Print

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

[Cindy]

Gailon Joy wrote:
I have a riddle for you: We have a 2008 IRS Form 990 filed with Illinois and indicates the 48 acres across from Linda’s old Homestead was gifted by 3ABN to Danny Lee Shelton. We have another 990 that does not seem to disclose the Schedule J...

As to the credibility of witnesses, can you explain to me which one is lying?

Gailon, the 990 filed with the IRS has a Schedule J, but Part III is blank.

The part in navy above is correct. It says:
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

That Form 990 was filed with the states of Oregon and Illinois.

And I have figured out part of this already. In regards to credibility of witnesses you are both WRONG here.(see red font above)

I suggest you look at your IRS pdf file again. Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of the pdf file. ( It says 13 of 15 on the page)  edited to add: on the IRS form it is schedule J part II

Here's your link to it:
http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2008-irs.pdf

What do you see, gentlemen?

I will address more of this confusion and error on Bob's new thread later...

[Bob Pickle]

I suggest you look at your IRS pdf file again. Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of the pdf file. ( It says 13 of 15 on the page) 

Here's your link to it:
http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-form-990-2008-irs.pdf

What do you see, gentlemen?

I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.

Perhaps the "additional data table" referred to is what is on page 15 of 15, and there is nothing about land on that page either.

Why don't you ask 3ABN if they are going to refile, and thus end up with 4 versions of the 2008 Form 990 instead of 3?

[Cindy]

Cindy, I have spoken with law enforcement, and I will do so again.
You can claim that you didn't have names if you want to, but your claim is false.

I am quite sure you have spoken with law enforcement - now-- and I am also quite sure you will try and ride this and be somebody and try and get in the news for as long as you can. I am not impressed with that, Bob,  nor your false accusations.

I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.

It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000. One day somebody is going to pop you right upside your little head for your shenanigans , and pardon me if I can't stop laughing even while I ask you if you are all right...



 

[Bob Pickle]

I am not impressed with that, Bob,  nor your false accusations.

Are you asserting that the child molestation allegations are false?

Someone called me amazed at how much rage they think you are manifesting. They thought you might want to offer your services to Nancy Pelosi as a sort of Rahm Emanuel.

I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.

It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000.

The 2008 Form 990 filed with the state of Illinois and Oregon also lists $96,000 under "other reportable compensation" in Part II of Schedule J. The point is that on two versions it is admitted that land was given, and on the version filed with the IRS there is no such admission. Why not? Why is Part II filled out in all three versions, but Part III is blank only on the version filed with the IRS.

[Cindy]

You know Bob, there is a difference between anger and rage which  I do not expect you to admit to understanding but that's ok because I know that "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day."

So, moving on to part two and your next error/ falsehood

In reporting about all this on your website, and trying to promote this as a huge problem, Bob Pickle says:

"But on January 24, 2008, court documents were filed by which 3ABN asserted that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000. So which was it? Did Danny Shelton pay 3ABN $96,000 for the land, or did the 3ABN Board gift to Danny that 48 acres?"

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob?  Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

 It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

That's just what they reported:

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.

[Bob Pickle]

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob?  Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

 It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

The Save 3ABN article is correct. See line 11 on page 4 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.

My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.

Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.

And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits.

[tinka]

Helps with understanding when you can see documents. The word "consideration" in legal document

a [u]recompense or payment, as for work done; compensation.[/u]
6.
importance or consequence.
7.
estimation; esteem: He is held in great consideration by the community.
8.
Law.
a.
something that suffices to make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in exchange for the promise.

Whats the promise??? Maybe none just transfer of assests of 3abn to DS.

Just like I thought in simplicity before even seeing documents.. DS is given $96,000 (all land has value) worth of land and the claimer of $1.00 makes it a sale where he bought it.  Good deal. Now builds a house on it.   He did not have to pay the estabished value.  The land was actually donated in beginning ...for this purpose??   Would be very interesting now the can of worms of the contollers of 3abn Stenson and Gilly. But now the whole scam seems worse. Not so sure of titles here.

Should not all be held accountable for the giving to "individual assets" intended for non-profit "evangelisim" from the Adventist unknowlingly to non-denomenational off shoots. I sure did not know it..until all came to surface. Just like the rest will too. If all was pure, good and honest none of the above would be in question.

Yes Ian, Bob is right. Your given something of high value for $1.00 for legal sale to say something that is not true. and that is the side you stand on.

[Cindy]

Helps with understanding when you can see documents. The word "consideration" in legal document

a [u]recompense or payment, as for work done; compensation.[/u]
6.
importance or consequence.
7.
estimation; esteem: He is held in great consideration by the community.
8.
Law.
a.
something that suffices to make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in exchange for the promise.

Whats the promise???...

 Thank you. The promise was a A non compete employment agreement. You could maybe look that up too as that is very helpful to anyone reading here and trying to understand all this.

" Form 990 Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

As that also says, he is no longer President and is at present a trustee and consultant. As such his salary has dropped to about 1/2 of what it was before he stepped down as President and signed the non-compete agreement. That is revealed in the financial part of the dissolution of marriage Papers Bob published if you want to look that up too.

It also appears that that all total DS received about 100,000 dollars less than LS received when she signed the separation agreement between she and 3abn. (She was given just under 250,000)

The main point here is that it was all reported by 3abn  as "other reportable compensation" to DS given to him in addition to his salary that year as part of the non compete agreement they signed, so it is above board and legal and there are no IRS problems and no funny business going on here.

[Cindy]

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob?  Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

 It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

See line 11 on page 4 of which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.

Yes, that is the taxes part and what it is worth, and that worth was deeded to Danny by 3abn. (other reportable compensation, 96,000) Moving on...

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.

My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.

Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.

I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans..

Moving on...

And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits.

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.

A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits.

Which brings us to your last error/falsehood in your little scenario, and Gailon's riddle. He posted:

Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.

That agreement also doesn't say what you claim it does..

It says:

The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.

Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land.

So let's recap. Danny paid Linda 150,000 for her part of their house making it all his.

Next the house is too big for him and he sells it to Jim Gilley.

Then he takes the money from that sale and builds the house he wants and adds what he wants to the land which was deeded to him as part of the non-compete agreement.

Real estate definition according to the legal dictionary:
     

real estate
n. land, improvements and buildings thereon, including attached items and growing things. It is virtually the same as "real property," except real property includes interests which are not physical such as a right to acquire the property in the future.

Riddle over. No one is a false witness here, except you and Gailon. I know you could not possibly be deliberately or knowingly doing that, so you must have misunderstood, and made a mistake and that is why you were in error.

But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.

Because to not do so will be to continue bearing false witness, knowingly and deliberately, and I know God's people would NEVER do that, or continue to argue, justify and excuse that kind of thing.

So where do you stand, and what will you do, Bob? Who are you going to be?


 

[Bob Pickle]

As that also says, he is no longer President and is at present a trustee and consultant. As such his salary has dropped to about 1/2 of what it was before he stepped down as President and signed the non-compete agreement. That is revealed in the financial part of the dissolution of marriage Papers Bob published if you want to look that up too.

False. There is nothing that says that Danny's salary from 3ABN dropped 50% when he allegedly stopped down from being president.

The main point here is that it was all reported by 3abn  as "other reportable compensation" to DS given to him in addition to his salary that year as part of the non compete agreement they signed, so it is above board and legal and there are no IRS problems and no funny business going on here.

Stop the spin and distortion. The point is that there are at least three different versions of 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 floating around out there, and the one filed with the IRS omits the fact admitted on the other versions, that 3ABN gave $96,000 to Danny Shelton.

It is funny business for the 3ABN Board to continue facilitating Danny Shelton's looting of 3ABN through alleged non-compete agreements. Why would they need to do any such agreement with him? They didn't do one with Linda, did they?

Did 3ABN enter into any such agreements with Derrell Mundall, Ervin Thomsen, Kathy Bottomley, Trenton Frost, Oriana Frost, Tommy Shelton, Joan Russell, Pete Crotser (sp?), the Greers, or any other former employee/founder?

Danny and Walt Thompson should have been booted out the door, clear and simple, when it was discovered that they covered up the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton. But the board chose to sue us instead, and thus at that point it became clear that the board needed to be booted out the door with Danny and Walt. But since 3ABN's board is self-perpetuating and answers to no one, including to its donors, there was no one to hold the board accountable.

And that is wrong.

[Bob Pickle]

I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans..

That specific transaction was one that we were looking for in discovery, and the fact that the 990 filed with the IRS omits those words suggests to me that 3ABN/Danny may have been trying to hide the evidence.

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.

A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits.

That line of questioning by Nick Miller was trying to show that Danny and Linda weren't profiting from their 3ABN activities. When Danny answered those questions he lied, since Walt Thompson said that Danny had asked to be almost given a house in 1998 so that he could build up equity for retirement.

They can call the gift of land anything they want: The onlooker is still going to think that that gift is akin to a housing benefit.

The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.

Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land.

Yes it does. The agreement says that Danny was building a home on real estate he bought. Danny wasn't building a home on top of a shopping mall, or on top of a house. He was building a home on top of land. Thus the agreement is very clearly saying that Danny bought land when he didn't buy it at all.

But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.

What false claims have I made that I need to correct? Be specific.

[tinka]

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob?  Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

 It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

See line 11 on page 4 of which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.

Yes, that is the taxes part and what it is worth, and that worth was deeded to Danny by 3abn. (other reportable compensation, 96,000) Moving on...  Not so fast here as still questions remain.  What right did the board have to give away $96,000 of donors money to individual assets?

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

Non-Compete Contracts

Non-compete agreements are becoming an increasingly popular way for employers to try to limit employees and former employees from working for a competitor, or from divulging trade secrets or other proprietary data.
Contrary to common misperceptions, courts will uphold non-compete clauses if they comply with acceptable standards. Enforcement against an employee can be both by damages and by an injunction that prohibits the employee from engaging in conduct that violates a non-compete clause.
An employer also can be held liable for hiring an employee who violates a non-compete agreement with a previous employer. In some cases, employers can recover damages from both the former employees and their new employers who collaborate with them in the transgressions.
However, some states impose substantial restrictions on the enforceability of non-compete clauses. In California, for example, they may not be enforceable at all. In New York, their enforceability is quite limited.
Most non-compete agreements are entered into with little, if any, negotiation between the employer and the employee. They usually are signed at the outset of an employment relationship where the employee may have very little bargaining power and when the employee is generally not too concerned about limitations on future employability when beginning a new job.
But when an employee decides to leave a job, the non-compete agreement may be a significant impediment to future employment or may prevent employees from becoming self-employed.

Although the laws differ from state to state, general principles apply to non-compete contracts in most jurisdictions. Here are some considerations to keep in mind:
   Rule of Reasonableness: In order to be valid, a non-compete agreement must be reasonable. Courts recognize that employers have a legitimate interest in protecting the time, investment, and other resources they have invested in employees, but that interest must be balanced against an employee's job mobility in a free enterprise system. Courts generally will scrutinize non-compete agreements carefully to make sure that they are geared to protect the reasonable business interests of an employer without unduly limiting an employee's other work opportunities. Therefore, these arrangements must usually be tailored narrowly to restrict truly competitive activities without forbidding an employee from working in the same industry or profession in a way that is not competitive.
   Independent Consideration: In many states, a non-compete agreement is valid if entered into at any time after an employment relationship begins. But in some states, courts will not enforce non-compete agreements unless the employee gets what is termed "independent consideration" - in other words, if they get something in exchange for signing the agreement. If this principle applies in your state, a non-compete agreement will be valid only if it is signed at the time employment commences, or at a later date if the employer gives you some additional benefits such as increase in salary, promotion, or other items of value.
   Duration: In order to assure that these contracts are not too stifling, courts will generally require that they only last for a limited amount of time. The duration depends upon a number of circumstances, including how long it will take to train another employee to take over the position being vacated. Generally, non-compete agreements one or two years in length will be valid, and longer time periods may be suspect. Courts generally will permit longer non-compete periods in connection with a sale of a business when a new buyer insists that the old owner refrain from competing for a prescribed period of time. In these situations, courts reason that the parties should be permitted to negotiate whatever time frame they want since the exchange is less coercive than it is in an employer-employee relationship.
   Distance: In addition to duration, a non-compete agreement often must have reasonable geographic limits. In today's global economy, the distance factor is less significant than it has been in the past. But if an employer has a particular market area, courts may refuse to enforce non-compete agreements that extend beyond that. For instance, a cosmetology business that draws most of its customers from a radius of 10 or 15 miles probably couldn't limit a former employee from working in the cosmetology business outside of that market area.
   Blue Pencil Rule: Many courts follow the "blue pencil" rule, which means if an agreement is too restrictive, the courts can modify it and then enforce it. But in some states, the "blue pencil" rule is prohibited, and courts must either uphold non-compete agreements as drafted or invalidate them entirely.
   New Employer Liability: In many states, employers who lose an employee to a competitor in violation of a non-compete agreement can sue the new employer, as well as the old employee. In these states, employers are reluctant to hire away employees who have non-compete agreements. The best approach for employees in these states is to let their prospective new employer know about the non-compete so that the employer is not later "surprised" with a lawsuit by the old employer. The new employer may decide that the non-compete agreement is invalid, or may be willing to assist the employee, including payment of legal expenses, in the event of a lawsuit by the former employer.

An employer should keep these principles in mind when hiring employees - both in terms of looking out for agreements that employees may have signed at their old jobs and with regard to negotiating non-compete agreements for their new jobs. Such clauses can be a very effective way to protect valid business interests, but they should be drafted with the assistance of legal counsel in order to provide assurances that the language used will be enforceable.

Questions for Your Attorney

   Does an employer have the ability to force all of its employees to sign a non-compete agreement that lasts for life? What about 20 years?
   Even if an employee signs a non-compete agreement, can he still compete against the employer if he thought he was wrongfully fired?
   If I sign a non-compete contract, can I still work for a competitor if the new job is different than my old job?



and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.

My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.

Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.

I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans.. It sure does make a difference what the donor intended!

Moving on...

And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits. But He received donor assets voted by the board and there is nothing right about this.

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.

A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits. Maybe not directly but eventually as a house is being built on it while still taking assets when "volunteer work was claimed" but most evident that was a lie.

Which brings us to your last error/falsehood in your little scenario, and Gailon's riddle. He posted:

Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.

Now is that the actual truth and where is money transaction available?

That agreement also doesn't say what you claim it does..

It says:

The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.

So how did he pay Linda and pay for property too out of the $96,000 when it said that the sale was done for $1.00. Seems like a good deal for Gilly too. You need to expand more as you have started here and continue.

Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land. I agree he did not pay for the land

So let's recap. Danny paid Linda 150,000 for her part of their house making it all his.

Next the house is too big for him and he sells it to Jim Gilley.

Then he takes the money from that sale and builds the house he wants and adds what he wants to the land which was deeded to him as part of the non-compete agreement.

Real estate definition according to the legal dictionary:
     

real estate
n. land, improvements and buildings thereon, including attached items and growing things. It is virtually the same as "real property," except real property includes interests which are not physical such as a right to acquire the property in the future.

How does this work with your definition of  "The promise" according to the non complete employments that you suggest the meaning of??

Riddle over. No one is a false witness here, except you and Gailon. I know you could not possibly be deliberately or knowingly doing that, so you must have misunderstood, and made a mistake and that is why you were in error.

But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.

Because to not do so will be to continue bearing false witness, knowingly and deliberately, and I know God's people would NEVER do that, or continue to argue, justify and excuse that kind of thing.

So where do you stand, and what will you do, Bob? Who are you going to be? Board uses same tactics with funds and votes on things that should not have been done.


 

[Nosir Myzing]

For what it is worth: I am both amazed and appalled here. You are standing here looking naked and without excuse, Robert Pickle. You should be ashamed as even I, after reading all, am embarrassed for you. You appear to me to be seared to the core. A man who can not choose to do the right thing is no man as far as I am concerned.

May God have mercy on your soul.

[ex3abnemployee]

For what it is worth: I am both amazed and appalled here. You are standing here looking naked and without excuse, Robert Pickle. You should be ashamed as even I, after reading all, am embarrassed for you. You appear to me to be seared to the core. A man who can not choose to do the right thing is no man as far as I am concerned.

May God have mercy on your soul.

[Nosir Myzing]

Tinka posted:

"Not so fast here as still questions remain." " What right did the board have to give away $96,000 of donors money to individual assets?
"It sure does make a difference what the donor intended!"  "But He received donor assets voted by the board and there is nothing right about this." "Board uses same tactics with funds and votes on things that should not have been done."

3ABN is a Non profit organization. That means it is owned by none, and ran by a board of directors/trustees, ( who are elected) but they have to abide to the organizations by laws. They receive money from donors, yes, but the 3ABN organization also receive money from a variety of other sources such as sales of airtime, sales of books, DVDs, CDs , equipment, investments ect... . No one but the board of directors/trustees has any right to say where the money from the 3ABN organization goes, EXCEPT when it comes to the donors. Donors have the right to earmark, and say where their donated money goes according to law, or to stop donating and even file a complaint if they believe their wishes are not being followed. Donors can express their views but do not have the right to file a complaint about where other money is spent, or used, ( unless it is used illegally) but they do retain their right to no longer donate money if they disagree with the actions of the organizations board of Directors.

Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.

Now is that the actual truth and where is money transaction available?

GOOD QUESTION, Tinka!  But, is that really the truth???Ask Gailon Joy, for he it is he who said that and falsely claimed that without any proof. Follow through on these kind of questions as they always lead to the truth of a situation and help us learn.