Rumors, Lies, & False Accusations Travel With Joy, Confronting AT and Gailon with Truth Options

[Pickle]

Let's see...you ran the "whole thing"?

Yes.

Or did you conveniently leave out some parts...like you seem to do here quite often?

No.

Seems to me that Dr Thompson indicated in one of those emails that they had an attorney in the denomination draw up the documents so that they would be in compliance with the law.

1) Walt is not a reliable source of information. 2) Are attorneys always above reproach?

And if you are trying to defend/protect Linda, in this one matter you are doing her a disservice, IMHO.

I already told you that is not what I am trying to do.

[Pickle]

On October 17, 1988 Charles and Helen Davis executed a joint tenancy deed for Lot 6 to 3ABN. A $66 transfer tax was assessed, indicating consideration of $66,000. The same day 3ABN obtained a $50,000 mortgage on the property from First Bank, due and payable on October 5, 1991.

I thought May never owned the property. Looks like my recollection was correct.

ARGUMENT

I. THE THIRD-PARTY SUBPOENA SHOULD NOT BE QUASHED
OR SUBJECT TO A PROTECTIVE ORDER

A. Plaintiff Shelton Lacks Standing to Object to the Third-Party Subpoena

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b ), the scope of discovery permitted in civil litigation is quite broad:

Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense .... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b )(1).

In the absence of privileged information, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b ) does not limit the discovery of otherwise confidential or private information.

Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that bank records are "business records of the bank," not the private papers of a party, that the "issuance of a subpoena to a third party does not violate" a party's rights, and that a party possesses "no Fourth Amendment interest in the bank records that could be vindicated by a challenge to the subpoenas":

There is no legitimate "expectation of privacy" in the contents of the original checks and deposit slips, since the checks are not confidential communications, but negotiable instruments to be used in commercial transactions, and all the documents obtained contain only information voluntarily conveyed to the banks and exposed to their employees in the ordinary course of business.

United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435, 445 (1976).

Various courts have repeatedly cited and applied the above case:
Accordingly, the bank customer has no inherent right to assert ownership, possession, or inferentially, control over the release of a bank's records of his transactions. . . . Nothing in the Act [Financial Privacy Act], however, shields the records from discovery in a civil suit. . . .

Absent a claim of privilege, a party has no standing to challenge a subpoena to a nonparty.

Clayton Brokerage Co. v. Clement, 87 F.R.D. 569, 571 (D. Md. 1980).

A more recent order that utilized United States v. Miller and that denied a motion to quash a third-party subpoena duces tecum seeking bank records stated, "Accordingly, the bank records at issue here are subject to discovery and do not warrant protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c )(7)." See Rotoworks International v. Grassworks USA, No. 07-05009, order issued on Apr. 25, 2007 (W.D. Ar.).

Plaintiff Shelton acknowledges that MidCountry intends to comply with the third-party subpoena. See Shelton Memo., pp. 3–4. Since MidCountry is the owner of the business records in question, it is MidCountry that should challenge the subpoena, not Plaintiff Shelton. Yet MidCountry, after careful review by their attorney, has chosen to comply with the subpoena.

Since the records sought do not belong to Plaintiff Shelton, and since he has no claim of privilege in the bank's records, he therefore lacks standing to challenge the third-party subpoena.

Interesting. So Danny Shelton doesn't have the right to ask the court to do anything about the subpoena? How'd his attorney miss that?

This post has been edited by Pickle: Feb 24 2008, 07:35 AM

[LaurenceD]

Was that House Calls with John Stanton?

Looking back at the 3abn schedule, yes, House Calls was airing at the time I was watching. I wasn't paying too much attention till John mentioned WWJD...so I missed the title of the program.

[Ian]

According to publicly available documents:

On October 17, 1988 Charles and Helen Davis executed a joint tenancy deed for Lot 6 to 3ABN.

A $66 transfer tax was assessed, indicating consideration of $66,000.

Do you have a copy of these documents? So we can see for ourselves what they indicate? They aren't here or anywhere that I can see. At the very least do you have a link or source where these dociments are publicly available, and to where you got them, so we can also see them for ourselves?

The 1988 date is rather interesting as it is only a couple of years after 3ABN was founded and it appear this may be related to the original trust and donation referred to in the corporate rsolution and vote in the documents from 1998.

Of course what is very important and pertinent, but missing here in all of this, and would resolve much of Pickle's/Your confusion here is the Trust document itself, and the stipulations made by the donor.

Revocable Living Trusts


What is a Revocable Living Trust?
A trust is an agreement that determines how a person's property is to be managed and distributed during his or her lifetime and also upon death.
A revocable living trust normally involves three parties:

The Grantor - This is the person who creates the trust, and usually the only person who provides funding for the trust. More than one person can be the grantors of a trust, such as when a husband and wife join together to create a family trust.
The Trustee - This is the person who holds title to the trust property and manages it according to the terms of the trust. The grantor often serves as trustee during his or her lifetime, and another person or a corporate trust company is named to serve as successor trustee after the grantor's death or in the event the grantor is unable to continue serving for any reason.
The Beneficiary - This is the person or persons who will receive the income or principal from the trust. This can be the grantor (and the grantor's spouse) during his or her lifetime and the grantor's children (or anyone else the grantor chooses to name) after the grantor's death.

A trust is classified as a "living" trust when it is established during the grantor's lifetime and as a "revocable" trust when the grantor has reserved the right to amend or revoke the trust during his or her lifetime.

How is a Revocable Living Trust Created?
There are two basic steps in creating a revocable living trust. First, an attorney prepares a legal document called a "trust agreement" or a "declaration of trust" or an "indenture of trust" which is signed by the grantor and the trustee. Secondly, the grantor transfers property to the Trustee to be held for the benefit of the beneficiary named in the trust document.

Can a Revocable Living Trust be Changed or Revoked?
Yes. The grantor ordinarily reserves the right in the trust document to amend or revoke the trust at any time during his or her lifetime. This enables the grantor to revise the trust (or even terminate the trust) to take into account any change of circumstances such as marriage, divorce, death, disability or even a "change of mind." It also affords the grantor the peace of mind that he can "undo" what he has done. Upon the death of the grantor, most revocable living trusts become irrevocable and no changes are then allowed.

Transferring Assets
You will need to transfer title to the trust in the same way that you would transfer title in a sale. For real property that means a deed; for a car a pink slip, etc. For many assets, such as furnishings, artwork, etc., you do not need to do anything more than list the items on the appropriate pages of your living trust document and they are considered transferred when you sign the living trust.

Since most people have a mortgage on their real property, your home for example, transferring title from you as individuals to a trust will make your lender very nervous. You should contact your lender to determine their attitude toward transfers to your living trust. Many now will permit such a transfer without charging points or requiring a new loan.

Some however are not willing to consent to the transfer. If you face that situation, we suggest is that you make a deed and sign and notarize it, but do not record it. Some The same goes for things like a pink slip if you have a loan against the car. The transfer to the trust is legally effective when you sign the deed in most cases, allowing you to record it at a later time.

source:http://www.pjhoskins.com/estate6.htm, article: Living Trusts

So much is missing here.... in Bob's documents, and yours...

The same day 3ABN obtained a $50,000 mortgage on the property from First Bank, due and payable on October 5, 1991.
On August 1, 1991, First Bank released the mortgage in the name of 3ABN and Danny Shelton and Linda Shelton.

And? what is your point? They could legally do that, and they were just building the ministry so most likely needed that money to do so.. This really means nothing...(see quotes above) It has nothing to do with the issue here in contention.

Most here should realize for themselves despite your opening claim that bank records are NOT publicly available. Privacy rights are posted in every bank and sent via snail mail to anyone and everyone who has an account.

In fact that is what the whole protection order debate is about in the Massachusetts lawsuit.-- the right to privacy and that only the information needed will be revealed on a need to know basis in this case (which includes Pickle & Joy) and not be diseminated to the public to embarass or harrass anyone be it an officer, or employee of 3ABN or a donor or supporter, or anyone affiliated in any kind of way with them.

So, how did you get these documents, if you did, and why would you claim they are publicly available when they aren't???

Nor is Document 13 from the Minnesota case ( AKA Pickle's Memoradnum, which you just posted) publicly available at this time, except via Gailon Joy.

On February 24, 1998 3ABN executed a joint tenancy life estate deed to Danny Shelton and Linda Shelton, husband and wife, and May Chung or the survivor(s) of them.

Again, that has already been established, and is not being disputed, so again, what is your point?
Shiny Penny even gave the links to these documents in this very thread, in case you missed that...

and in case you missed it: this was done "as provided in the original gift that provided for the purchase of the property" and "to authorize the officers to sign the deed for conveyance purposes."

98–1104
CORPORATE RESOLUTION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

This is to certify that Linda S. Shelton is the duly qualified and elected Secretary, and Walter C. Thompson is the duly qualified and elected Chairman of the Board of Directors of THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., a corporation, of the City of West Frankfort, County of Franklin and State of Illinois, and that at a regular meeting of the Board of Directors, held on September 15, 1996, the following action was taken and recorded in the minutes of said corporation, of which action, this is a true copy, to-wit:

15) It was voted to convey a life estate to Danny L. Shelton, Linda S. Shelton and May Chung, or the survivors and/or survivor of them, on the property located at Route 3, Box 10, in Thompsonville, as provided in the original gift that provided for the purchase of the property, and to authorize the officers to sign the deed for conveyance purposes. Said property is legally described as follows:

Lot Six (6) in Surveyor's Plat of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township Seven (7) South, Range Four (4) East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the coal, oil, gas and other minerals underlying the same, situated in Franklin County, Illinois.

The records of THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC. disclose that Danny L. Shelton is the President, and Linda S. Shelton is the Secretary, and Walter C. Thompson is Chairman of the Board of Directors.
THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING
NETWORK, INC.

Dated: February 18 , 1998. By: [Signed]
Walter C. Thompson
Board Chairman

Dated: February 16 , 1998. By: [Signed]
Linda S. Shelton
Corporation Secretary/p>


Page -1- CORPORATION RESOLUTION
Page 3 of 3

=====================================
(Life Estate only)
WARRANTY DEED - JOINT TENANCY

THE GRANTORS, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING
NETWORK, INC., a corporation, of 3391
Charley Good Road, West Frankfort,
County of Franklin and State of Illinois

for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10) O.V.C. Dollar in hand paid, Conveys and warrants to DANNY L. SHELTON, LINDA S. SHELTON, and MAY CHUNG, not as tenancy in common but in JOINT TENANCY, the following described real estate:

A life estate only for the lifetime of DANNY L. SHELTON and LINDA S. SHELTON, husband and wife, and MAY CHUNG, or the survivors/survivor of them, in the following property:

Lot Six (6) in Surveyor's Plat of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township Seven (7) South, Range Four (4) East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the coal, oil, gas and other minerals underlying the same, situated in Franklin County, Illinois. situated in the County of Franklin, in the State of Illinois,

hereby releasing and waiving all rights and under and by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of this State.

Dated February 16 , 1998.
THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING
NETWORK, INC.

Attested By:
[Signed]
Walter C. Thompson
Board Chairman, 3ABN
By: [Signed]
Danny L. Shelton, President

By:
[Signed]
Linda S. Shelton, Secretary


DEED PREPARED BY:
Herald Follett, Attorney
P.O. Box 3092
Portland, Oregon 97208

Page -1- WARRANTY DEED - JOINT TENANCY
(See copy of Corporate Resolution attached hereto)
PAGE 1 OF 3

Reply will be continued in my next post....

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 12:08 PM

[Pickle]

Have you provided us with any reference that shows that someone being granted a life estate for a property they didn't donate, and then getting the property deeded to themselves?

[Pickle]

Lawmaker Rick Renzi faces federal indictment

He was involved in a shady land deal, and the FBI raided his family business last April.

[Ian]

continued from my last post, despite the diversions and attempts at mass destraction posted in between.

On August 28, 1998 May Chung executed a deed transferring her life estate in the property to 3ABN.

And? That has also been established and is not in dispute here by anyone.

THE GRANTOR, MAY CHUNG
of ****
San Bernardino, CA 92408

for and in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) O.V.C. Dollar in hand paid, Grantor conveys and warrants to THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK, INC., a Corporation, all of Grantor's interest in the following described real estate:

Grantor's life estate for her lifetime, and any survivorship rights she may have related to the interest of Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, or the survivor of them, in the following property:

"The Grantor - This is the person who creates the trust, and usually the only person who provides funding for the trust. More than one person can be the grantors of a trust...."

On October 2, 1998 3ABN executed a deed transferring its remainder interest in the property to Danny Shelton and Linda Shelton for $6,139.

Yes, note that 3ABN transferred only their interest. Danny and Linda already had a lifetime interest according to the original donor, they did not need to have transferred to the, or purchase what was already given them.... That makes sense right?

WARRANTY DEED

THE GRANTOR,
Three Angels Broadcasting Networks, Inc.
3391 Charley Good Road
West Frankfort, Illinois 62896-0220,

for and in consideration of Six thousand one hundred thirty nine and no/100 ($6,139.00) Dollars, O.V.C. Dollar in hand paid, Grantor conveys and warrants to Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, husband and wife, all of Grantor's interest in the following described real estate:

Lot Six (6) in Surveyor's Plat of the Northeast Quarter (NE 1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), Township Seven (7) South, Range Four (4) East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the coal, oil, gas and other minerals underlying the same, situated in the County of Franklin, and State of Illinois,


(Note: This deed is given for the purpose of the Grantor conveying its remainder interest in said property to the Grantees herein, Danny L. Shelton and Linda S. Shelton, who at the date of this transfer have a life estate in said property.)

hereby further releasing and waiving all rights in and under by virtue of the Homestead Exemption Laws of this State.

Dated 9/25,1998.
Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.

By: [Signed]
Danny L. Shelton, President

By:
[Signed]
Linda S. Shelton, Secretary


Attested By:
[Signed]
Walter C. Thompson
Chairman of the Board of Directors

-- End of Revocable Living Trust --

On the same day Danny Shelton and Linda Shelton executed a deed transferring their interest in the property to the Ford Family Trust. A $202.50 transfer tax was assessed, indicating consideration of $135,000 (Franklin County assessed a transfer tax of $1 per $1,000 of value through 1988 when the tax was increased to $1.50 per $1,000 of value).

Again, already established and not in dispute, and nothing illegal or shady in this, or anything you have cited so far...

They could sell the property to whoever they chose and whenever they chose at this point, as they owned it...


Reply continued in next post

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 12:46 PM

[Ian]

On December 3, 1999 the Ford Family Trust executed a quitclaim deed transferring the property to Dolores Hilderbrand. The fact that the property was transferred via quitclaim deed might raise the question of the existence or amount of consideration given.

On September 14, 2006 Dolores Hilderbrand executed a deed for the property to Gregory Firestone. A transfer tax of $228 was assessed indicating consideration in the amount of $152,000.

Snoopy’s analysis:

OK Mr. Penny – I’ll bite. What discount rate was used for the NPV analysis? How might a taxpayer qualify for the benefit of a “time value of money” treatment when they sold their interest in the discounted asset on the same day?

You appear to be confused here.. it matters not when they sold the house. Ask a lawyer what charts and statistics govern this kind of thing (Mr Pickle), just as was done before D&L paid the $6139.00 as Dr Thompson said. This was all drafted by lawyers after consultation...

Based on the above summary of publicly available documents, would you agree that Danny and Linda Shelton were recipients of a capital gain
on Lot 6?

No, where a living trust is concerned,a community agreement changes Joint Tenancy assets to community property to avoid capital gains taxes, but if you think so you need to prove it. ( Mr Pickle)

Would that qualify as “private inurement” according to the IRS?

No, a donor can give whatever he or she like to anyone and that isn't private inurement. but if you think so you need to prove it. ( Mr Pickle)

Would it be taxable?

No, but, if you think so you need to prove it. ( Mr Pickle)

Living Trusts are made in part to avoid gift, and estate and either limit or eliminate federal taxes and such, the original Donor who sets up the trust is the one responsible to report it to the IRS. After that there is no need for the trust to file a separate income tax. Only income generated from the property or real estate needs to be reported to the IRS...

These were all the things disputed by FHB, Myself and even SP, and despite all these long involved arguments, you still haven't proven a thing as far as your allegations of illegal and or shady dealings are concerned. The burden of proof is still on you.

Based on the above analysis, would Dolores Hilderbrand possibly have experienced a “taxable event”? Will she have an income tax liability related to Lot 6?

What ever on God's green earth does that have to do with anything being discussed here? She doesn't even come into anything till after the Sheltons sold the property. So, who cares.. ( Mr Pickle).

And on a side note, would you or your buddy FHB actually approach a court of law claiming wikipedia as a source?? I'd love to be there...!!

I'll be very interested in your expert response.

Whatever... ( Mr Pickle) You've got a response, prove your own allegations. The burden of proof is yours...

and judging by the memorandum Snoopy copied from Gailon, you got alot of allegations and proof for them to provide... If I didn't know better, going by all your continued accusations, I'd think you were the plaintiff and not the defendant.

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 12:38 PM

[Ian]

And, by the way, just to be fair, here is Bob Pickle's response to Danny Shelton's Motion to Quash the subpeona for MidCountry Bank records:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

snipped long quote as the document adds nothing new to this topic and is actually not even relevant here...

But worth addressing simply because your claim that all this is from publicly available info is wrong, on more than just your bank references, and Gailon Joy, who you are quoting from AT, is wrong, that is not a response to D.S.'s motion to quash the supeona, it is in response to Pickles own motion [doc12] to dismiss a motion for a protection order. Which isn't a motion made there..

Document 13 Filed & Entered: 02/19/2008
Memorandum in Support of Motion
Docket Text: MEMORANDUM in Support re [12] MOTION to Dismiss MOTION for Protective Order MOTION to Stay filed by Robert Pickle. (3 pages, No Copies) (RJL)

There are no copies available of the Documents numbered 10-16 (all filed by Pickle) according to the court docket, and they are definately not available to download from PACER. I just rechecked moments ago, and nothing has been changed. The only document he has filed which is available is #17, which is not even remotely related to what is being discussed here, except maybe in his mind...

Perhaps that is because the Protection order is supposed to be being argued in the Massachusetts lawsuit, and not in Minnesota as Pickle is doing??? I

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 12:34 PM

[Shiny Penny]

Ian, thank you for taking the time to respond to each of the points made by Snoopy and Pickle. You have clearly showed that the transaction was on the up and up.

Conclusion: Linda and Danny were both involved in a legal transaction.

So Pickle has thrown around some mis-information, gotten everyone stirred up, thinking that 3ABN was doing wrong, trying to persuade everyone that Danny was doing wrong and Linda was doing right - for what purpose? And now he says he doesn't know what Linda knew at the time. Clearly he didn't or doesn't understand the transaction either.

Pickle, next time do your homework a bit better. We are getting tired of your half-information, innuendos and half-truths. Your credibility is down to zero or below in my book (not that anyone really cares).

[Ian]

Ian, thank you for taking the time to respond to each of the points made by Snoopy and Pickle. You have clearly showed that the transaction was on the up and up.

Conclusion: Linda and Danny were both involved in a legal transaction.

So Pickle has thrown around some mis-information, gotten everyone stirred up, thinking that 3ABN was doing wrong, trying to persuade everyone that Danny was doing wrong and Linda was doing right - for what purpose? And now he says he doesn't know what Linda knew at the time. Clearly he didn't or doesn't understand the transaction either.

Pickle, next time do your homework a bit better. We are getting tired of your half-information, innuendos and half-truths. Your credibility is down to zero or below in my book (not that anyone really cares).

No problem. and if I haven't said so before, I will now, I appreciate anyones willingness and ability to set apart preconcieved notions and look at the evidence and facts in a impartial manner, and consider all with the same standards and without bias, and even admit if they err, and apologise or make ammends ---- regardless of whether they agree or disagree with me.

Going by all your posts; you seem to be one of those individuals who is able to do so. It's very much appreciated, and valued. Thanks

and blessings...

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 24 2008, 01:30 PM

[Panama_Pete]

May?

Have some respect...you don't know this woman and certainly are not on a first name basis with her.

May has her own television program on a TV network. It's no different than calling Martha Stewart "Martha."

Issue your commands someplace else. Your psychological warfare won't get you very far here. We have the hope of survivors, Penny. Haven't you heard?

[Shiny Penny]

1) Walt is not a reliable source of information.

By the way, neither is Pickle, in case you'd not noticed. But others have.

[appletree]

Ian,

What I have bolded above is probably the most ridiculous statement made by anyone in an attempt to support Danny. Are we now to believe that every Biblically incorrect action that Danny committed in the last twenty plus years is out of ignorance? A few examples, in the area of marital fidelity:

Danny did not know it is not acceptable to God to repeatedly try to molest his step-daughter?

Danny did not know it is not acceptable to God to have sexual relationships with women, other than his wife, while he was married?

Danny did not know that it is not acceptable to God to divorce his wife, without Biblical grounds, and marry another woman?

Danny did not know it is not acceptable to God to trash his ex-wife on international television and attempt to ruin the reputation of an innocent male bystander in order to justify his non-Biblical divorce?

Ian, the list could go on and on...

Yes it could go on and on. When one is telling lies, they can continue on as long as your imagine will hold out. We certainly know you have a big imagination according to your fictional stories. I for one am so tired of your accusations without anything at all to back it up.
Anyone can come here and throw around lies and accusations. It is a completely different story to be able to back up what you are saying. You never do that. Your love is spreading all the gossip, lies and accusations against Danny that you can come up with. You already admitted in another post that some of your "stories" came from Steve S. This is who you are quoting as a credible source? Isn't this the same Steve whose ex wife had to get a restraining order against him because of his harrassment? The same Steve who would not comply with that order and was arrested? The same Steve that was fired from 3abn many years ago and has hated Danny ever since? I could go on but I think most have gotten the point. I have always believed you may be Steve S. but regardless, when you name your sources, it all starts adding up. The how, why and where boils down to a small group bent on revenge. The reason you hide behind "sister" is because you belong to that little group. If you are Steve, You know what I am saying is correct. If you only received information from Steve, you should check out your sources with a little more intelligence than you have used in the past. I notice that you have chosen ONLY those who have an axe to grind with Danny or 3abn for your "stories". That pretty much exposes your motives in this whole thing.

Please prove to us here, that Linda is 100% innocent so that you can make us all believe that Danny didn't have grounds for remarriage.

Where is your proof of all these other women Danny supposedly had? Not heresay, proof.

All you have on molestation allegations (which is the most ridiculous of all) is something supposedly signed by Allyssa. Please .....Let's see now who is Allyssa's mother again? And...how do we know that her mother didn't sign it? Or, that she did it simply because her mother persuaded her to?

As far as your trash TV talk, we have requested repeatedly that someone give us the program number, date or anything that would identify that program. No one has ever provided that information that I know of.

Really sister, you need to quit wasting your time here. Your sort of unethical behaviour is better suited for Jerry Springer.

This post has been edited by appletree: Feb 24 2008, 03:10 PM

[Richard Sherwin]

It is nearly impossible to prove something did not happen, the onus is on Danny to prove his allegations against Linda, not on Linda to prove her innocence. Danny is the one who remarried, he is the one who should prove he had the Biblical grounds.

Yes it could go on and on. When one is telling lies, they can continue on as long as your imagine will hold out. We certainly know you have a big imagination according to your fictional stories. I for one am so tired of your accusations without anything at all to back it up.
Anyone can come here and throw around lies and accusations. It is a completely different story to be able to back up what you are saying. You never do that. Your love is spreading all the gossip, lies and accusations against Danny that you can come up with. You already admitted in another post that some of your "stories" came from Steve S. This is who you are quoting as a credible source? Isn't this the same Steve whose ex wife had to get a restraining order against him because of his harrassment? The same Steve who would not comply with that order and was arrested? The same Steve that was fired from 3abn many years ago and has hated Danny ever since? I could go on but I think most have gotten the point. I have always believed you may be Steve S. but regardless, when you name your sources, it all starts adding up. The how, why and where boils down to a small group bent on revenge. The reason you hide behind "sister" is because you belong to that little group. If you are Steve, You know what I am saying is correct. If you only received information from Steve, you should check out your sources with a little more intelligence than you have used in the past. I notice that you have chosen ONLY those who have an axe to grind with Danny or 3abn for your "stories". That pretty much exposes your motives in this whole thing.

Please prove to us here, that Linda is 100% innocent so that you can make us all believe that Danny didn't have grounds for remarriage.

Where is your proof of all these other women Danny supposedly had? Not heresay, proof.

All you have on molestation allegations (which is the most ridiculous of all) is something supposedly signed by Allyssa. Please .....Let's see now who is Allyssa's mother again? And...how do we know that her mother didn't sign it? Or, that she did it simply because her mother persuaded her to?

As far as your trash TV talk, we have requested repeatedly that someone give us the program number, date or anything that would identify that program. No one has ever provided that information that I know of.

Really sister, you need to quit wasting your time here. Your sort of unethical behaviour is better suited for Jerry Springer.