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

[Pickle]

Come now! Surely you must believe that Danny slipped May Chung those papers and she signed them without paying any attention and would, according to your reasoning, be just as innocent of any wrong doing as Linda.

Why are you twisting my words? I never said that May Chung and Linda never did anything wrong and weren't responsible in any way whatsoever. Have I said one way or the other?

I really don't know what Linda or May knew or didn't know in 1998, but I do know this: In 2005 Linda told Danny she wanted to report horses to the IRS, and Danny tried to convince her to pretend those horses were cash. Danny tried to convine Linda to skip the required appraisals, and Linda said, "No way."

Was she just pretending to be honest in 2005?

[Shiny Penny]

Why are you twisting my words? I never said that May Chung and Linda never did anything wrong and weren't responsible in any way whatsoever. Have I said one way or the other?

I really don't know what Linda or May knew or didn't know in 1998, but I do know this: In 2005 Linda told Danny she wanted to report horses to the IRS, and Danny tried to convince her to pretend those horses were cash. Danny tried to convine Linda to skip the required appraisals, and Linda said, "No way."

Was she just pretending to be honest in 2005?

You are the one that keeps bringing up the house transaction...and making it sound as if Danny is the one to blame for everything. Even asking leading questions to tarnish May Chung's reputation - "Now, did she treat that donation as fully tax deductible?"

Now you say you don't know what Linda knew in 1998, so why, when you bring up the house transaction, don't you make your innuendos by stating "Danny and Linda"? But that doesn't suit your purposes does it?

You are just determined to sully Danny's name every chance you can. When I call you on the house transaction, you jump to 2005 and try to change the subject by slushing around some muck about Danny and again try to present Linda as perfectly innocent.

You just don't get it do you? It's this sorts of stuff that reduces your credibility in my eyes and I expect in the eyes of other readers.

This isn't going to fly here anymore. Remember this isn't Sabbath School, it's not Kindergarten and guess what? We aren't demented either - we can see straight through your shenanigans.

[LaurenceD]

Truly the pot is calling the kettle black.

I can't say as I blame you for looking at it that way. I'd be smarting too (if I were an appletree fanboy) after comparing his shallow meaning of "time is short" with the apostle Paul's.

[Richard Sherwin]

SP you bring up some very valid and true points. Because Linda's name is on the documents I'm surprised the critics continue to bring up the house issue. However just because Linda's name is there does not make the documents any less damning to Danny, but to say Linda is was not involved is rather disingenuous IMO.

You are the one that keeps bringing up the house transaction...and making it sound as if Danny is the one to blame for everything. Even asking leading questions to tarnish May Chung's reputation - "Now, did she treat that donation as fully tax deductible?"

Now you say you don't know what Linda knew in 1998, so why, when you bring up the house transaction, don't you make your innuendos by stating "Danny and Linda"? But that doesn't suit your purposes does it?

You are just determined to sully Danny's name every chance you can. When I call you on the house transaction, you jump to 2005 and try to change the subject by slushing around some muck about Danny and again try to present Linda as perfectly innocent.

You just don't get it do you? It's this sorts of stuff that reduces your credibility in my eyes and I expect in the eyes of other readers.

This isn't going to fly here anymore. Remember this isn't Sabbath School, it's not Kindergarten and guess what? We aren't demented either - we can see straight through your shenanigans.

[Shiny Penny]

SP you bring up some very valid and true points. Because Linda's name is on the documents I'm surprised the critics continue to bring up the house issue. However just because Linda's name is there does not make the documents any less damning to Danny, but to say Linda is was not involved is rather disingenuous IMO.

Precisely my point. Thanks for closing the circle.

[Pickle]

Now you say you don't know what Linda knew in 1998, so why, when you bring up the house transaction, don't you make your innuendos by stating "Danny and Linda"?

I have at times stated it as "Danny and Linda." But it is still a fact that I do not know whether Linda knew in 1998 that she was engaging in private inurement. Based on her statements today, if those are reliable, I would have to conclude that she did not know. But I'm not going to go out on a limb and state that as fact.

However, Danny signed the 1998 Form 990, denying that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction had taken place, and denying that a "transfer of any of [3ABN's] income or assets" had taken place. Linda didn't sign it. Danny did.

Furthermore, if it would make you feel better, let me say that if Linda did not know that she shouldn't have signed that deed, she was not qualified to serve as vice-president of 3ABN, in my opinion. The officers of a corporation such as 3ABN should have some knowledge of the laws and regulations they must abide by, and if she was that in the dark of the basics of private inurement, the board should have relieved her of her responsibilities until she was qualified.

But no, the board let her buy a house from 3ABN for $6,139 and sell it one week later for $135,000, and never disciplined her at all ... until she talked too long on the telephone.

When I call you on the house transaction, you jump to 2005 and try to change the subject by slushing around some muck about Danny and again try to present Linda as perfectly innocent.

I did not change the subject. Those 2005 emails are perhaps the only evidence I have of whether Linda tried to abide by the IRC when doing her taxes.

[Pickle]

Because Linda's name is on the documents I'm surprised the critics continue to bring up the house issue. However just because Linda's name is there does not make the documents any less damning to Danny, but to say Linda is was not involved is rather disingenuous IMO.

Since I'm not on a crusade to exonerate Linda at all costs, I have no problem bringing up the house issue.

Sure she was involved. No question about it. But did she know she was doing wrong? I don't know that she did. She may have. She may not have.

Whether she knew or not, in my opinion they both have a moral and biblical obligation to make it right, if they both are in possession of the proceeds of that sale.

[LaurenceD]

Thanks for closing the circle.

That reminds me of a carftoon saw...


TV Ministry Image Improvement Conference

Chalk board: IMAGE PLAN:

Facilitator: Welcome! Alright, we need to devise a plan to improve our image...any suggestions?

(Silence)

Staff Member: how about accepting responsibility for our bad image...I mean encourage more interest in fairness and accountability rather than trying to manipulate the system for our personal benefit?

Facilitator: Good! That's the kind of positive imput we need.

Chalk board: IMAGE PLAN: Blame Internet

Facilitator: Any other suggestions?

Staff Member: Start giving something to charity?

Facilitator: Excellent!

Chalk board: IMAGE PLAN: (1)Blame Internet (2)Golden Rule

Facilitator: Any other suggestions?

Staff Member: Circle the wagons?

Facilitator: What do you mean by that?

Staff Member: I mean stop communicating with people we don't agree with to avoid other ideas.

Chalk board: IMAGE PLAN: (1)Blame Internet (2)Golden Rule (3)Insulate Organization (4)Denial

Facilitator: How many think this plan will work?

Audience: (about half raise their hands)

Facilitator: Any other suggestions?

Staff Member: Sue anyone who disagrees or says anything bad about us?

Chalk board: IMAGE PLAN: (1)Blame Internet (2)Golden Rule (3)Insulate Organization (4)Denial (5)Close Down Operation

This post has been edited by LaurenceD: Feb 23 2008, 09:51 AM

[erik]

Laurence, no offense, but I think the point just wooshed right over your head.

Pickle claimed they bought the hoiuse for less than it's value, and than resold it and profited in a ilegal, or shady manner because of how it was done...
But that isn't true, and they didn't they already had a lifetime interest in the house they lived in according to what is legally called a Revocable or Living trust. Why? Because a donor had made one and specified this. To put it simply, and in laymen terms. All they did was purchase the balance... according to legal guidelines defining the amount based on expected and average lifespans and the value of the property. And it was all overseen and drafted by a lawyer.

They were then clear to sell it to whomover they chose, whenever they chose.

Nothing shady or illegal about it

Ian,

Ok if that is true it might be legal,, but it looks and stinks to the gates of heaven.

Erik

[Ian]

Since I'm not on a crusade to exonerate Linda at all costs, I have no problem bringing up the house issue.

Sure she was involved. No question about it. But did she know she was doing wrong? I don't know that she did. She may have. She may not have.

The problem here, Bob; is that EXONERATION IS NOT REQUIRED, you have not proved anything wrong or unethical occured, You only have insinuated, suggested and otherwise claimed it did.

And the further problem is that you give the benenfit of the doubt to Linda, but don't appear to do that same thing with Danny.. I admit appearances can be deceiving. So let me ask you straight out:

IF, what you say and believe is correct, and only IF, AND for the sake of argument here only, AS YOU DO SEEM TO THINK YOUR OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE RIGHT:

Have you asked, or ever stated the same thing about Danny " But did he know he was doing wrong? I don't know that he did. He may have. He may not have." ?

If so, WHERE?, If not, WHY?

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 23 2008, 11:15 AM

[sister]

The problem here, Bob; is that EXONERATION IS NOT REQUIRED, you have not proved anything wrong or unethical occured, You only have insinuated, suggested and otherwise claimed it did.

And the further problem is that you give the benenfit of the doubt to Linda, but don't appear to do that same thing with Danny.. I admit appearances can be deceiving. So let me ask you straight out:

IF, what you say and believe is correct, and only IF, AND for the sake of argument here only, AS YOU DO SEEM TO THINK YOUR OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE RIGHT:

Have you asked, or ever stated the same thing about Danny " But did he know he was doing wrong? I don't know that he did. He may have. He may not have." ?

If so, WHERE?, If not, WHY?

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...


This post has been edited by sister: Feb 23 2008, 01:59 PM

[Ian]

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

No, what is ridiculous is you taking what I said and bringing up something else here ( marital infidelity) and trying to applyi it to that.

The topic being addressed was the living trust and the house and the transfer of the title to it.

And BTW, you rae again making some pretty ugly accusations against Danny without proof.. and are liable for the things you say.

This post has been edited by Ian: Feb 23 2008, 03:01 PM

[fallible humanbe...]

Come now! Surely you must believe that Danny slipped May Chung those papers and she signed them without paying any attention and would, according to your reasoning, be just as innocent of any wrong doing as Linda.

Does it ever occur to you, Pickle, that it is impossible for everyone to be in the wrong except for Linda? But for goodness sakes' ... we are a little bit smart around here. This may not be Sabbath School, but it's not Kindergarten either.

SP,

I am not sure the Mr. Pickle thinks Linda is "not wrong" . . . he just conveniently avoids including her when it is obvious that she was involved and then hides behind a "Maybe she didn't know" facade so he can instead attack Danny and 3ABN.

There has been much hyperbole from Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy in regards to a house/property that Danny and Linda, together, purchased (though this is not accurate as the did not purchase it, but rather paid the life estate value) and resold. Here is a different look at that situation.

This house/property situation revolves around the common law idea of "life estate." What does the phrase "life estate" mean in the area of real estate? To begin with, "life estate" is a tool used by many trust services in helping an individual plan for the future of their property interests.

A life estate, is a term used in common law to describe the ownership of land for the duration of a person's life. In legal terms it is an estate in real property that ends at death. The owner of a life estate is called a "life tenant". Wikipedia

A "life estate" is an estate whose duration is limited to the life of an individual (usually the party holding the life estate), and a legal arrangement whereby the "life tenant" during his or her life retains use (the rights to rents and profits), possession of the property
and costs of maintaining the property. The life tenant cannot sell or waste the property without the consent of the "remaindermen". FindLaw.com

The process of setting up a life estate is explained as:

A legal life estate in real property can be created by conveying the property by a deed which carves out the life estate for the grantor and creates a "remainder interest" by which the "remaindermen" receive full ownership (fee simple) immediately upon the death of the life tenant (grantor).FindLaw.com

Paraphrasing from a series of emails between Dr. Thompson and an individual identified as "J.J." in the exhibits filed by Mr. Pickle in response to the Protective Motion in the Mass. court (3ABN v Pickle/Joy), the story appears to have played out as follows:

A 3ABN benefactor made plans to leave the house and land in question to 3ABN upon her death. However, she also put into place a life estate situation identifying herself, Danny, and Linda as the "life tenants." This is perfectly legal, even within a 503© setting.

That means that the land would be used by those individuals until the last of them died and then the house/property would revert to 3ABN. Because the house/property in question had a life estate attached to it, the following rules apply to possible uses of the land:

If, however, the original grantee has sold his[her] life estate [ex. from A to B], B's interest lasts until A dies, allowing B to bequest his interest, sell the land, etc. until that point. Once A dies, however, whoever possesses the land loses it (with the land likely reverting to its original grantor). This is a life estate "pur autre vie," or the life of another. Such a life estate can also be conveyed originally, such as "to A until B dies." Wikipedia

The following paragraph provides an understanding of the process and it would seem, completely makes the claims by Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy about there being illegality in regards to the transactions that took place around said house/property to be null and void.

In the United States, a life estate is typically used as an estate planning tool. The use of a life estate can avoid probate and ensure an intended heir will receive title to real property. For example, A may own a home and desire that B inherit the home after A's death. A can effectuate that desire by transferring title to the home to B and retaining a life estate in the home. A keeps a life estate interest and B receives a vested fee simple remainder interest. As soon as A dies, the life estate interest merges with B's remainder interest and B has a fee simple title. This avoids the use of a will and the probate process. The danger to A though, is that the grant to B is irrevocable. "Beneficiary deeds" have been statutorily created in some states to address this issue. Wikipedia

In a nutshell it would seem that what we have here is:

1. A donor using a typical estate planning and asset preservation tool to make plans for the future of their property. (legal activity) donated property to 3ABN, a piece of which she placed a life estate on. (legal activities)

2. The donor, Danny, and Linda being established as the life tenants of the house/property. (legal activity)

3. Danny and Linda purchasing their lifetime interest in the house/property paying the amount determined by "legal statistical tables calculated to determine the worth of the property at the" statistically appropriate "time of their death." (legal activity)

4. Then Danny and Linda selling the property in order to build a new home and establish equity in their new home/property. (legal activity)

What seems to be happening here is an attempt to establish a POV/perception that claims that no one in ministry can ever do anything financially advantageous. This POV/perception has played out in regards to the house in question here, as well as with Pastor Gilley's home and any other entrepreneurial activities he has undertaken while being a pastor. For Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy to attack both Danny and Linda in regards to this house/property seems to be nothing more than a belief that those in ministry should never achieve financial stability or exercise legal financially advantageous activities. Using this POV/perception it would appear that Mr. Pickle and Mr. Joy have attempted to cast Danny and Linda as immoral, unethical, and financially conniving individuals, when according to the laws of the land they (and the 3ABN board) have approached these transactions legally and followed the letter of the law according to qualified legal counsel . . . the way any Christian would while following the admonition to "render to Caesar that which is duly his to request."

- FHB

[fallible humanbe...]

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...

Steve, Steve, Steve . . . aren't you being a little harsh?

- FHB

[princessdi]

Ok, I'll bite------

Just a question.........who is Steve? Well, we have a Steve, that we all know and love, and I dont'believe you are referring to him....so...who is Steve?