Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch11.html#en_US_2010_publink1000209182

Kickbacks.   A kickback is a payment for referring a client, patient, or customer. The common kickback situation occurs when money or property is given to someone as payment for influencing a third party to purchase from, use the services of, or otherwise deal with the person who pays the kickback. In many cases, the person whose business is being sought or enjoyed by the person who pays the kickback is not aware of the payment.

  For example, the Yard Corporation is in the business of repairing ships. It engages in the practice of returning 10% of the repair bills as kickbacks to the captains and chief officers of the vessels it repairs. Although this practice is considered an ordinary and necessary expense of getting business, it is clearly a violation of a state law that is generally enforced. These expenditures are not deductible for tax purposes, whether or not the owners of the shipyard are subsequently prosecuted.

I think we laid out a case from Danny's tax returns that Remnant's kickback payments could have been somewhere between 27.5% and 32% of the total price 3ABN paid, roughly three times what the IRS gave in the example above.

Notice that the IRS's example explicitly states that it matters not whether the kickbacks result in prosecution.

[Johann]

fromNosir Myzing on August 06, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
 The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in  his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.

It seems like you do keep a good record of certain things. Did you also keep a record of the phone call a certain lawyer made to apologize he had made a false accusation of pornography that he could not prove?

No answer yet? If the lawyer could not prove that account of pornography, how can you do it? Or are you just shooting accusations out into the air, hoping some people believe your statements?

[Bob Pickle]

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.

So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?

You admit that there were payments.

You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.

I think the only possible conclusion, given your inability to provide the evidence to the contrary thus far, is that these payments were indeed kickbacks.

Do you agree?

[Nosir Myzing]

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

You have enough documentation yourself to figure out that any royalties paid AFTER THE DIVORCE WAS FILED FOR DID NOT APPLY TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS, OR NEED TO BE REPORTED, OR DIVIDED AFTER THAT DATE.

You also have enough documentation and laws and regulations to know that royalties are legal and need to be reported to the IRS on a personal tax return, but do not have to be reported by the employer.

I acknowledge that you also may have a reason to suspect kickbacks occurred, but in light of all of what you knew being reported to the IRS, and the subsequent IRS INVESTIGATION, and them not coming to your same conclusions, as is demonstrated by no indictment, and no amended filings after that occurred? Well, you really imo,knowing that they are far more qualified than yourselves, and knowing that they had far more access to all pertinent documents than yourselves?  Need to accept that and move on...

IMO, you not doing so, is just evidence that you are acting in arrogance, not facing facts, and just want to believe evil of D.S. and 3ABN without cause. Due to that, I feel no need to argue with you, Joy, nor do I feel the need to provide further evidence for it is apparent if you do not accpet the IRS's finding that you will accept nothing which does not support your own perspective from any other including mine.

[Nosir Myzing]

fromNosir Myzing on August 06, 2011, 08:44:29 PM
 The same man who freely and unabashedly posts profanity in public posts and posts pictures of juveniles flipping folks off, all in  his own real name, along with being a child pornography addict unable to have visitation with his own children alone according to court documents. Yes, I have photo copied all, or can prove all as is necessary, because this is all God's truth, can you document the lies he's told you? NO. Pickle can only say " I heard", or "it was reported" or "a source said" and make twisted distorted arguments trying to support those false allegations.

It seems like you do keep a good record of certain things. Did you also keep a record of the phone call a certain lawyer made to apologize he had made a false accusation of pornography that he could not prove?

No answer yet? If the lawyer could not prove that account of pornography, how can you do it? Or are you just shooting accusations out into the air, hoping some people believe your statements?

I said nothing about pornography except for him being a child pornography addict, check with his employers (past and present) his ex wife and former church. (it's all documented ) I do not know about any phone calls made about that so have nothing to contribute here and no need to prove anything in regards to that, Nor do I really have any idea what you are talking about or understand what it has to do with this topic...

[Nosir Myzing]

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p535/ch11.html#en_US_2010_publink1000209182

Kickbacks.   A kickback is a payment for referring a client, patient, or customer. The common kickback situation occurs when money or property is given to someone as payment for influencing a third party to purchase from, use the services of, or otherwise deal with the person who pays the kickback. In many cases, the person whose business is being sought or enjoyed by the person who pays the kickback is not aware of the payment.

  For example, the Yard Corporation is in the business of repairing ships. It engages in the practice of returning 10% of the repair bills as kickbacks to the captains and chief officers of the vessels it repairs. Although this practice is considered an ordinary and necessary expense of getting business, it is clearly a violation of a state law that is generally enforced. These expenditures are not deductible for tax purposes, whether or not the owners of the shipyard are subsequently prosecuted.

I think we laid out a case from Danny's tax returns that Remnant's kickback payments could have been somewhere between 27.5% and 32% of the total price 3ABN paid, roughly three times what the IRS gave in the example above.

Notice that the IRS's example explicitly states that it matters not whether the kickbacks result in prosecution.

NOTE: that is talking about a tax deduction, Pickle. Kickbacks are NOT tax deductable,. That is all that that means...

It does not mean that the IRS criminal investigation may have discovered that Danny was getting kickbacks and may not have indicted him or prosecuted him after finding that That really is not realistic. They don't do that. Reality is that they found NOTHING wrong, and found NOTHING needing corrected, Pickle.

That is why there was no indictment, and no corrected returns and forms filed after their investigation. The IRS investigation concluded with zero negative findings and WE KNOW THAT because they asked 3ABN whether the copies of all the files they took should be returned or destroyed as they didn't need them anymore, and zero amended or corrected returns were filed and zero indictments occurred.

To reiterate. It's been years, Pickle. Move on...

[Nosir Myzing]

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.

So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?

NO.

You admit that there were payments.

You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.

I have contended nothing of the sort. I don't need to answer you within any time limits. Check my posts and what I did and did not say, and then DON'T put words in my mouth which I didn't say.

I think the only possible conclusion, given your inability to provide the evidence to the contrary thus far, is that these payments were indeed kickbacks.

Do you agree?

NO. ALSO: The IRS would never say "there were not kickbacks" but I know that if they found someone engaging in receiving kickbacks or paying them during a criminal investigation, they would not excuse them.  They wouldn't, the IRS would indict as "kickbacks" are against even state law, but they never have indicted 3ABN, Pickle... It's been years now...

I saw where you posted this:"Notice that the IRS's example explicitly states that it matters not whether the kickbacks result in prosecution. " and failed to acknowledge they were saying that in regard to the fact that kickbacks were not tax deductible regardless of if prosecuted or not. That isn't the issue. They never said they would condone kickbacks in an investigation whether they are prosecuted or not. In fact, they won't.

I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks but The IRS trumps you, and I will expand that to say that their investigation was far more thorough than yours. It is not possible for you to be able to find fault, imo, when they did not with far more experienced investigations techniques and documentation.

AGAIN, "DEAL WITH IT". And stop bothering me and jumping to false conclusions about what I have said, when I didn't say that. That is lying, Robert Pickle, and I don't like that. Nor does The Lord.

I AM DONE ANSWERING ABOUT THIS, and will not cast pearls, so stop posting to me about this, and pretending i am wrong, or am admitting to what you say by not answering you please. It doesn't wash.

I am glad/thankful that The Lord knows what is really going on here...

[Bob Pickle]

You have enough documentation yourself to figure out that any royalties paid AFTER THE DIVORCE WAS FILED FOR DID NOT APPLY TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS, OR NEED TO BE REPORTED, OR DIVIDED AFTER THAT DATE.

Danny reported his income from 3ABN on that affidavit as if it was what he expected to get that very year. Your reasoning suggests that he should have reported his income as it was prior to 2004. In 2004 he was paid $59,294. In 2006 he was paid $72,802. On the financial affidavit he reported his monthly income as being $5,991.

You also have enough documentation and laws and regulations to know that royalties are legal and need to be reported to the IRS on a personal tax return, but do not have to be reported by the employer.

I forget which year it was, but the rules one year required 3ABN to report that Danny got income from DLS or D&L.

I acknowledge that you also may have a reason to suspect kickbacks occurred, but in light of all of what you knew being reported to the IRS, and the subsequent IRS INVESTIGATION, and them not coming to your same conclusions, ...

"Suspect" is the wrong word, and perhaps dishonest at that. Please use "know" in the future.

Remember, you have yet to produce any statement from the IRS saying that the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. So I think you should just drop it and move on.

[Bob Pickle]

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.

So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?

NO.

But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.

But that is your choice.

You admit that there were payments.

You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.

I have contended nothing of the sort.

Oh yes you did:

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 will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....

No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.

How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.

By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise.

By the way, the booklets identify 3ABN as a co-publisher. Kind of interesting, isn't it? If 3ABN was the co-publisher, why wasn't 3ABN getting their copies straight from Pacific Press instead of from Remnant which didn't stock them, for a higher price than what ABC's or anyone else could buy them for?

I know it was for a higher price because I got price info from Pacific Press, in writing. But I never could get price info for large enough quantities. But the prices for quantities I did get info for were lower than what 3ABN paid.

And the higher price is what funded those kickbacks, pure and simple. You can pretend all you want that it isn't so, but that doesn't change the facts.

[Bob Pickle]

NOTE: that is talking about a tax deduction, Pickle. Kickbacks are NOT tax deductable,. That is all that that means...

I didn't give that quote to show anything about tax deductibility. I showed it only to show what the IRS's definition of kickbacks are.

But whether Remnant could report the kickbacks they paid Danny as expenses or not, that is an interesting question.

[Artiste]

Really good comebacks, Bob!

I think you make a formidable legal opponent.

[Bob Pickle]

You have enough documentation yourself to figure out that any royalties paid AFTER THE DIVORCE WAS FILED FOR DID NOT APPLY TO THE DIVISION OF MARITAL ASSETS, OR NEED TO BE REPORTED, OR DIVIDED AFTER THAT DATE.

Danny reported his income from 3ABN on that affidavit as if it was what he expected to get that very year. Your reasoning suggests that he should have reported his income as it was prior to 2004. In 2004 he was paid $59,294. In 2006 he was paid $72,802. On the financial affidavit he reported his monthly income as being $5,991.

$5,991 * 12 = $71,892.

2003 pay from 3ABN =  $53,695.
2004 pay from 3ABN =  $59,294.
2005 pay from 3ABN =  $70,944.
2006 pay from 3ABN =  $72,802.

$70,944 + $72,802 =  $143,746.

$143,746 / 2 = $71,873.

$71,873 / 12 = $5,989.42.

Looks like Danny reported his income for the previous 12 months on his July 2006 financial affidavit, doesn't it? (Of course, what he reported would not likely include anything he bought and got reimbursed for by 3ABN, but for which he didn't turn in receipts.) But look through his financial affidavit, and you won't find any hint of the hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickback and royalty income he earned over that same time period. Not one hint.

Assuming he's reporting 2004 income, which he apparently wasn't, there's no hint of the royalty income he received in 2004 from Pacific Press, or the profits he made via D & L Publishing. 3ABN reported buying $44,724.38 worth of books from DLS in 2004, and $35,000 from D & L. Certainly royalty payments coming to him via D & L should have been reported under "Other income," but it isn't there.

[Nosir Myzing]

But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.

But that is your choice.

Pickle is a sad man... I do NOT need to prove his assumptions and contentions are false. He does not become correct simply because others fail to answer him or choose not to. He needs to prove what he says. He needs to provide the evidence to support his contentions and his assumptions and explain how he came to his faulty conclusions-- particularly since this was all reported to the IRS and they investigated all and DID NOT arrive at the same conclusions he did.

Again, IF Pickle was correct, which he obviously is NOT. The IRS criminal investigation of D.S. and 3ABN would have at least resulted in an ammended return and form 990's and at most a indictment. Neither have occured and it's been years... He asks me to provide evidence of an exoneration by the IRS, which we all know they don't do. What they do is provide documentation of errors and crimes, Pickle does not provide that, because there is none. It is bordering on insane imo for him to keep insisting that his accusations have merit or are valid lacking this. But, you know what? You are all free to decide as you will...

[Nosir Myzing]

My opinion? Pickleis making confusing arguments here,as per usual,  although they don't confuse me.. but I don't wish for others to be confused...

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.

So Sirmizer, shall we conclude that Remnant's payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN were kickbacks?

NO.

But you still haven't explained to us how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks. And if you can't do that soon, we're going to have to conclude that they really are kickbacks. You will simply lose on this point by default.

But that is your choice.

You admit that there were payments.

You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.

I have contended nothing of the sort.

Oh yes you did:

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...

Fact: Pickle is WRONG, he is quoting another.. As I said before to him:"I have contended nothing of the sort. I don't need to answer you within any time limits. Check my posts and what I did and did not say, and then DON'T put words in my mouth which I didn't say.

I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....

No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.

STOP putting words in my mouth and attributing things to me that I did not say, nor do I think! I didn't say that, nor do I presume that. Claiming that is arrogant, Pickle!

How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.

By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise....

Fact: Simpson NEVER said there were payments to Danny "for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN". I defy you to prove that with a direct quote!  Nor did I or ANY other say that! Simpson only spoke of Remnant's payments to DS being perfectly legit, and as audited by outside auditors which were hired and employed to keep 3ABN correct, legal and all above board,  that was true.. Fact: Simpson NEVER named the books or pamphlets. Pickle ASSUMED, and applied what was said  about "booklets, pamphlets etc to whichever book or books or pamphets he chose to as fitting his faultifinding and conclusions,, but provides and has no legit reason to do so other than it suits his thoughts and accusations. (All erronious imo) He also fails to explain his logic or reasoning for doing so but expects readers to jump from A to P as he does without providing an adequate and logical reason or logic for doing so.  And.. as we all know also know ALL of this was also investigated by the IRS, after Pickle , Fran and co.. reported their suspicions and accusations to them. The result being the IRS was concerned, did find reason and cause to investigate but  DID NOT find fault or guilt or error in regards to D.S. and 3ABN.

Their investigation concluded several years ago without amended returns resulting in payments or adjustments, and without any indictments for criminal or illegal activities etc... but Pickle and Joy continue... IMO without excuse.


Pacific Press published DS's pamphlets and Remnant later stored and distributed them. That's documented, as Pickle and Joy recieved and published that, No argument here. Did the copy rights to that change? Were payments made to DS for them? Well Pickle provides no proof of that, although he contends that occured....

Remnant DID have the copyright to DS and SQ's book and the abridged addition and so did pay royalties to both... although Pickle applies all to DS and ignores SQ.... ( Really as co-authors they are entitled to royalties, and both need to claim them, their employer does not.

The problem here as far as I am concerned is that Pickle does NOT identify what the royalties for those books are , nor does he distinguish the difference between them and Danny's other pamphlets are. Or what Remnant was paying DS for, or even what he was paid. Pickle, really, just assumes alot, and then concludes others should agree with his logic, or prove his illogical assumptions wrong or that proves he is right....

That is not my job.

It is obvious, or should be, to reasonable folk, that the IRS has not and did not come to Pickle's conclusions.

As far as I am concerned, Pickle now has a greater burden of proof

To be brief? I for one am tired of his ****** ********, and he can continue to spin and argue till the Lord returns, but it will not justify him! MY OPINION!

I'm done with all of this topic and his arguments, no matter how many times he says me not answering proves him right.

IMO that is arrogance on his part, and for my part I have better things to do.

May God be with you all and help you find and receive all that you ask for , and more, and may you all recognize it when you recieve and find that... and acknowledge it, and thank Him or take responsibility and be accountable...

Adios Amigos...




MODERATOR HAT ON

Kindly do not include objectionable scatological terms with the rest of your supposedly Christian comments.

MODERATOR HAT OFF

[Bob Pickle]

Your refusal, Surmizer, to engage in a meaningful, rational discussion is rather wearisome.

Rather than simply explain how the kickbacks weren't kickbacks, you resort to mere assertions without any evidence regarding alleged IRS vindication, seemingly unaware that the kickback issue itself proves that there was no IRS vindication.

You admit that there were payments.

You have contended that those payments were royalties instead of kickbacks, but you have not explained how that can be so, despite having 5 days now to do so. You have not produced any contracts between Remnant and Danny for these booklets. You have not explained how Remnant was a distributor for these booklets when Remnant didn't stock them or offer them for sale on their website.

I have contended nothing of the sort.

Oh yes you did:

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...

Fact: Pickle is WRONG, he is quoting another..

I quoted you. Go read your post again. If you didn't write that, you represented that you did in the way that you posted.

I will repeat what I said before, Pickle. You presume there were kickbacks ....

No I don't presume. I know there were kickbacks. And so do you.

STOP putting words in my mouth and attributing things to me that I did not say, nor do I think! That's arrogant, Pickle!

If you don't think the kickbacks were kickbacks, then explain why you think they weren't. But leave the IRS out of it. Explain it from an accounting and publishing standpoint only.

How so? Simpson admitted there were payments to Danny for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN. You admit that such payments were made.

By definition, those payments were kickbacks. There's no way around it other than to pretend that Pacific Press didn't publish them. But the booklets themselves say otherwise....

Fact: Simpson NEVER said there were payments to Danny "for sales of Danny's Pacific Press booklets to 3ABN". I defy you to prove that with a direct quote!

Speaking specifically about Danny's Pacific Press booklets, since those were the specific booklets to which our use of the term "kickback" applied, Simpson stated:

While resisting the temptation to publish the documents themselves, Defendants describe the confidential documents in pleadings available to the public, for example referring to perfectly proper royalty payments to Shelton from Remnant Publications for the sale of books he authored as “kickbacks and/or royalties.”

(http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-174.pdf#page=4). And:

Their "evidence," however, is not evidence as much as a web of guesswork and speculation that begins and ends with the assumption that the payments were kickbacks. The reason they must be kickbacks, say the Defendants, is that the booklets for which royalties were paid were at one time published by a different publisher at a lower cost. Defendants say "the only logical reason for such an arrangement is that it was a kickback scheme." In other words, Defendants' logic goes, moving to a higher cost publisher is proof of a kickback scheme because they can't think of any other reason for it.

(http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-188.pdf#page=5). So you are going to try to deny that Simpson was referring to the Pacific Press booklets?

Nor did I or ANY other say that!

Sure you did. Short memory?

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 what does your comment above refer to? It can only refer to one thing: the payments by Remnant to Danny for sales to 3ABN of Danny's Pacific Press booklets. It can only refer to that since that is what we are referring to when we speak of kickbacks.

Pacific Press published DS's pamphlets and Remnant later stored and distributed them.

Because of your asserted knowledge about this issue, you have condemned yourself as a bald faced liar. Remnant DIDN'T STOCK THEM. They had Pacific Press drop ship them for that reason.

Were payments made to DS for them? Well Pickle provides no proof of that, although he contends that occured....

I'll provide all the proof anyone could ever wish for, provided that you obtain a release from Danny and 3ABN permitting me to do so, since they, improperly in my opinion, designated the proof as confidential since COVER UP is what they like doing.

Remnant DID have the copyright to DS and SQ's book and the abridged addition and so did pay royalties to both... although Pickle applies all to DS and ignores SQ.... ( Really as co-authors they are entitled to royalties, and both need to claim them, their employer does not.

Where's your evidence that Remnant ever paid Shelley for her part of the book? And why are you trying to hide the fact that Danny and Shelley held the copyright? And where did you come up with the idea that Remnant ever held the copyright on the original book?

The problem here as far as I am concerned is that Pickle does NOT identify what the royalties for those books are , nor does he distinguish the difference between them and Danny's other pamphlets are. Or what Remnant was paying DS for, or even what he was paid. Pickle, really, just assumes alot, and then concludes others should agree with his logic, or prove his illogical assumptions wrong or that proves he is right....

Get the release and I will publish the specifics. And if they don't want to give the release, then we can come to the same conclusions using publicly available documents, and documents not falling under any proper or improper use of the confidentiality order.