One of the most vitriolic Danny defenders writes as follows:
Over on [not]at, Gailon says
It will require the participation of a lot of players contributing to any serious settlement negotiation just as it did for the IRS case.
Those bolded words describe Gailon as one bold liar. Just like his pack of liars have been demanding proof, how about if Gailon can produce even one shred of evidence of what he means by "just as it did for the IRS case"
The IRS came, took huge amounts of documents, and in the end, found nothing. There was no settlement. Does Gailon seriously think that his repeating a lie again and again will somehow make it true?
I'm calling on that convicted embezzler to show some evidence - but he cannot, because all he can flap is his big mouth - nothing else. He must really be burned up that he somehow can't bring down 3ABN, despite his best efforts. But what he has shown is the unsavory pack of characters he associates with in his quest to shut down God's work.
A pack that includes : [BP: I think it the better part of wisdom to omit this part of Steffan's rant.]
In the end, that pack of demon-led jackals will get their just desserts - from God.
I'm calling on Steffan to show some evidence - but he cannot. First of all, Walt Thompson testified under oath that the IRS would not provide any evidence to support Thompson's mere assertions that some unnamed lawyer told someone that the IRS had concluded its investigation. So there isn't any such evidence.
Despite that fact, Simpson told the court that the IRS vindication tale was "demonstrably accurate." Simpson's assertion has essentially been proven false by Simpson's total failure to demonstrate the accuracy of Thompson's mere assertions with any evidence whatsoever, despite having over 2 1/2 years to do so.
Recall also that Danny and 3ABN in the summer of 2008 opposed our efforts to subpoena evidence that would have substantiated their IRS vindication assertions. If it really happened, why give donations to 3ABN to lawyers in order to pay those lawyers to oppose our efforts to substantiate their assertions of IRS vindication?
Since Simpson personally admitted to me Sometime between June and October 2008 that the IRS never looked at the 1998 real estate deal, because that criminal investigation wouldn't have gone back that far, the IRS never vindicated Danny and 3ABN.
More recently, last month, Simpson admitted or asserted in his appellees' brief that the IRS determined that there was no criminal liability, which means that there still could have been civil liability. Thus, once again, Simpson essentially admitted that Thompson's IRS vindication tale was a farce.
Our sources indicate that the IRS got paid an awful lot of money, not that the IRS completely vindicated Danny and 3ABN. Given Thompson's, Danny's, and Simpson's lack of hesitancy to fib and prevaricate, I fail to see why our sources would be less trustworthy than these three.
P.S. Is Steffan trying to take down 3ABN by spouting off such hateful, spiteful, vitriol?