Print

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

[Cindy]

And I fail to see how what I myself discovered and what communications I may or may not have had with Bob and Gailon could possibly be any of your business!  Again, let me help you with the legal process.  Bob and Gailon are representing themselves as their own attorneys which makes any communications I have had with them privileged.  Do you get that?

If you must know the details of what I saw at 3ABN you might check with Cindi Randall because I confided in her when I thought she was an attorney and would keep my communications with her in confidence...  I, however, owe you no answers!!

Snoopy I quite understand the confidentiality aspect, I have no need to hear the details from you or any other, nor have I ever received, or even asked for any.

I was simply posting to Bob due to his lack of understanding, before you came jumping in here and accused me of sticking my pointy little finger in your face, and suggesting to him that in your role as financial expert you should have been able to help him understand the issues and definitions involved in the house deal (in a "private communication") and suggesting if you still can not? (in private if you prefer) suggesting he might want to consult another "professional" ( in private and confidential communication"")
who can help him do so.

capiche?

toodles...

Snoopy, I'm sorry, but I fail to understand what supplying definitions of terms to Pickle in sync with the deeds he has, has to do with discovery materials you either saw or didn't see from 3abn....

[Cindy]

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.

No he didn't say that, Bob. You say he said that.

Danny Shelton said, and I quote from your save3abn website:

I just remembered that ****** just gave us a donation of $20,000 last year. It did not mention horses.

And you did not answer my questions, and I told you without those answers I can't reply and neither can you claim you have proved anything... Certainly to claim the IRS did is a blatant lie.

Here's another question Do you know if the ministry which the horses were donated to sold them and then gave them a cash receipt for that amount?

All of these things are important Bob, you can't just jump from A to  Z and say "aha! I see an amount which could include that receipt for horses on the tax filing, therefore it is, and Danny said that's what he filed with the IRS!"

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.

You are spinning what he said, and reinterpreting it and putting your words in his mouth instead, here's what Duffy really said, and again I quote from his letter ( see attached document):

"As you know the Internal Revenue Service and the United Sates Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois asked to review all of the financial records of 3ABN for the period of 2000-2006 as part of an inquiry into allegations made against Danny Shelton. Danny Shelton, the outside auditor for 3ABN and other parties were likewise requested to produce financial information relating to Danny Shelton." .... "The offer by the investigating agencies to destroy all the copies produced brings closure to the investigation in a manner favorable to 3ABN and Danny Shelton. Contrary to statements made by enemies of 3ABN and Danny Shelton's ministry no adverse actions either civil or otherwise have resulted from the inquiry..."

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?

It is obvious to most, if there was grounds to justify it they would have, Bob.

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.

NO it doesn't, Bob. 3ABN acting as the trustees granted it.

AGAIN I quote from your save3abn website:


(please notice the words I have underlined and bold texted)

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

And:

WARRANTY DEED

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

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

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

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

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

Dated   9/25        ,1998.

           

Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.

By:              [Signed]                     
Danny L. Shelton, President

By:     
        [Signed]                     
Linda S. Shelton, Secretary


Attested By:

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

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.

See that's your problem Bob. That didn't happen. You just won't accept that all 3abn had to sell was the remainder interest which would belong to the ministry after the death's of Linda and Danny who had the life estate.

Linda and Danny paid them exactly what that was legally determined to be worth.

As far as the original Granter goes and your questions go, you really need to read up on a revocable trusts and how those are set up, and how they have to be documented and reported and what does not, and about trustees.

Then, and only then ask or have someone else ask May Chung your questions and listen to what is said looking to find the truth rather than just looking to support your own preconceived ideas and conclusions, and maybe then you will be able to understand the answers.

I am done trying once again to discuss all this with you, your claims above and my quotes prove that "you can not handle the truth" even when you have it in your hand, and a financial expert retained to explain it to you if you just bothered to ask her.

[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.

No he didn't say that, Bob. You say he said that.

No, Cindy, you are flat out wrong. Danny said that he did that in 2003.

If you don't know that basic fact by now, you are utterly unqualified to be giving any opinions about any of this. You are unqualified on the basis of knowledge, comprehension, or integrity. Which is it?

For a refresher, available at http://www.save-3abn.com/danny-shelton-financial-allegations-horses-cash-receipt.htm is Danny's April 2005 email which says the following about his 2003 tax return:

Ms. Shelton

I tried to call you to explain the horse deductions. I just remembered that ****** just gave us a donation of $20,000 last year. It did not mention horses. That is much better than all the other rig a ma role.

I have no idea if that's even close to spelling that word, but it seemed to fit.

So, I have left a message that he has not returned yet. Hopefully, you will just get a tax donation report from his ministry showing that you gave $20,000 to his ministry. That's the way he chose to do it.

I should get one too. I guess he's counting it the same as a cash donation.

Happy Dan

ps. I think he's willing to give us a $10,000 donation for 2005 ($5,000 @), if we donate our black 3 yr. old stud. I can't really use him to breed any more of our horses or they will all be the same blood line.

If this is ok with you please let me know in writing and I'll try to make it happen. He's hurt his foot really bad by kicking in his stall. I hope it heals ok.

Danny Shelton

[Bob Pickle]

And you did not answer my questions, and I told you without those answers I can't reply and neither can you claim you have proved anything...

What questions are you referring to? And what specifically are you saying has not yet been proven?

Here's another question Do you know if the ministry which the horses were donated to sold them and then gave them a cash receipt for that amount?

No idea. And how is that relevant?

Danny donated a horse or horses, and was supposed to file Form 8283 with required appraisals. He instead reported the horse(s) as donated cash instead of donated property, thus blatantly violating the IRS's regulations.

What Stephen Lewis did with the horses is totally irrelevant.

All of these things are important Bob, you can't just jump from A to  Z and say "aha! I see an amount which could include that receipt for horses on the tax filing, therefore it is, and Danny said it!"

You are spinning what he said, and reinterpreting it and putting your words in his mouth instead, here's what Duffy really said, and again I quote from his letter ( see attached document):

"As you know the Internal Revenue Service and the United Sates Attorney for the Southern District of Illinois asked to review all of the financial records of 3ABN for the period of 2000-2006 as part of an inquiry into allegations made against Danny Shelton. ..."

And anyone who can read can see that I wasn't spinning anything. If Duffy is correct that the records sought only went back to 2000, then there is no possible way that the IRS exonerated either Danny boy or 3ABN over that unethical, 1998 real estate deal.

Danny ought to pay 3ABN back every last red cent of the money he got from that unethical real estate deal, which he used to line his pockets with nearly $129,000 of donor money entrusted to 3ABN.

And Walt Thompson should be held accountable by the 3ABN Board for his participation is that despicable scheme.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

NO it doesn't, Bob. 3ABN acting as the trustees granted it.

AGAIN I quote from your save3abn website:

(please notice the words I have underlined and bold texted)

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

And:

WARRANTY DEED

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

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

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

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

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

Dated   9/25        ,1998.

           

Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc.

By:              [Signed]                     
Danny L. Shelton, President

By:     
        [Signed]                     
Linda S. Shelton, Secretary


Attested By:

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

Cindy, where above does it say that 3ABN as Trustee granted that lifetime interest? Where?

Nowhere.

It doesn't even mention a trust anywhere. But I'm unsure how that would affect the fact that 3ABN admitted selling the property at an extreme loss, Danny falsely denied that a section 4958 excess benefit transaction had taken place, and 3ABN used a bogus age for Danny and Linda by which to calculate the sales price.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

See that's your problem Bob. That didn't happen. You just won't accept that all 3abn had to sell was the remainder interest which would belong to the ministry after the death's of Linda and Danny who had the life estate.

Linda and Danny paid them exactly what that was legally determined to be worth.

They DID NOT pay what the charts showed the remainder interest would have been had they died in 1998. On what basis did they use any other age than their ages in 1998 for the calculation?

Then, and only then ask or have someone else ask May Chung your questions and listen to what is said looking to find the truth rather than just looking to support your own preconceived ideas and conclusions, and maybe then you will be able to understand the answers.

How about laying out before the average 3ABN donor this whole despicable scheme, and ask them if they think this is something Danny should have done even if it was 100% legal?

Legality isn't the only issue here. Some things are legal in men's courts but contrary to God's counsels and commands.

Was there anything illegal about AIG execs getting bonuses? Even if legal, it was wrong.

[YODA]

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.

See that's your problem Bob. That didn't happen. You just won't accept that all 3abn had to sell was the remainder interest which would belong to the ministry after the death's of Linda and Danny who had the life estate.

Linda and Danny paid them exactly what that was legally determined to be worth.

They DID NOT pay what the charts showed the remainder interest would have been had they died in 1998. On what basis did they use any other age than their ages in 1998 for the calculation?

Forgetful, you appear to be.

http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=20348&view=findpost&p=238302

[Bob Pickle]

And your point is?

[Fran]

Yoda:

Invest some money and time in accounting principles classes!

********************************************************************************

For every one's information: The legal way to handle the horses is as follows:

1.  Danny gives the horses to a ministry.
2.  The ministry gives Danny and Linda an 8283 with the value left blank!  
3.  Danny and Linda enter the official appraised value  of the gift in on the 8283.  (Not a personal value or the givers value, but the official appraised value)
4.  They deduct their appraisal of the horses on their tax return and submit the 8283 to the IRS!

End of the transaction for Danny & Linda.  

********************************************************************************

The ministry is not supposed to know what value Danny & Linda applied to the assets given away.  Period.  

1.  The Ministry receives the horses and uses their copy of the 8283 to enter their official appraisal of the horses as assets.  (Not a personal value or the givers value, but the official appraised value)
2.  The horses are sold.
3.  The ministry will take a gain or loss on the sell of those assets depending on the official appraised value.

Story over.

Danny and Linda get their own outside official independent appraisal for their IRS form 8283.

The ministry gets their own outside official independent appraisal for their IRS form 8283.

********************************************************************************

So Ian, the details you have outlined are not legal or honest since there were horses given away and not cash!  If done correctly, the IRS would have been looking for the 8283's.  

However, since Danny deducted $20,000 as a cash donation, they will be looking for a check written from Danny or Linda to the ministry, plus a coordinating cash/check deposit over at the ministry!

Good luck on that one, it does not exist!

********************************************************************************

I brought this forward because Junebug and Ian are trying their best to hide the truth in the form of documented FACTS.  I am waiting to see what else they will do to hide the truth again.  I will be watching to see if we need to bring it forward again.

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!

[Cindy]

Fran,

I'm sorry but as usual it looks to me like you are making stuff up, and I don't understand half of what you are excited about.

I would just like to clarify for the readers.

It has not been established that Danny and Linda filed cash receipts for donated horses with the IRS as Bob claims.


and for you:
It also might be helpful to take what Danny Shelton said about receiving a cash receipt from the Stephen Lewis foundation in context, and consider that due to that ministry being Canadian, it is under different tax laws and guidelines involving all this than the U.S. is.

Does that make sense to you?

Anyway sorry to interrupt, carry on..

..ian

[Bob Pickle]

It has not been established that Danny and Linda filed cash receipts for donated horses with the IRS as Bob claims.

On what basis do you say that? Are you suggesting that Danny didn't claim them at all? Or are you suggesting that he claimed them as donated property?

What exactly are you proposing?

It also might be helpful to take what Danny Shelton said about receiving a cash receipt from the Stephen Lewis foundation in context, and consider that due to that ministry being Canadian, it is under different tax laws and guidelines involving all this than the U.S. is.

You state this as absolute fact, without providing any proof whatsoever. On what basis are you saying that Danny donated to a Canadian organization?

And how does that make a difference in how Danny is required to report things on his Schedule A?

[Snoopy]

Don't be ignorant, Ian.  This is a public forum!  I am certainly entitled to respond when you are challenging my professional expertise.  CAPICHE??  Maybe you should spend a little more time worrying about your own numerous issues instead of trying to advise Bob how to handle his own litigation, which, by the way, has nothing to do with you!!

Toodles back at ya...

[Fran]

Ian;

I can appreciate how you feel and about not understanding.  We all have something in some area we do not understand.  There are many things I do not understand.  God has provided us ways to gain new knowledge everyday!  He is so good.

I have worked in accounting for a very long time.  However, I have had many non-accountants work with me, especially in non-profit accounting.  It is out there all by itself!  I always kept a small book on hand to give to each worker.  It is a reference book and can be read quickly to catch a glimpse of the whole picture.  I would recommend it to any reader on this forum.

I always got mine from Amazon.

Publisher:  Prentice Hall
Title:  Run Your Own Business; Day-To-Day Business Accounting
Author:  Arlene K Moss, John Jackson, Gary Downs

Every one I gave it too was very appreciative and understood what was it had to say.  I believe you would easily understand everything it says.  I had many come to me and say, "Hey, I think I finally got it!"  I have given it to many, many people.  I give it away like I give out the Desire of ages, & Great Controversy.  Many church members in our churches don't understand anything except that they get a piece of paper saying they can deduct their donations.

To be able to understand how things happen between business to business you may need to do an in depth study at a university and get a degree.  However, the items I have addressed should be easier to understand.  Thus I recommend this book and the IRS books tax information.

I feel you could turn your understanding around fairly quickly.

[Fran]

Ian;

I want to remind you that the book is for regular business and not for specifically for non-profits, but the accounting principles are the same.  They must product financial statements just and regular businesses do.  However, there are several more that are required from non-profits.  One of those is the IRS Form 990.  You have heard a lot about those.

To understand non-profit accounting, I would suggest you go to IRS.gov and read the directions for form 8283.  This will help you better understand why the horse deal may not have been conducted as the law requires.  Any non-profit is required to follow those instructions.  The form is only used when donations come in that are not cash, check or credit card.  It is a safe guard that is required when land, jewelry, antiques, motor homes, ...  are donated.  This requirement was set in place to prevent transactions like the alleged horse deal.

The fastest way to clear that transaction up is for Danny Shelton to produce the cancelled $20,000.00 check as evidence that he made a cash donation to the said ministry.  If he has misplaced the cancelled check, his bank can help him get a copy.  Then this cancelled check will matched up to the Lewis ministry's deposits.  The donation would be posted and receipted, and there will be a deposit that contained that check.

This cannot happen if Danny side stepped a required 8283.  

I wanted to mention this so you will not have to rely on my word or Bob & Gailon's word.  Once you read more information you will understand at least the way it should have been done.  It is by learning what is true and required that you will be able to spot things, in a moments glance, that are just not quite right.  

In a day or two, I will come back with suggested reading about the correct was to get appraisals on items that are received as a donation and how to handle Trust Funds and the many different types of trust funds.  I hope this helps you in a small way.  One step at a time is the best way.

[Stan]

Any Man;

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!

So Fran what does that mean?  was it the constant stating of accrual funds disagreement that happens so often with auditors?  Was it funds hiding illegal?
Was it items that should have been receipted in one year and was put in the next year?

Was their fraud involved?  Was it clerical errors? Were the corrections done?  Where their offsetting expenses also posted in error in the same year? Was Danny in Charge of the Accounting department as well? I am asking that one because I do not know.