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

[appletree]

I was just addressing the marriage issue. The legal issues I wish were just left to the professionals, like the IRS and the mafia

It is true that the accusers appear to have much more in the way of proofs than do the defenders.

Richard your point that it takes two to argue is valid. I could say something childish like "they started it" but the truth is, those that defend 3abn are here so that the lurkers are not duped by hearing only one side. For instance, numerous times I have taken sister's stories and accusations then told how the event or story, actually happened. I can do that because many things I have witnessed myself, or seen documents, emails, letters or, if I wasn't there personally, I have had several people who were there, to verify the information. Why isn't my word accepted in the same way that sisters was? If I say that I have seen documented proof of something then I have. If I say I have seen evidence of something, or witnessed it myself, then I have.

You say that if Danny would come here personally etc. etc. Actually with litigation in progress, he isn't allowed to come and discuss it if he wanted to. Pickle and Joy are the only ones foolish enough to just keep flapping their mouths at a time when they are being sued for that very thing. In a case like this the Federal Judge not only examines the law to see how it apply's to what Pickle and Joy are doing, but, he also looks at motives, and conduct to see if a person meant intentional harm against those he is accusing. He looks at behaviour of both sides during the litigation period to see if the court, the law and the judge himself are shown respect for the process. By Johann purchasing all these other sites and working with Pickle and Joy to post the same slanderous garbage, the judge is seeing a blatant disregard and "in your face" attitude toward the court. How the PJ team cannot see this is only hurting their case, I don't understand. But, it follows their same pattern of arrogance and "know it all" attitudes.

As far as your last statement I guess that depends on what you call proof. I think most here have witnessed how many times those of us who defend 3abn, have pointed out the errors and twists and spins of Pickle, Joy and sister. Many times we have shown that with them, it is never as it seems. Court documents have even been posted so people can read for themselves what is actually happening instead of having twisted stories crammed down their throats.

If you mean proof of what Linda was accused of doing, I have said it many times before. 3abn never wanted to have to present any kind of evidence. That would be adding salt to the wound. But, if push comes to shove and they have to show it, it will be only in court, when ,it is an absolute necessity. Richard, you seem like a fairly reasonable guy so I think you know as well as I do that even though "show the proof" has been demanded here, that if we did, there would be a severe outcry of "how could they do that to her"!!!! How unchristian!!! They are trying to ruin her!!!! C'mon Richard, can't you just see it? Think back to when we said if Pickle/Joy persisted we would have to file suit. Everyone hear laughed and joked and said it would never happen because Truth would be exposed and 3abn would never let that happen. It was all a big joke. Then when word came that the suit was filed, the outcry was "How could they"? "This is so wrong".

Bottom line Richard you and I both know no matter who came to this forum, including Danny, everything he said would be attacked by some and a deaf ear turned, by others. No matter what documented proof was shown, excuses would be made and accusations of "false evidence" would be made. Ridiculous if you think about it.

[appletree]

So it was just fine that Danny denied that any section 4958 excess benefit transactions had taken place? Under penalty of perjury?

Bob, when will you stop beating a dead horse. Give it up.

Linda knew exactly what Danny knew. Linda as well as Danny wanted to own their own home. There is nothing wrong with that. What they did was legal. It's just that you are either too ignorant concerning legal matters or, have such anamosity towards Danny that you can't see the truth.
It was not 3ABN regular donor funds that were spent on the house that they were given a life interest in. It was one donor who could have allowed Danny & Linda or the donors own children to have a life interest.
This situation has been looked at by several law firms and an auditing firm. All agree that nothing illegal or immoral took place. All agree that you barking up a wrong tree again!

[appletree]

Greg, I will reply to your attempt to out me the same way I answered Appletree:
Di, the Steve that Greg is referring to is Steve Shelton. He is Danny Shelton's cousin and at one time Danny considered Steve his "best friend". Of course that is before Steve confronted Danny over misuse of 3ABN donations, while Steve was the CFO of 3ABN. It almost goes without saying that Danny fired Steve. Some of Steve's experiences with Danny are documented in the original installments of "An Unauthorized History of 3ABN".

Sister

Once again sister, you are nothing, if not consistent, in the errors of your post. And yes, 3abn records can back up the true facts. How is that you get even the smallest bit of information wrong? It's almost like you are doing it on purpose.....dah OH, sigh, now I have to post the truth...again.

Number 1. Steve was never CFO of 3ABN. He had zero qualifications to be CFO of anything. He had no education in finance, let alone any degrees that would qualify him for such a job. The board aloud Steve to temporarily be a book keeper, though he had no experience for that either. One of his sisters convinced a couple of 3ABN board members while having dinner at her house that Steve could fill the job while we were waiting to hire a CFO! Danny was satisfied with that as they were close

Sadly, Steve did not fit into the program. When 3ABN hired Larry Schalk a CPA from Chicago to become CFO, Steve would not take instructions from Larry but maintained that he worked for Danny and Not Larry Schalk! Larry could not get Steve to hand over the 3ABN checkbook because Steve told him that Danny had given him that job. Larry talked to Danny who then talked with Steve and told him that he could stay in the financial department but that Larry would be his boss. Steve would not agree. He said that Larry would bankrupt 3ABN in 6 months and that he, Steve, should be the man in charge of 3ABN finances!

Steve refused to take orders from Larry Schalk so Danny moved him to the mailing department. After Danny came back from a trip, 4 of his managers told him that Steve needed to be dealt with as he not only would not stay in his mailing department but that he visited all the other departments and kept their workers from doing their work also!

Larry Schalk went to Danny and told him that he thought Danny should treat Steve like anyone else making no exceptions for him. One of 3ABN's board members who worked there and 3ABN's General Manager, as well as ,the production manager all talked to Danny about Steve's actions at work.
When Danny talked to Steve about all their complaints Steve became furious. He continued working there for a while but was constantly stirring up strife among workers. That's when Danny talked to Steve and asked him to look for another job. Steve quit 3ABN. He was not fired. He did so with a severance pay at the 3ABN boards suggestion.

Steve never confronted Danny with any complaints about Danny's management or misuse of funds. That is totally false. He only complained when Danny brought Larry in to be his boss. Cousin or no cousin, best friend or not, Danny would not let Steve stay in a job that he was not qualified to do. Neither Danny nor the board ever agreed to put Steve in as CFO.

Several people that were there at the time verify this as well as, employee records.

Ohhhh Sister....with every post you are losing more and more of your following. Hard to follow someone who never tells a straight story. It does take imagination to try and twist anything that ever happened at 3abn to be sordid, illegal, deceitful, and make it all Danny's fault, but, it's just not working.

[Ian]

Bob, when will you stop beating a dead horse. Give it up.

Linda knew exactly what Danny knew. Linda as well as Danny wanted to own their own home. There is nothing wrong with that. What they did was legal. It's just that you are either too ignorant concerning legal matters or, have such anamosity towards Danny that you can't see the truth.
It was not 3ABN regular donor funds that were spent on the house that they were given a life interest in. It was one donor who could have allowed Danny & Linda or the donors own children to have a life interest.
This situation has been looked at by several law firms and an auditing firm. All agree that nothing illegal or immoral took place. All agree that you barking up a wrong tree again!

I wish he would stop beating the dead horse too, it's not a pretty picture.




And BTW, there's something wrong with the picture being painted here of Linda being given papers to sign, and her not knowing what she was signing also.

Wasn't it the other way around?

I mean she was the Corporate Secretary, right?

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 25 2008, 12:59 AM

[sonshineonme]

[quote name='appletree' date='Feb 24 2008, 01:08 PM' post='238749']
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.

As they say, pot-kettle-black.


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.

Again, pot-kettle-black (boring....)


You never do that. Your love is spreading all the gossip.....

now, c'mon....all together now,
pot-kettle-black. (second verse, same as the first)
You really can't see it, can you?? STOP TALKING!



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.
NICE TRY!!!
Dan, this will never ever sell, not even until Jesus comes. Why or why can't you just accept it? All the words in the world will not change it. It is what it is. Live with it.

Where is your proof of all these other women Danny supposedly had? Not heresay, proof.
I think it more then past time for Dan to show HIS proof regarding Linda. You started THIS WHOLE MESS, so put it out there! Stop with the distractions and games Dan, and just put it out there. Got a problem with that??? Sheesh already.

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?
(see below)

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.
(again, see below) [quote]




hmmm....where to begin!!
Dear Appletree, I seem to recall that a primary reason for the lawsuit against Pickle and Joy, was the assertion that 3ABN was LOSING donations and support because people were believing what Pickle and Joy said. Are you contradicting the very premise of the lawsuit here? You talk about the increase of donations, and state that the people don't believe Pickle and Joy.

If you are telling the truth, perhaps it is time to either remove those assertions from the suit as false, or drop the suit. If 3ABN is thriving, as opposed to suffering loss, because of Pickle and Joy, then where is the case? Make up your mind, would you?

If this "internet attack" is just a bump in the road, and God is truly in control, then why have you made such a big deal of it? A person could take your attitude as one of hate and anger that comes from fear. Does the hate, anger and fear that you seem to exude come when God is in control?

I find it very interesting that it is always "one donor who paid..." bla bla bla for something...always. So, that "donor"s money is ok, but if it were from more than "one donor" it would be wrong your eyes? That one donor didn't have better things to give to? You seem to spend your entire day justifying everything in order to be perfect - have YOU ever noticed that? YOU have not done anything wrong, but EVERYONE else has? Now, really, how can that be? or are you God or some special prophet that makes no mistakes or does wrong? You know, non-human? Sometimes I do wonder.


And one other thing; do you REALLY want to see Alyssa in the witness stand? I know you don't. You know you don't, along with many others you hope will never be there. You will and are doing all you can to keep from being there....like d r a a a a g i n g it all out for e v e r a n d e v e r...hoping it will never really get to that point. Now, you KNOW I am right.

This post has been edited by sonshineonme: Feb 25 2008, 12:56 AM

[Ian]

Once again sister, you are nothing, if not consistent, in the errors of your post. And yes, 3abn records can back up the true facts. How is that you get even the smallest bit of information wrong? It's almost like you are doing it on purpose.....dah OH, sigh, now I have to post the truth...again.

Number 1. Steve was never CFO of 3ABN. He had zero qualifications to be CFO of anything. He had no education in finance, let alone any degrees that would qualify him for such a job. The board aloud Steve to temporarily be a book keeper, though he had no experience for that either. One of his sisters convinced a couple of 3ABN board members while having dinner at her house that Steve could fill the job while we were waiting to hire a CFO! Danny was satisfied with that as they were close

Sadly, Steve did not fit into the program. When 3ABN hired Larry Schalk a CPA from Chicago to become CFO, Steve would not take instructions from Larry but maintained that he worked for Danny and Not Larry Schalk! Larry could not get Steve to hand over the 3ABN checkbook because Steve told him that Danny had given him that job. Larry talked to Danny who then talked with Steve and told him that he could stay in the financial department but that Larry would be his boss. Steve would not agree. He said that Larry would bankrupt 3ABN in 6 months and that he, Steve, should be the man in charge of 3ABN finances!

Steve refused to take orders from Larry Schalk so Danny moved him to the mailing department. After Danny came back from a trip, 4 of his managers told him that Steve needed to be dealt with as he not only would not stay in his mailing department but that he visited all the other departments and kept their workers from doing their work also!

Larry Schalk went to Danny and told him that he thought Danny should treat Steve like anyone else making no exceptions for him. One of 3ABN's board members who worked there and 3ABN's General Manager, as well as ,the production manager all talked to Danny about Steve's actions at work.
When Danny talked to Steve about all their complaints Steve became furious. He continued working there for a while but was constantly stirring up strife among workers. That's when Danny talked to Steve and asked him to look for another job. Steve quit 3ABN. He was not fired. He did so with a severance pay at the 3ABN boards suggestion.

Steve never confronted Danny with any complaints about Danny's management or misuse of funds. That is totally false. He only complained when Danny brought Larry in to be his boss. Cousin or no cousin, best friend or not, Danny would not let Steve stay in a job that he was not qualified to do. Neither Danny nor the board ever agreed to put Steve in as CFO.

Several people that were there at the time verify this as well as, employee records.

Ohhhh Sister....with every post you are losing more and more of your following. Hard to follow someone who never tells a straight story. It does take imagination to try and twist anything that ever happened at 3abn to be sordid, illegal, deceitful, and make it all Danny's fault, but, it's just not working.

Well some are obviously upset, but don't let it get you down, that can't be helped as how they react and speak is their choice.

I, for one, appreciate you letting us know what really happened.

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 25 2008, 03:49 AM

[sister]

Well some are obviously upset, but don't let it get you down, that can't be helped as how they react and speak is their choice.

I, for one, appreciate you letting us know what really happened.

Ian, before you get too involved in your lovefest with Appletree and his "truth", I am calling him on his facts and asking him to produce the evidence that he claims to have, here at BSDA, including the names of the sources of his evidence and their copies of their statements.

Several people that were there at the time verify this as well as, employee records.

Appletree, I am requesting, no, demanding that you supply the proof of your allegations against Steve Shelton's employment at 3ABN. That includes the employee records and the signed statements of the "several people who were there at the time" with whom you have claimed to glean your information. Otherwise your "truth" is little more than dust in the wind, your demands for documentation viewed in the light of your refusal to supply it yourself and your credibility remains as it is, little or none.

Sister

[Pickle]

Bob, when will you stop beating a dead horse. Give it up.

So it was just fine that Danny denied that any section 4958 excess benefit transactions had taken place? Under penalty of perjury?

[Ian]

Ian, before you get too involved in your lovefest with Appletree and his "truth", I am calling him on his facts and asking him to produce the evidence that he claims to have, here at BSDA, including the names of the sources of his evidence and their copies of their statements.
Appletree, I am requesting, no, demanding that you supply the proof of your allegations against Steve Shelton's employment at 3ABN. That includes the employee records and the signed statements of the "several people who were there at the time" with whom you have claimed to glean your information. Otherwise your "truth" is little more than dust in the wind, your demands for documentation viewed in the light of your refusal to supply it yourself and your credibility remains as it is, little or none.

Sister

You know that's not gonna happen here on this forum.

See the problem is your allegations here: "Steve confronted Danny over misuse of 3ABN donations, while Steve was the CFO of 3ABN. It almost goes without saying that Danny fired Steve." came first, actually you have such alot of ugly accusations and they all came first, and not once have you proven a one, not once that I have seen have you backed them up with even one shred of documentation, or evidence.

So before you start making demands of others, why don't you first look in your own mirror Sister, and then start making these same "demands" of yourself, and see if you like what you see. Because it's not pretty.

Anyone who's spent any time at all reading here have encountered your sordid little dime store novel stories, and your sick obsession with Danny Shelton, and bias against him, and constant focus on maligning him and surmising evil of every situation involving him.

Your day is coming, and that's not a threat, it's a simple statement of fact, because when and if they start adding to the lawsuit, it's hard to imagine anyone at the top of that list but you. And certainly no one deserves it more than you, You've earned that right.

That evidence you demand now, will be available then and there, I'm sure.

In the meantime why don't you (and SSOM) just calm down, and accept the fact that people can disagree and question you or correct you all they want, no one has to bow to your claims, nor your demands.

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 25 2008, 07:22 AM

[justice4jesus]

In the meantime why don't you (and SSOM) just calm down, and accept the fact that people can disagree and question you or correct you all they want, no one has to bow to your claims, nor your demands.

What about yours, Danny's, or Walt's? Does anyone have to bow to those?

Just a simple question.

[sister]

You know that's not gonna happen here on this forum.

See the problem is your allegations here: "Steve confronted Danny over misuse of 3ABN donations, while Steve was the CFO of 3ABN. It almost goes without saying that Danny fired Steve." came first, actually you have such alot of ugly accusations and they all came first, and not once have you proven a one, not once that I have seen have you backed them up with even one shred of documentation, or evidence.

So before you start making demands of others, why don't you first look in your own mirror Sister, and then start making these same "demands" of yourself, and see if you like what you see. Because it's not pretty.

Anyone who's spent any time at all reading here have encountered your sordid little dime store novel stories, and your sick obsession with Danny Shelton, and bias against him, and constant focus on maligning him and surmising evil of every situation involving him.

Your day is coming, and that's not a threat, it's a simple statement of fact, because when and if they start adding to the lawsuit, it's hard to imagine anyone at the top of that list but you. And certainly no one deserves it more than you, You've earned that right.

That evidence you demand now, will be available then and there, I'm sure.

In the meantime why don't you (and SSOM) just calm down, and accept the fact that people can disagree and question you or correct you all they want, no one has to bow to your claims, nor your demands.

Ian, do you now have the authority to speak for Appletree? Do you now have the authority to speak for 3ABN and who will be added to the lawsuit? Where does this certainty of yours come from? Are we now to assume that you are in direct contact with Danny Shelton and have his permission to speak on his behalf?

That evidence you demand now, will be available then and there, I'm sure.

So, Ian, you are making the statement that any evidence to backup Appletree's public pronouncements on BSDA can not be expected to be shown here? Why? If Appletree expects to be taken seriously he need to backup his own statements with solid evidence, if that is what he is now claiming to require from others.

Sister

[LaurenceD]

If you mean proof of what Linda was accused of doing, I have said it many times before. 3abn never wanted to have to present any kind of evidence. That would be adding salt to the wound. But, if push comes to shove and they have to show it, it will be only in court, when ,it is an absolute necessity.

Notice appletree has to be oh so careful. He now calls it "what Linda was accused of doing." (like talking to this other man on the phone and causing a rage of unwarranted jealousy?)

What's wrong with this sad picture of not wanting to hurt her any further by adding salt to the wound? And portraying her to the world on TV as unfaithful, but not wanting to somehow hurt her...at least till push comes to shove...then we'll hurt her, but only as a last resort?

What's wrong is that first resort is worse than last resort.

What can be learned here from all this ballyhoo?

Everytime I allow that just the opposite is true, from what these defenders keep saying, I find towards the end it leads me closer to Christ.

[phoenix]

Someone out there thinks you're an accountant. Perhaps you're not after all.

I ran this whole thing by an expert in the denomination last June, including the life estate part. They were aghast. And another individual with quite a bit of experience standing there made the comment that an organization that does this kind of thing can lose its tax exempt status.

What type of expert? Credentials please.

And if someone was "standing there" are you saying you merely discussed this or provided either or both with the actual legal documents to review?

[LaurenceD]

Same phisherman, different outfit?





(ducking and running)

[Shepherdswife]

[b]Why isn't my word accepted in the same way that sisters was?

At last! A question that I, a lurker in danger of being duped, can answer!!

First of all, you are assuming that sister's word is "accepted". Your first mistake. I am smarter than that. I don't "accept" the word of ANY anonymous person, be their name "sister" or "appletree". I listen, evaluate, weigh, take into consideration, see how it fits with other evidence, but don't just accept. As time goes on, what has been said will either gain more credibility or less credibility with me, depending on various factors. Your "yarns", when first spun, weigh just as much as hers do. And standing alone, with no other documentation, have equal validity. The patterns that emerge as the knitting needles click on tell me more, and here are some of the patterns I have observed from both sides. Just a glimpse, for you, of what I as a lurker am perceiving as you and the others work hard at enlightening me and keeping me from being duped.

The things that keep me from "accepting" your credibility:

1. Your name. I already addressed that above--but wanted it in the list.

2. The polarization scale. When a conflict reaches this level, the sides tend to be so far apart that there is little hope of bringing them together. The further out someone is towards either end of the scale, the less objective they are and thus the less their posts weigh on my scale. The stories that paint Linda as the total victim, making no mistakes, the damsel in distress, needing to be rescued from the awful Danny are as un-credible to me as your charges that all the negative accusations against Danny are merely sour grapes from disgruntled employees. When someone paints everything as either black or white, their opinions are less credible to me. Do I think they are lying? Not necessarily. Just that they may not be so personally invested that they are not capable of seeing past their own position.

3. Threats. Your veiled and not so veiled threats of being added to the lawsuit kinda feel like someone named Vinnie in a B-grade movie might use. (Apologies to any Vinnie's or producers of B-grade movies who read this) Post #409 of the unauthorized history threat you said "I'm glad you specified that you were "just asking" and not making judgements" to J4J. Now it could be taken more than one way, but after all the threats you have floated, it could easily be construed as another one. No matter what I believe about who is right and wrong, the threats rub me the wrong way, and do nothing to add to your credibility on my scale.
...And no, I won't go back through and "prove" that you have threatened anyone, just in case you are thinking of doing it. That response is REALLY getting old. Any parent of an 18 month old can tell you that the old "if I don't see it, it didn't happen" ploy (while the babies face is hidden under the bed, but it's little tush is sticking out in plain sight--the baby is the only one being fooled) doesn't work for adults. Yes, I know, in a court of law, proof must be provided, but this is not a court, or YOU would not be able to hide behind that old, gnarled treetrunk yourself, making statement after proof-less statement while demanding that what everything anyone else claims must be documented. And yes, I know, you are not the only one making the demands--it is like a sandbox in here with toys and sand being hurled all directions--and it is just as pointless from both sides. But you asked the question and I am answering you, not everyone else.

4. You hold one standard for yourself and ask another of us. You have demanded "proof", but as near as I can tell, there is nothing that can be presented by the other side that will meet that criterion for you. At the same time, you say that the truth will come out, that you have proof--but only at some future time, in court. Fair enough, that is your right to allege without providing proof, but in the meantime you can't understand why what you say is not accepted? OK. You won't believe anything without proof, but we are supposed to? C'mon, AT, can you see how that makes you look? Or what it tells about what you think of us? Your words..."If I say that I have seen documented proof of something then I have. If I say I have seen evidence of something, or witnessed it myself, then I have." Wow--I can take that to the bank! But just in case...can I at least use the guage that you use for proof?

5. Attitude and demeanor. I don't know you. So in order to weigh your credibility, all I have to go on are the things you post here. And phrases like "Pickle and Joy are the only ones foolish enough to just keep flapping their mouths at a time when they are being sued for that very thing" don't help. You mention the "arrogance and "know it all" attitudes of the other side, but to me you are painting with the same brush. The things you say and the way you say them make it hard for me to accept your credibility. And please, don't say "but they are doing it too." I may be just a lurker but I am smart enough to apply the same standards to both sides.

6. Motive. You say you are defending 3ABN, but 3ABN didn't do all the things that the PJ team, as you call them, are alleging. People did them. One person did many of them. And if 3ABN was really the issue, is there really no better way of restoring a network than dragging it through the mud? I do not see Sister criticizing a network, but a person. Your posts are not about saving the reputation of a network, but about a person(s). Your intensity ends up looking like you could be very personally invested in this whole mess, which gives you less ability to be objective and credible in my book.

Well, I will stop there. Maybe that is enough to answer your question. Back to lurking mode...

shepherdswife