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

[Pickle]

And until he has some legal proof that Danny did something illegal, he should include both of their names when he makes his statements.

Danny said there was no section 4958 excess benefit transaction in 1998. Was his signing that return after making that statement on that return illegal?

Ian, we may need you to go back and find that filing/letter/exhibit. Pickle has recently claimed that he doesn't remember filing it. How we can rely on anything he says, since he has such a short and selective memory?

Uncalled for. One filing had 21 exhibits, and that was over 7 weeks ago.

My focus as well is on Linda, though rather than giving her blind support (as so many around here seem to do, but I am not including you), I am questioning much of what is being presented in her favor, because I believe it is biased and unbalanced - just as much of what has been said about Danny I believe to be biased and unbalanced.

Thus I conclude that you put me in the same camp as Observer, because I certainly don't give Linda blind support. Ask her if you are in doubt.

[princessdi]

I am sorry, I just think I am old school aobut such things, but this does not look right to me. There is no reason under the sun to me that you, Appletree, should have so much comtempt for Linda. This is truly inappropriate and gives the impresion of an inapprpriate relationship between you and Linda.

Your description of Linda proves that you absolutely do not know her at all. Since you don't, how and why would you describe your opinion of her personality? I have known Linda for years. None of the words that you use in your description are anywhere close to her true character. If you were to use words like, fantasizer, (if she doesn't like the way things are going she fantasizes in her mind they are going the way she wants them to), self absorbed, conniving, an ultimate actress, arrogant......Those are just a few of what comes to mind......

[Ian]

Ian, we may need you to go back and find that filing/letter/exhibit. Pickle has recently claimed that he doesn't remember filing it. How we can rely on anything he says, since he has such a short and selective memory?

I found it, but had to extract the series of emails as separate pages as the whole document filed was huge. The question about the house and Dr Thompson's answer is pp 42-44.

 Doc49_2010208_40.pdf ( 16.82K ) Number of downloads: 20


 Doc49_2010208_41.pdf ( 17.88K ) Number of downloads: 22


 Doc49_2010208_42.pdf ( 17.71K ) Number of downloads: 26


 Doc49_2010208_43.pdf ( 19.25K ) Number of downloads: 28


 Doc49_2010208_44.pdf ( 10.39K ) Number of downloads: 22

[Shiny Penny]

I found it, but had to extract the series of emails as separate pages as the whole document filed was huge. The question about the house and Dr Thompson's answer is pp 42-44....

Ian, thank you. As we have come to rely on, you have come through for us. I appreciate that you place the documents here without commentary...without telling us how to interpret them.

[Shiny Penny]

Danny said there was no section 4958 excess benefit transaction in 1998. Was his signing that return after making that statement on that return illegal?

Uncalled for. One filing had 21 exhibits, and that was over 7 weeks ago.

Thus I conclude that you put me in the same camp as Observer, because I certainly don't give Linda blind support. Ask her if you are in doubt.

If you feel my comment was uncalled for, I apologize.

Guess what? I've not put you into any camp...but if the shoe fits...

"that return...that statement...that return..." Hmmm...

[LaurenceD]

Here's a little puzzle for you....

Did Danny buy a house from 3ABN for $6,139 and sell it a week later for $135,000? Or was he just joking when he signed those deeds?

I do not want to paraphrase what I read, and risk repeating something in error though, so it would be best if the letter could be quoted.

I appreciate that you place the documents here without commentary...without telling us how to interpret them.

No quote, and no comment either? What are we suppose to know? That JJ asked the same basic question as Pickle and the only response from WT was that they did buy it indeed, but no mention of the price and turnover--which was specifically requested?

"When Danny and Linda decided they wanted to build a house and build up equity toward the day when they could no longer work, they requested the opportunity to purchase their lifetime interest in the property as determined by legal statistical tables calculated to determine the worth of the property at the statistical time of their death." -Walt Thompson, 7/18/07 in email to JJ

"Time is short—we need to maximize our efforts to reach lost souls." -Danny Shelton, 3ABN LIVE

PUZZLE HINT: time is short, but buy a house when they can no longer work...so price is calculated unto death.
Is something wrong with this picture?

Linda signed those deeds too.

Were you going to show us a document as proof...or are you just guessing?

[Pickle]

Interesting point, LaurenceD. Time is short but ....

According to the tax case documents, Danny testified in 2002 that he and Linda received no retirement benefits. Did he forget about the house he had bought from 3ABN four years before in order to build up equity for retirement? Or did he fib?

I hear that the new gift of land has now been transferred into Danny's name. No proof yet, but I wonder if the IRS is watching.

Perhaps Danny decided he had better cough up the full market value for the land. Or perhaps they are going to report the full value as income to Danny on the 2007 Form 990. We should try to think the best until there is evidence to the contrary, without being too naive.

[Shiny Penny]

Were you going to show us a document as proof...or are you just guessing?

Signed Deeds

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: Feb 22 2008, 06:13 AM

[Observer]

Signed Deeds

SP:

Thank your for your postings.

I find the quotation below to be of interest:

D. MICHAEL RIVA, AS PREPARER OF THIS DEED, HAS MADE NO INVESTIGATION CONCERNING ANY POSSIBLE VIOLATIONS OF ANY ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE ILLINOIS RESPONSIBLE TRANSFER ACT; AND THE PARTIES OF THIS DEED, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR EXECUTION, DELIVERY AND/OR ACCEPTANCE, ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAVE READ THE FOREGOING AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT D. MICHAEL RIVA, HAS NOT BEEN ASKED TO REPRESENT AND/OR ADVISE THEM IN ANY WAY CONCERNING SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS; AND FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THAT SHOULD THIS REAL ESTATE BE GOVERNED BY, OR SUBJECT TO, SUCH LAWS AND REGULATIONS, THAT SUCH COULD YIELD VERY SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGES AND PENALTIES TO THE PARTIES.

[Shiny Penny]

SP:

Thank your for your postings.

I find the quotation below to be of interest:

The quote is of interest. However, does it relieve Linda of responsibility? She signed the documents. The transfer, I suspect, was discussed at a board meeting. She was board secretary and may have been taking minutes, but at least certainly she was awake. So I have a hard time buying the excuse that she was slipped some documents by Danny to sign and knew nothing of what she was signing.

And to carry the thought further, assuming that she was paying a slight bit of attention to what she was signing...what did she say or do at the time to point out that she thought there was something inappropriate or even illegal?

[Shiny Penny]

...I certainly don't give Linda blind support. Ask her if you are in doubt.

Given your association with Linda, you can address my questions about Linda's contact or relationship with the doctor recently?

1. Is Linda still in communications with the Norwegian doctor? Just a Yes or a No will suffice.

2. When was the last time she saw him? Just a date, like January XX, 200X.

3. What is the current status of their friendship/relationship? Feel free to be expansive here.

[LaurenceD]

Signed Deeds

Oh...that.

We know those are just more of the Joy/Pickle lies. They probably edited those, left out and added things that aren't true. No signature shown...probably forged, you know.

So, that's the site you use for the basis of your beliefs.

[LaurenceD]

Interesting point, LaurenceD. Time is short but ....

More than interesting, I'd say.

I just know what we'd have done during the early apostles day if we'd found out someone was preaching one thing and doing another.

Imagine Paul.

[Shiny Penny]

Oh...that.

We know those are just more of the Joy/Pickle lies. They probably edited those, left out and added things that aren't true. No signature shown...probably forged, you know.

So, that's the site you use for the basis of your beliefs.

1. Did you scroll down and look at the documents with the signatures?

2. Yep, you are right! Joy/Pickle made up the documents with both Danny and Linda's names and now Pickle comes back and says that just Danny is involved?

[LaurenceD]

Yeah? Those forged signature? Sure I saw those.

Again, is that where you get your information...from Joy/Pickle?