before then. That way you can say, again, that after 48 hours you pulled it down of your own accord.

Joy, think over what you have done and are doing here. As you and Pickle have mentioned many times, court records are made public. When they are and everyone sees times and dates and motions, all will know I tell the truth in why you offered to take it down and why you stipulated putting it back up for 48 hours. Unlike edited emails and anonymous letters, court records and transactions don't lie. A word of advice...don't bury yourself any deeper trying to play "big man." It isn't working.

Just passing this along (mr "appletree", here is your answer):

-------- Original Message --------



Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 01:03:06 -0500From: gailon <gailon@gabbjoy4.com>



"Yes, Mr Appletree…the court record is readily available and the

Issue of the sale of the sight is not even on the docket until January 30, 2008.

It is likely there would have to be further hearings, including a de novo hearing

In the court of Jurisdiction for the Domain controversy, the US District Court.



But, the judge is already aware that we have a major issue here in that the

Trustee has arranged a private sale of a domain name for about the same sum

As she would be paying just herself to arrange the sale…a slight conflict and

Definitely a case of self dealing…for a domain that is in controversy and the

jurisdiction.of the US District Court, and a slap in the face to the other creditors.



Now, if 3ABN or Danny wanted to up the ante to, say $40,000 or more, and

pay all the creditors, it just may get through the Bankruptcy court…but then,

they would have to get permission from the US District Court to consummate

the sale of the Domain Name and this would first have to be heard by the

US Magistrate for Electronic Evidence. Yet another hurdle. Then any inter-

locutory appeals would have to be resolved. 48 hours or 48 days would not

be a serious concern. But 48 hours is logically all the parties in interest will

need and then it goes down, until the owner states otherwise.



I pretty safely predict that we are weeks and months from a clear resolution to

This issue and in the interim, the owner will have control and authority to switch

It on or off AT IT's WILL, without regard to Mr Appletree illegitimate concerns.



And now, Lord knows just how many children will be spawned. In any event,

We must concentrate our resources on the discovery and trial preparation for

A case that is looking more and more frivolous and hopeless for 3ABN.



Thank-you, Mr Appletree, for the opportunity to clarify the record.



Gailon Arthur Joy

AUReporter"

[fallible humanbe...]

Just passing this along (mr "appletree", here is your answer):

-------- Original Message --------



Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 01:03:06 -0500From: gailon <gailon@gabbjoy4.com>



"Yes, Mr Appletree…the court record is readily available and the

Issue of the sale of the sight is not even on the docket until January 30, 2008.

It is likely there would have to be further hearings, including a de novo hearing

In the court of Jurisdiction for the Domain controversy, the US District Court.



But, the judge is already aware that we have a major issue here in that the

Trustee has arranged a private sale of a domain name for about the same sum

As she would be paying just herself to arrange the sale…a slight conflict and

Definitely a case of self dealing…for a domain that is in controversy and the

jurisdiction.of the US District Court, and a slap in the face to the other creditors.



Now, if 3ABN or Danny wanted to up the ante to, say $40,000 or more, and

pay all the creditors, it just may get through the Bankruptcy court…but then,

they would have to get permission from the US District Court to consummate

the sale of the Domain Name and this would first have to be heard by the

US Magistrate for Electronic Evidence. Yet another hurdle. Then any inter-

locutory appeals would have to be resolved. 48 hours or 48 days would not

be a serious concern. But 48 hours is logically all the parties in interest will

need and then it goes down, until the owner states otherwise.



I pretty safely predict that we are weeks and months from a clear resolution to

This issue and in the interim, the owner will have control and authority to switch

It on or off AT IT's WILL, without regard to Mr Appletree illegitimate concerns.



And now, Lord knows just how many children will be spawned. In any event,

We must concentrate our resources on the discovery and trial preparation for

A case that is looking more and more frivolous and hopeless for 3ABN.



Thank-you, Mr Appletree, for the opportunity to clarify the record.



Gailon Arthur Joy

AUReporter"

Proverbs 16:18

[Johann]

Proverbs 16:18

Are you applying this verse on yourself or somebody else? Explain!