Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....

It's a proven fact that Remnant paid Danny kickbacks for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. How so? Because Attorney Simpson admitted that payments were made by Remnant to Danny for those sales!

You have no credible evidence whatsoever that the IRS found nothing either criminally or civilly wrong with Remnant's kickback payments to Danny.

[Bob Pickle]

If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....

Sirmizer,

Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.

1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

[Murcielago]

So now there are some stalkers out there? Lol! Oh well, one would expect nothing less from these cult members. It's just standard mo for their ilk. The normal cult behaviors as seen in the Jonestown members and the followers if David Koresh.

[Johann]

Probably would not recognize themselves standing before the mirror of history

[Johann]

“Deception has endless variations, which Satan tailors to our natural bents.  Like a seasoned fisherman, he selects the lure that he knows is most likely to attract his intended prey-the one we are least likely to consider harmful.  He does not care what we believe, as long as we don’t believe the Truth.  The Truth is the only thing he cannot withstand; it causes his kingdom and his control to crumble.”

Nancy Leigh DeMoss

[Bob Pickle]

If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....

Sirmizer,

Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.

1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Yoo hoo! Surmizer!

Could you please answer the above two questions? Shouldn't be too hard since you are so certain that Remnant never paid Danny any kickbacks. Either you're going to have to deny that payments were made, or you're going to have to try to claim that Pacific Press wasn't the publisher, and thus that the payments were genuine, bona fide royalty payments. I'm eager to hear your explanation.

If you need to review what booklets we're talking about, Pacific Press has them listed here: http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch. Notice how the ISBN numbers (visible for each title when you click "details") contain 8163, a code that identifies Pacific Press as the publisher. And Remnant does NOT have the booklets listed here: http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton. Thus, nothing has changed in the last two years since Simpson tried to tell the court that Danny switched publishers for these booklets from Pacific Press to Remnant.

So the only possible explanation I see that you can make is to deny that any payments were made, and to assert that Simpson was just shooting the breeze when he told the court otherwise. But who's going to believe that?

[Bob Pickle]

If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....

Sirmizer,

Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.

1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Yoo hoo! Surmizer!

Could you please answer the above two questions? Shouldn't be too hard since you are so certain that Remnant never paid Danny any kickbacks. Either you're going to have to deny that payments were made, or you're going to have to try to claim that Pacific Press wasn't the publisher, and thus that the payments were genuine, bona fide royalty payments. I'm eager to hear your explanation.

If you need to review what booklets we're talking about, Pacific Press has them listed here: http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch. Notice how the ISBN numbers (visible for each title when you click "details") contain 8163, a code that identifies Pacific Press as the publisher. And Remnant does NOT have the booklets listed here: http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton. Thus, nothing has changed in the last two years since Simpson tried to tell the court that Danny switched publishers for these booklets from Pacific Press to Remnant.

So the only possible explanation I see that you can make is to deny that any payments were made, and to assert that Simpson was just shooting the breeze when he told the court otherwise. But who's going to believe that?

My, how time flies, Sirmizer.

Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?

[Nosir Myzing]

If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, ....

Sirmizer,

Why don't we take this nice and slow, point by point.

1. Do you agree that Attorney Simpson admitted that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

2. Do you agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Yoo hoo! Surmizer!

Could you please answer the above two questions? Shouldn't be too hard since you are so certain that Remnant never paid Danny any kickbacks. Either you're going to have to deny that payments were made, or you're going to have to try to claim that Pacific Press wasn't the publisher, and thus that the payments were genuine, bona fide royalty payments. I'm eager to hear your explanation.

If you need to review what booklets we're talking about, Pacific Press has them listed here: http://www.pacificpress.com/index.php?q=danny+shelton&pgName=splSearch. Notice how the ISBN numbers (visible for each title when you click "details") contain 8163, a code that identifies Pacific Press as the publisher. And Remnant does NOT have the booklets listed here: http://store.remnantpublications.com/store/Search.aspx?SearchTerms=danny%20shelton. Thus, nothing has changed in the last two years since Simpson tried to tell the court that Danny switched publishers for these booklets from Pacific Press to Remnant.

So the only possible explanation I see that you can make is to deny that any payments were made, and to assert that Simpson was just shooting the breeze when he told the court otherwise. But who's going to believe that?

My, how time flies, Sirmizer.

Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?

Please reread the following and let it sink in...

Sirmizer,

Let's start with the kickback issue.

It is a proven fact that 3ABN buys books from Pacific Press, but instead bought Danny's Pacific Press booklets from Remnant for a higher price when Remnant didn't even stock them. Simpson admitted that Danny got paid by Remnant for those sales.

On what basis are you claiming that such payments were not kickbacks?

After you have adequately explained this one, we can move on to other issues.

More dust in the wind... The IRS trumps you, Pickle. Deal with it.

Folks,  The IRS does not make statements vindicating those it investigates if nothing is found. Nor would they ever make a statement saying something illegal or in violation of U.S. codes and statutes was ok. Pickle knows this, and that what he is asking for is impossible here.

On the other hand,when the IRS do find something wrong or criminal. They do publish and make known all indictments and charges as a PUBLIC Deterrent. For that same reason they also make known sentencing and fines when those who are indicted go on to be found guilty.  If there was a kick back scheme as Pickle alleges, it would have resulted in a tax evasion charge at the least... He is 100% wrong here, he has no indictment,as the IRS found nothing, he has no proof of amended returns as none were needed or filed. Again, because the IRS found NOTHING wrong. He has no public announcements or news releases or court filings from the IRS or the courts backing anything he is continuing to claim here. The IRS investigated far more thoroughly than Pickle, Joy and their sources ever did, had access to far more documents, and they found NOTHING wrong or needing corrected. It's been over for quite awhile despite the false accusations still going on here. The very fact that none of these things have occurred and that none of these things were filed and all of the copies of the documents they made for their investigation were returned or destroyed IS the proof that the IRS Investigation is over and that the investigation vindicated 3ABN.

I am quite sure Pickle is going to continue arguing and insisting he is right, but I am not going to bother arguing back anymore about this. Imo it's a waste of time,  just plain ridiculous, arrogant, and downright pathetic the way he and Joy are still carrying on in their denial and refusal to face reality with their repeated false accusations.

L8trs...

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

Sir Mizer has "Dust in the Eyes" and is obviously blind...

BUT, Sir Mizer, that stipulation to vacate the confidentiality order is very easy to put together and we will be happy to post all that documentation for the Laodiceans with eyesalve that can read the facts for themselves...what's the matter, SIR Mizer, AFRAID OF THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH???

Just get that that stip and let's put those documents where your mouth has been for all these years!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter - A Tea Party Adventist

[Bob Pickle]

My, how time flies, Sirmizer.

Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?

Sirmizer,

Your reply to the above questions is unintelligible.

First off, which question were you replying to? No one who reads your reply can figure out what you were really saying.

Were you conceding the point that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Or were you denying that any such payments had occurred, even though Attorney Greg Simpson admitted that such payments had occurred?

Or were you only denying that such payments were kickbacks? And if that is the only thing you were denying, what would you call those payments, then?

[Nosir Myzing]

My, how time flies, Sirmizer.

Shall we conclude from your silence that you have conceded the point, and agree that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Shall we also conclude that you agree that these payments were in fact kickbacks?

[NO!!!, Pickle has zero reason to conclude that, other than that he assumes that those who choose not to participate in childish or illogical or un-meritorious or unsupported and repetitious arguments are conceding to him. How arrogant is that? In my bnook, that is exceedingly arrogant...]

Sirmizer,

Your reply to the above questions is unintelligible.

First off, which question were you replying to? No one who reads your reply can figure out what you were really saying.

Were you conceding the point that Remnant paid Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets?

Or were you denying that any such payments had occurred, even though Attorney Greg Simpson admitted that such payments had occurred?

Or were you only denying that such payments were kickbacks? And if that is the only thing you were denying, what would you call those payments, then?

Folks,

This man, along with GAJ  keeps insisting on calling me "sirmizer" or "surmizer" when that is not my login name here. My login and registered name is: " Nosir Myzing." I chose that name as a reminder to all, including myself... Doesn't common courtesy, even apart from the rules here, dictate he should address me by the name I registered with? I would think so, especially as he objected to being called Robert Pickle ( his legal name, and one that court documents identified, along with his acknowlegment about that) and as he insisted that his other login name "SDAminister" contain caps... In light of this, and his objections to beinf misnamed, I  consider his deliberate misnaming of me, rude, and a violation of the golden rule and of  his own standardswhich he uses to find fault with others and demands apologies for.

But moving on...

As I previously posted: When you start with a false premise , Pickle? Your logic always falls apart.

Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...

I previously posted:

 

"You made all these accusations before the lawsuit, Pickle. You should have had proof or said nothing then. Since then the IRS investigated all of your complaints, and found nothing... NOTHING. You can't prove what others far more qualified then you and your fellow accusers could not. The IRS was allowed to go back as far as they liked if they had reason to, but didn't go back even as far as all your alleged crimes indicated they should have for they had no reason to. Your continued claims about the house agreement etc and saying well they never investigated back that far are STUPID. If your reported accusations had any merit or could hold water or were even questionable they would have and could have gone back that far, and further."

Anyway "truth posted the following elsewhere and I consider it pertinent and relevant, but understand you all may not... Despite that, we consider the readers and those not involved but looking for answers as more important than those here (who may be biased and partial, and are considered as such by us) so this is quoted for them, and we hope it is allowed and the right of others to consider all trumps what those here decide to delete as "inappropriate"...

Re: Squelching Rumors
 Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:10 am UTC

Hello Robert Pickle;

Do you know the difference between "kickbacks" and "royalties" ?

Here's are defintions to show the difference:

Kickbacks: an illegal, secret payment made in return for a referral which resulted in a transaction or contract.
http://www.investorwords.com/2695/kickback.html

Royalties: A royalty is a percentage of gross or net profit or a fixed amount per sale to which a creator of a work is entitled which is agreed upon in a contract between the creator and the manufacturer, publisher, agent and/or distributor.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/royalties/

Danny Shelton received a set royalty payment from the sale of his books. And why not--most people get paid for their work. This was an agreed upon contract with Remnant Publishing.

     

Re: Squelching Rumors

 Wed Aug 10, 2011 5:35 pm UTC
So what happens in a IRS criminal investigation? Please read below:

What Happens In IRS Criminal Prosecutions
You'll know you have IRS issues if you open your door and the person identifies himself as a special agent from the Criminal Investigation Division or CID. Special Enforcement and General Enforcement are 2 arms of the IRS police department. Special Enforcement investigates organized crime, drugs, and unions. General Enforcement gets common taxpayers and others.

You do not really have to be the one under investigation to be contacted by the CID. It could be anybody you know. Do not lie and be careful with dealing with the CID as 80% of all crimes are prosecuted through their thorough investigation and you may unwittingly lead them back to you.

If you are the person being investigated, do not answer any queries from the CID. Contact your lawyer right away as soon as they are gone. Don't seek information about the investigation from the IRS. Let your lawyer contact them.

If the CID can prove your guilt without a doubt, you can be prosecuted. Otherwise, you may get away with civil penalties.

You would be investigated because you:

filed a false tax return.
failed to file a tax return.
evaded taxes.
If the CID recommends prosecution, an assistant U.S. Attorney General from the Justice Department will review and take your case. If the IRS seeks a federal grand jury indictment against you, you'll be formally charged and ordered to go before a federal judge or be arrested. You can plea not guilty or guilty, and possibly be released on your own recognizance or post bail.

The case will go to trial when you plead not guilty. It might be with a judge or a full jury. The IRS must give evidence that you are guilty of the crimes as charged, beyond a reasonable doubt. You will be incarcerated in a federal prison if convicted of a tax crime. If you end up reaching a plea bargain you'll probably just be fined and/or put on probation, given home confinement, or ordered to stay in a halfway house. Prosecution costs will have to be paid by you. The average time you will serve for a tax crime is 2 years.

Link: http://getirshelp.com/what-happens-in-i ... utions.htm

So people--did Danny Shelton go to trial? no. Did the IRS find anything in which to charge 3ABN with? No. Was DS or 3ABN put in a federal prison? No--you're still seeing him on TV. Was a plea deal reached? No. Were they fined? no. Civil penalties? No. Was he given home confinement or ordered to stay in a halfway house? NO NO NO!!!

What part of NO do some not understand?



...later taters....

[Alex L. Walker]

Sirmizer: Answer my question's. Geesh.

Btw, it's not a very good reminder than. Especially to yourself, Sirmizer. 

[Nosir Myzing]

Sirmizer: Answer my question's. Geesh.

Btw, it's not a very good reminder than. Especially to yourself, Sirmizer. 

My login name is Nosir myzing in case you didn't catch it, Alex, and I am not sure why or how posting "geesh" is necessary???

BUT---
What questions, Alex?  I am sorry, I was not aware you were specifically posting to me or specifically asking me anything.?..?..?...

[Bob Pickle]

I chose that name as a reminder to all, including myself...

If you were not repeatedly surmizing in contradiction to your user name, I would not call you Sirmizer.

... and as he insisted that his other login name "SDAminister" contain caps...

A case in point. Aren't you surmizing when you falsely accuse me of having the username "SDAminister"?

Pickle insists on calling remnant's payments to DS "kickbacks",{ a false premise} but the IRS who had his and others accusations and had all the documents and evidence in their investigation, did not, and does not consider the royalty payments as kickbacks...

Now why couldn't you have simply and succinctly admitted earlier that Remnant did pay Danny for sales to 3ABN of his Pacific Press booklets? You earlier tried to make people think it was all lies, but now you admit that the payments really did occur.

By the way, no one has produced a scrap of evidence that the IRS does not consider those payments to be kickbacks.

Re: Squelching Rumors
 Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:10 am UTC

Hello Robert Pickle;

Do you know the difference between "kickbacks" and "royalties" ?

Here's are defintions to show the difference:

Kickbacks: an illegal, secret payment made in return for a referral which resulted in a transaction or contract.
http://www.investorwords.com/2695/kickback.html

Royalties: A royalty is a percentage of gross or net profit or a fixed amount per sale to which a creator of a work is entitled which is agreed upon in a contract between the creator and the manufacturer, publisher, agent and/or distributor.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/royalties/

Danny Shelton received a set royalty payment from the sale of his books. And why not--most people get paid for their work. This was an agreed upon contract with Remnant Publishing.

     
So you are saying that there is a contract by which Remnant agreed to pay Danny kickbacks on those sales? I'd like to see that. I highly doubt they would have committed that to writing. It would be too incriminating.

What you're ignoring is that Pacific Press, not Remnant, was the one paying royalties to Danny since Pacific Press, not Remnant, was the publisher of those titles. You can't even call Remnant the distributor, since Remnant didn't even stock them and had to have them drop shipped from Pacific Press.

So on what basis are you calling those payments royalties instead of kickbacks? That's the all important question you have yet to answer ... if you can.

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

1) Your "log-in name" is a misnomer and a log-in...your well established identity is as a "sirmizer" and we give you the courtesy of a title "Sir Mizer"...to fit the true character.

2) If the payments to DLS were not "kick-backs" from Remnant's venerable former "special forces" turned "ranger" leadership, and were fully disclosed to the officers and directors of 3ABN, could you explain the failure to disclose these deals in the 990's of either entity?

3) And can you explain the failure to disclose these "royalties" on the Financial "Affidavit" in the divorce case just shortly after having received a major distribution from the non-Remnant publisher?

Your surmizing response is highly anticipated with "BAITED BREATH" and perhaps a little documentation???

Gailon Arthur Joy
AUReporter