Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

But of course when the audits and IRS investigation didn't result in anything being found wrong,(proven since by the fact that nothing has had to be corrected/ amended and refiled) or in any charges or indictments you claimed that didn't prove he was innocent of every other allegation...

In these words, Cindy Conard declares that the IRS criminal investigation found nothing wrong in any of 3ABN or Danny's books, yet this has been disproven over and over again. Even Simpson admitted that if the IRS investigation only went back to 2000, the 1998 real estate deal wasn't considered. And no IRS agent is going to say there was nothing wrong with Danny's declaring a donated horse(s) to be cash on his 2003 Schedule A, in blatant violation of the Internal Revenue Code

3ABN and Danny had their opportunity to prove that the IRS investigation really did vindicate them, and they passed up the chance. We wanted to subpoena certain records from the U.S. Attorney which could have helped verify that the IRS had indeed exonerated them, but they fought our request for that subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before the court could resolve the matter.

It is my understanding that the IRS is muzzled statutorily from commenting one way or the other, and if that is so, we have a situation where we have to take the word of liars like Danny, Walt, and Simpson, which would be irresponsible. This is why in our reply memorandum (pp. 4-5) we requested the court to order the plaintiffs to give permission to the IRS to disclose the information requested.

That's what a court did in Hansen Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Jamie E. Frank, No. 99-cv-08097 (E.D.N.Y.). Such an approach takes care of the statutory requirement that government employees only disclose tax return information when authorized by the tax payer.

But I think the bottom line is that Danny and 3ABN chose to dismiss the suit before we could have a chance to verify the IRS exoneration claim. That pretty much nixes all their pretended and bogus claims of exoneration and vindication. If they really had been exonerated, they would have welcomed the opportunity to prove it by having us verify it.

But they are desperately trying to hide something.

[Cindy]

But of course when the audits and IRS investigation didn't result in anything being found wrong,(proven since by the fact that nothing has had to be corrected/ amended and refiled) or in any charges or indictments you claimed that didn't prove he was innocent of every other allegation...

In these words, Cindy Conard declares that the IRS criminal investigation found nothing wrong in any of 3ABN or Danny's books, yet this has been disproven over and over again.

Bob, Bob, Bob...

This is another example of your misleading statements. It sounds like you are claiming that the IRS did find something wrong and that this has been proven over and over.

Of course I know better than to ask you to prove that it has been proven even one time, as you will just reply in your usual manner with "where did I say that?" and never do so,  as if we are all idiots...

This is far from honest. I hope others can see it even if your justifications and arguments prevent  you from doing so...

Even Simpson admitted that if the IRS investigation only went back to 2000,

And? So what? The fact that they did that appears to be linked to IRS codes and statutes of limitations. They can go back further but they have to be able to prove wrongdoing to justify that. I am quite sure you or one of your zealous cohorts informed them of your claims, so why didn't they proceed with that?

Could it possibly be because you are uninformed and have not a leg to stand on in regards to the house and horses?

Could it possibly be that myself and others have tried to point you to the facts about the house and how these things work, and that even the chairman of the 3abn board, Dr Thompson explained it all, and explained that a lawyer had overseen it all and drafted the documents, and it was further explained that the auditors had all the info and found it above board and legit, and yet you refused to heed any of that or look into it?

Could it possibly be that even your financial expert "Snoopy" should have known and could have steered you to the correct definitions of revocable trusts, living trusts, donors, trustees and trustors and remainder interests, as well as the criteria and charts used to determine the amounts based on age of trustor, the current equity of home and property etc which would have explained the purchase by Linda and Danny Shelton as above board and legal?

Or could you yourself have looked it up and researched it all way back on BSDA when both FHB and myself posted it all and tried to point this all out to you, or at least give you and others a clue?

Would you then have been able to comprehend that Danny and Linda had a lifetime interest given to them by a donor, (not by 3abn who was the trustee and had been granted the remainder interest also according to the donor)? Would you be able to comprehend that D and L only purchased 3abn's remainder interest which was legally and factually determined to be 6,139 in 1998?

Would you then be able to comprehend that when something is bought, even though with the stated intention of wanting to do so because you are concerned about your own retirement, it can not be afterwords claimed that it was a retirement benefit given by the one you purchased it from, or an excess benefit, as you keep claiming?

I am quite sure that all of this is the case, and you can keep playing your accusations over and over like a broken record till judgment day but it can not, and will not change those facts which the IRS is well aware of even if you are not and refuse to ever acknowledge it.

the 1998 real estate deal wasn't considered. And no IRS agent is going to say there was nothing wrong with Danny's declaring a donated horse(s) to be cash on his 2003 Schedule A, in blatant violation of the Internal Revenue Code

It appears to me on the horse deal you have jumped from the statement that they received a cash receipt to they filed a cash receipt in 2003....  I have never seen proof that they did so offered by you. I have never seen the documentation (even if so) as to what the value of the horses were, how many there were, or what the IRS required back in 2003...

Without that, I can not address this further, nor can you prove anything.... Sorry.

3ABN and Danny had their opportunity to prove that the IRS investigation really did vindicate them, and they passed up the chance.

They didn't need to prove it to you, Bob. It is really quite arrogant and blind of you to keep insisting that they do, and that they are guilty every time you are out of the loop and don't get to see what you want.

As I said it's been quite awhile now, and they have had to file or refile nothing to amend or correct anything with the IRS. There are no charges nor indictments. Their exoneration has been reported in SDA media other than 3abn and by ministries and those in SDA leadership besides those at 3ABN, along with 3abn leadership and attorneys. Most can see this has been proven, even if you and Fran, and a couple of die hards refuse to and keep sounding your offkey and out of tune trumpets in false alarm.

( It has been established in US courts that freedom of speech does not entitle you to yell "fire" in a crowded theater, when there is no fire)

We wanted to subpoena certain records from the U.S. Attorney which could have helped verify that the IRS had indeed exonerated them, but they fought our request for that subpoena, and filed their motion to dismiss before the court could resolve the matter.

It is my understanding that the IRS is muzzled statutorily from commenting one way or the other, and if that is so, we have a situation where we have to take the word of liars like Danny, Walt, and Simpson, which would be irresponsible. This is why in our reply memorandum (pp. 4-5) we requested the court to order the plaintiffs to give permission to the IRS to disclose the information requested.

That's what a court did in Hansen Manufacturing Co., Inc., v. Jamie E. Frank, No. 99-cv-08097 (E.D.N.Y.). Such an approach takes care of the statutory requirement that government employees only disclose tax return information when authorized by the tax payer.

But I think the bottom line is that Danny and 3ABN chose to dismiss the suit before we could have a chance to verify the IRS exoneration claim. That pretty much nixes all their pretended and bogus claims of exoneration and vindication. If they really had been exonerated, they would have welcomed the opportunity to prove it by having us verify it.

But they are desperately trying to hide something.

You need to believe that, huh?

I am sorry for you, Bob.

Living Trust
Refers to a revocable arrangement established during lifetime.  This method of giving allows donors to make certain provisions for themselves and their families, and thereafter, provide for a benefit to the specified nonprofit or charity to further its programs. While a living trust can be a generic name for any trust which comes into existence during the lifetime of the person or persons creating the trust, most commonly it is a trust in which the trustor(s) receive benefit(s) from the profits of the trust during their lifetimes, followed by a distribution upon the death of the last trustor to die, or the trust continues on for the benefit of others, with profits distributed to them.

Remainder Interest
Related to the right to receive the remaining principal when a trust terminates. A donor gives the designated nonprofit or charity the right to receive that property in the future, after the donor’s death or the death of another person, or after a certain number of years.


Life Estate and Remainder Interest Tables
Purpose: The Life Estate and Remainder Interest Table are used to determine the value of life estate or
remainder interest held in real property.
Instructions:
1. Find the line for the individual’s age as of their last birthday.
2. For the life estate interest, multiply the figure in the life estate column for the individual’s age by the equity
value of the property.
3. For the remainder interest, multiply the figure in the remainder interest column for the individual’s age by the equity value of the property.

Note: Since the value ascribed is based on the changing factors of age and equity value, a new value based on
current information must be determined at the time of each complete eligibility review...


edited to clarify things in a clearer manner to avoid confusion if possible...

[Bob Pickle]

It sounds like you are claiming that the IRS did find something wrong and that this has been proven over and over.

Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.

But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.

Could it possibly be because you are uninformed and have not a leg to stand on in regards to the house and horses?

Not a chance. At least, no one has provided any information that would allow a reasonable person to conclude otherwise.

I see that in your mass of words you are muddying up the basic facts. Let me repeat them here:

• 3ABN reported on its 1998 Form 990 that it had sold a house at a loss.
• Since Danny was the buyer of that house, that sale constituted a section 4958 excess benefit transaction, since he didn't pay the full price for that house, by 3ABN's own admission.
• Under penalty of perjury, Danny on that Form 990 denied that there had been any such section 4958 excess benefit transactions.
• Walt said that Danny bought that house at such an extreme loss to 3ABN in order to build up equiuty for retirement.
• Danny denied under oath in 2002 that he received any housing or retirement benefits. Caught in a lie again!!!

[Bob Pickle]

Would you then have been able to comprehend that Danny and Linda had a lifetime interest given to them by a donor, (not by 3abn who was the trustee and had been granted the remainder interest also according to the donor)?

Where did you get this from? The deed says that 3ABN gave Danny the lifetime interest. It says nothing about any donor giving them a lifetime interest. Where did you get this from? (http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-real-estate-shenanigans-1.htm)

But you have raised an interesting question. If May Chung gave money to purchase the property, with strings attached that it be used to privately inure Danny and Linda, did May get a tax deduction for the entire donation? It seems that if she did, maybe she needs to return part of whatever tax savings she got.

the 1998 real estate deal wasn't considered. And no IRS agent is going to say there was nothing wrong with Danny's declaring a donated horse(s) to be cash on his 2003 Schedule A, in blatant violation of the Internal Revenue Code

It appears to me on the horse deal you have jumped from the statement that they received a cash receipt to they filed a cash receipt in 2003....  I have never seen proof that they did so offered by you. I have never seen the documentation (even if so) as to what the value of the horses were, how many there were, or what the IRS required back in 2003...

Stick your head in the sand if you wish. It's your choice and prerogative.

• Danny himself admitted reporting the donated horse(s) as cash.
• Danny admitted that reporting it/them this way was better because there was no guarantee what they would appraise for.
• Repeatedly, when Danny has valued his horses, he has valued them at being between about $500 and $5000.
• I filed Danny's 2001 through 2003 tax returns with the court to show that he did indeed, as he admitted, reported donated horse(s) as $20,000 cash in 2003.
• Never once did Danny in our lawsuit deny that he had done this. Not once.

Danny's valuation of his horses can be read at http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-financial-allegations-horse-values.htm.

My explanation of his tax returns can be read at http://www.save-3abn.com/3abn-and-danny-v-joy-and-pickle-3abn-interrogatories-to-pickle-1-d.htm.

Your claims that auditors approved any of these transactions are bogus, since no statement by any auditor to that effect was ever filed in our lawsuit. They wouldn't dare put their careers on the line like that.

[Bob Pickle]

You need to believe that, huh?

I am sorry for you, Bob.

Living Trust
Refers to a revocable arrangement established during lifetime.  This method of giving allows donors to make certain provisions for themselves and their families, and thereafter, provide for a benefit to the specified nonprofit or charity to further its programs. While a living trust can be a generic name for any trust which comes into existence during the lifetime of the person or persons creating the trust, most commonly it is a trust in which the trustor(s) receive benefit(s) from the profits of the trust during their lifetimes, followed by a distribution upon the death of the last trustor to die, or the trust continues on for the benefit of others, with profits distributed to them.

Remainder Interest
Related to the right to receive the remaining principal when a trust terminates. A donor gives the designated nonprofit or charity the right to receive that property in the future, after the donor’s death or the death of another person, or after a certain number of years.


Life Estate and Remainder Interest Tables
Purpose: The Life Estate and Remainder Interest Table are used to determine the value of life estate or
remainder interest held in real property.
Instructions:
1. Find the line for the individual’s age as of their last birthday.
2. For the life estate interest, multiply the figure in the life estate column for the individual’s age by the equity
value of the property.
3. For the remainder interest, multiply the figure in the remainder interest column for the individual’s age by the equity value of the property.

Note: Since the value ascribed is based on the changing factors of age and equity value, a new value based on
current information must be determined at the time of each complete eligibility review...


edited to clarify things in a clearer manner to avoid confusion if possible...

Put the facts out on the table, Cindy. Did May Chung ever own the property in question? I do not believe she ever did. Can you receive a lifetime interest in a piece of property you never owned?

If the transaction was not a section 4958 excess benefit transaction, why did 3ABN report the sale as a loss?

Why did they use the value of the remainder interest at the end of Danny's life? They should have used his age at the time of the transaction in order to come up with the proper value of that remainder interest.

And they planned this whole shenanigan in advance, it would appear.

Can a 501(c)(3) just give away property to whomever it wants through shenanigans like this?

[Cindy]

It sounds like you are claiming that the IRS did find something wrong and that this has been proven over and over.

Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.

Are you claiming the IRS found and determined this Bob?

I hate to say liar, liar, but if you are really claiming this, that is exactly the case.

But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.

Those are not Duffy's words, they are your interpretation and spin, Bob.

I said your claims are known, and have been reported and yet the IRS chose not to go back that far.

Why is that, Bob?

Could it possibly be because you are uninformed and have not a leg to stand on in regards to the house and horses?

Not a chance. At least, no one has provided any information that would allow a reasonable person to conclude otherwise.

I see that in your mass of words you are muddying up the basic facts. Let me repeat them here:

Yet you think and claim that a title with the trustees name on it indicates they  are the ones who granted the lifetime trust to Danny and Linda? and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?

That is false.

Allow me to be very blunt.

If snoopy can't help you get your facts straight then you need to find a new financial expert.

Your repetitious claims and links to where you said the same exact thing b4 do not address what I wrote nor supply any of that info, and so are worthless as a reply here, or to me.


Have a good Sabbath, Bob.

snipped balance...

[anyman]

Robert's only bibliographic reference is himself . . . his words, his interpretation. He then expects you to accept that as authoritative. That won't work in the literary or legal world.

[Bob Pickle]

Of course the IRS found something wrong. Reporting a donation of a horse or horses as cash is wrong.

Are you claiming the IRS found and determined this Bob?

Danny said he did it, and his tax returns demonstrate that at least on this occasion, Danny told the truth.

But the other point is that according to Duffy, the IRS never looked at the 1998 house deal, and thus it is a bald faced lie to say that the IRS exonerated Danny and 3ABN regarding the 1998 house deal.

Those are not Duffy's words, they are your interpretation and spin, Bob.

I don't understand your comment.

I said your claims are known, and have been reported and yet the IRS chose not to go back that far.

Why is that, Bob?

Why do you think?

Yet you think and claim that a title with the trustees name on it indicates they  are the ones who granted the lifetime trust to Danny and Linda?

Not at all. The deed explicitly says that 3ABN gave the lifetime interest. That's what I am going by.

and that purchasing a remainder interest in a house which you have already been given a lifetime interest in is recieving a retirement benefit and qualifies as an excess benefit transaction?

That is false.

What I am saying is that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction is one in which a founder or officer or director obtains some of economic value for which he or she did not pay full compensation.

• 3ABN admitted in their 1998 Form 990 that someone bought a house for which they did not pay full compensation for.
• The deed shows that Danny and Linda were the purchasers.
• Danny and Linda were founders or officers or directors.

Thus, Danny lied on the 1998 Form 990 when he claimed that there were no section 4958 excess benefit transactions that year, because he knew there most certainly were.

Your repetitious claims and links to where you said the same exact thing b4 do not address what I wrote nor supply any of that info, and so are worthless as a reply here, or to me.

And how do they not do that?

You forgot to answer the important question, Did May ever own the property in question?

If May never owned it, how could May have ever given Danny and Linda a lifetime estate in that property?

[Bob Pickle]

Robert's only bibliographic reference is himself . . . his words, his interpretation. He then expects you to accept that as authoritative. That won't work in the literary or legal world.

Then why don't you read the 1998 IRS instructions for Form 990, and then explain to everyone how Danny paid full compensation for the house even though 3ABN claimed that they sold the house at an extreme loss?

And while you're at it, explain to everyone how one can calculate a remainder interest in a house using an age perhaps 30 years older than the age of the person under consideration.

What age did they say Danny was in the calculation they used?

[Bob Pickle]

Perhaps 3ABN could give a life estate to young Jody or Trinity, a life estate in a property worth $200,000. They could do that this year. Then next year perhaps they could turn around and sell it to Jody or Trinity for what it would be worth at the time of their deaths, estimating their deaths at age 90 years. Would they thus get the house for a measly $10,000 or $20,000?

Did Madoff ever think about a scheme like this? Or Ponzi?

And according to anyman, Cindy, Duffy, and Simpson, there's not a thing wrong with it, legally or, presumably, ethically and morally. Everyone donating to the scheme gets a tax write off, and the Shelton clan gets richer.

Call up your conference auditors, your conference trust services directors, your local IRS agents, and ask them all what they think about this get-rich-quick scheme.

See if Duffy and Simpson will guarantee that you won't get in trouble, or your legal fees, fines, and jail time are all on them. But get it in writing, and don't hold your breath.

[anyman]

Let us see. You have made suggestions through the use of a "?" mark. Now you will sit back and let your minions come in and use it progressively turning it from just a "musing" or "question" into fact. You have learned the Jesuit way well.

You have no foundation for any of your suggestive comments. Yes, they are all plausible, but are evidence of another fishing expedition intended to turn falsehood wondering into fact.

You are not an authoritative reference and your instance on using your own voice as a way to substantiate your accusations is not even weak, it is below weak. Your best bud Gailon doesn't even reference your work but simple bellows and assumes the world believes - well, at least he hopes it will.

A curiosity question Robert, what case law are you and Gailon using to give rise to cause for your claims of malicious prosecution? Haven't seen more than one or two citations to case law in all your work here. I am sure you will cover your backside by saying you don't want to reveal your hand, but the time may be very close when all you have is this limited court of public opinion (actually this kangaroo court of a small groups opinion) to make your baseless accusations. Have you stopped even once to wonder how so many people have been made privy to the facts and have come to the opposite conclusion you have? It is growing ever more obvious that the book on you - that you refuse to admit wrong or wrong doing, always working to justify your actions and positions - is rather a spot on analysis.

Robert's only bibliographic reference is himself . . . his words, his interpretation. He then expects you to accept that as authoritative. That won't work in the literary or legal world.

Then why don't you read the 1998 IRS instructions for Form 990, and then explain to everyone how Danny paid full compensation for the house even though 3ABN claimed that they sold the house at an extreme loss?

And while you're at it, explain to everyone how one can calculate a remainder interest in a house using an age perhaps 30 years older than the age of the person under consideration.

What age did they say Danny was in the calculation they used?

[anyman]

Give it up! All the accusations that have been laid out here, at BSDA, Maritime, your personal web sites have been forwarded to the attorney(s) . . . as has been pointed out, all of them have been reviewed and your voice is nothing more than a sounding gong. You have been informed, and with authority, that experts were involved in every aspect of these situations, that you are beating into the ground, and not a one found an illegality.

Don't go rambling on about the IRS not looking at one or the other as that argument is moot. Everything that needed to be addressed was and nothing was found amiss. I know, I know, you believe that your amateur analysis is more correct than that of those who make a living, day in and day out, reviewing these type of transactions. You have so internalized your defamation that you truly believe you are better equipped to review the law and the financial aspects of your allegations, than are educated professionals who make a living doing exactly that.

The aspect that is most disturbing is the fact that you continue to manipulate and lead others as far astry as you have gone with no concern for their spiritual lives.

- anyman

Perhaps 3ABN could give a life estate to young Jody or Trinity, a life estate in a property worth $200,000. They could do that this year. Then next year perhaps they could turn around and sell it to Jody or Trinity for what it would be worth at the time of their deaths, estimating their deaths at age 90 years. Would they thus get the house for a measly $10,000 or $20,000?

Did Madoff ever think about a scheme like this? Or Ponzi?

And according to anyman, Cindy, Duffy, and Simpson, there's not a thing wrong with it, legally or, presumably, ethically and morally. Everyone donating to the scheme gets a tax write off, and the Shelton clan gets richer.

Call up your conference auditors, your conference trust services directors, your local IRS agents, and ask them all what they think about this get-rich-quick scheme.

See if Duffy and Simpson will guarantee that you won't get in trouble, or your legal fees, fines, and jail time are all on them. But get it in writing, and don't hold your breath.

[Fran]

Any Man;

Bob is not responsible for any one's spiritual life!  We have to work out our own spiritual well being.  I can read both sites and read all the documentation and decide for myself what I choose to believe.  Bob is not brainwashing anyone!

If anyone allows him to hurt them spiritually it is the person's fault, not Bob's!

I chose my truth years before I ever heard of Bob!  I read the court documents and saw that 3ABN was depositing other ministries money into 3ABN's income! That was enough for me to have many righteous indignation moments!  Yeah, that is the truth!  They had posted over $14,000 of some other ministries money in 3ABN's income!   How dare they do that!  All it did was over state their income statement!

Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted!  Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted!  This is not good!

Then Jim Gilley announces live on the air that, "They would not be borrowing from Trust Funds ever again!"

Oops!  Then they are banned in Washington to write trust funds in that state until the time they had enough money available to cover those trust funds!

IT IS ORDERED and you are hereby notified that pursuant to RCW 48.38.050 Certificate of Exemption No. 294 issued to you to issue charitable gift annuities is hereby SUSPENDED Effective March 14, 2007, until further notice by the lnsurance Commissioner, or for a period of one (1) year, whichever comes first.

This suspension is applicable to the sale, solicitation, or issuance of any new charitable gift annuities in the State of Washington. Provided, however, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC shall remain fully obligated: (1) under its charitable gift annuities in force, and authorized to administer said annuities as well; and (2) to comply with all other provisions of Chapter 48.38 RCW, including but not limited to, reporting requirements and payment of annual and other fees.

THIS ORDER IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:

The lnsurance Commissioner of the State of Washington finds that there presently exist conditions precluding THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC from being eligible to hold a Certificate of Exemption to issue charitable gift annuities in this state. Specifically, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC failed to meet the separate reserve and surplus requirements of RCW 48.38.020(3). THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC filed its annual report as of December 31, 2006 and reported a separate reserve fund balance of $7,409,935, which was less than the required minimum of 13,011,079.    

Chapters 48.04 and 34.05 RCW provide THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC the right to demand a hearing on this order.

SIGNED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2007.

Now, I am not saying anything that the document does not say. However, it makes me wonder if the $ 5,601,144 difference is the amount they borrowed!  

These are the facts that I used to decide where I stand.  Then there is eBay sales from 1998-2002.   These are the sales they deny making.  The purchases I made say that they are lying!  Why? 

Yes, these are the things that caught my attention and have held it for all these years!  Now the documents that Ian has posted herself and the documents set forth on http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ have been my guide!  The evidence is there!  If people choose not to believe it, that is great.  They have stuck their heads in the sand all by themselves!  Bob has not touched their spiritual life in one iota!

Let's get real for a change!

[SDAminister]

. . . as has been pointed out, all of them have been reviewed and your voice is nothing more than a sounding gong.

Then why sue, and/or threaten to sue Bob if he's just a sounding gong?

SDAminister

[Mary Sue Smith]

Any Man;

Bob is not responsible for any one's spiritual life!  We have to work out our own spiritual well being.  I can read both sites and read all the documentation and decide for myself what I choose to believe.  Bob is not brainwashing anyone!

If anyone allows him to hurt them spiritually it is the person's fault, not Bob's!

I chose my truth years before I ever heard of Bob!  I read the court documents and saw that 3ABN was depositing other ministries money into 3ABN's income! That was enough for me to have many righteous indignation moments!  Yeah, that is the truth!  They had posted over $14,000 of some other ministries money in 3ABN's income!   How dare they do that!  All it did was over state their income statement!

Not only that, but in that same year the auditors found $2.43+ MILLION dollars not posted!  Then the next year they found 1.7+ MILLION not posted!  This is not good!

Then Jim Gilley announces live on the air that, "They would not be borrowing from Trust Funds ever again!"

Oops!  Then they are banned in Washington to write trust funds in that state until the time they had enough money available to cover those trust funds!

IT IS ORDERED and you are hereby notified that pursuant to RCW 48.38.050 Certificate of Exemption No. 294 issued to you to issue charitable gift annuities is hereby SUSPENDED Effective March 14, 2007, until further notice by the lnsurance Commissioner, or for a period of one (1) year, whichever comes first.

This suspension is applicable to the sale, solicitation, or issuance of any new charitable gift annuities in the State of Washington. Provided, however, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC shall remain fully obligated: (1) under its charitable gift annuities in force, and authorized to administer said annuities as well; and (2) to comply with all other provisions of Chapter 48.38 RCW, including but not limited to, reporting requirements and payment of annual and other fees.

THIS ORDER IS BASED UPON THE FOLLOWING:

The lnsurance Commissioner of the State of Washington finds that there presently exist conditions precluding THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC from being eligible to hold a Certificate of Exemption to issue charitable gift annuities in this state. Specifically, THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC failed to meet the separate reserve and surplus requirements of RCW 48.38.020(3). THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC filed its annual report as of December 31, 2006 and reported a separate reserve fund balance of $7,409,935, which was less than the required minimum of 13,011,079.    

Chapters 48.04 and 34.05 RCW provide THREE ANGELS BROADCASTING NETWORK INC the right to demand a hearing on this order.

SIGNED AND ENTERED this 14th day of March, 2007.

Now, I am not saying anything that the document does not say. However, it makes me wonder if the $ 5,601,144 difference is the amount they borrowed!  

These are the facts that I used to decide where I stand.  Then there is eBay sales from 1998-2002.   These are the sales they deny making.  The purchases I made say that they are lying!  Why? 

Yes, these are the things that caught my attention and have held it for all these years!  Now the documents that Ian has posted herself and the documents set forth on http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ have been my guide!  The evidence is there!  If people choose not to believe it, that is great.  They have stuck their heads in the sand all by themselves!  Bob has not touched their spiritual life in one iota!

Let's get real for a change!

Yes Fran, GET REAL. You read what Tammy Shelton said herself about e-bay but you think you are the ONLY one that knows what you call truth. Sorry, but you are dead wrong on this one. You refuse to accept the truth simply because you don't want to.  It's not any fun right? It's so much more fun to wallow in the juicy tidbits people make up out of a tiny shred of truth and go for it. If those here on AT were telling lies about YOU and your family on a public forum (instead of 3abn and the Shelton familiy), YOU would be furious. And then when you tried to share the truth, to see them not accept it would really be upsetting. Honestly Fran, put yourself in the place of those you are tearing down.

You take a tidbit and blow it up into a huge deal. You take a possible mistake (last time I checked, we are ALL human and subject to make mistakes) and trump it up into a huge lie or something purposefully dishonest.

Honestly, I feel sorry for you and your ilk on this forum.  Why don't you find something in your lives that excites you and is productive for good--like giving Bible studies or going as a missionary somewhere instead of TEARING DOWN GOD'S TRUTH and those who work for Him.