Print

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

[Bob Pickle]

Bob raises questions which may be validly asked. to how "supportative" they are of 3-ABN, that could probably be questioned.  But, obviously that consider it appropriate to maintain relations and to participate on some levels in 3-ABN activities.  Bob raises a valid question when he asks essentally:  Why 3-ABN when others were not supported inthe past?  I will suggest that there is a 2-part response to tha.

1) In the past, many (not all) were openly calling the SDA denomination apostate.  3-ABN has not done that.

I wasn't talking about those kind of ministries. I was talking about supporting ministries. There have been lots of times when some leaders have been less than supportive of supporting ministries.

2) Bob asks:

Here we have the cover up of child molestation allegations, private inurement, kickbacks, retaliatory lawsuits, whistleblower terminations, and the like. What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?

The reality is:  As much as Bob and others would like to believe that the above has been conclusively proven,  Much of the above has not been conclusively proven and is considered to be overstateI am aware that I will probably be challenged for saying such.  So be it.

Which item in the above list do you believe has not been conclusively proven?

[Artiste]

Here we have the cover up of child molestation allegations, private inurement, kickbacks, retaliatory lawsuits, whistleblower terminations, and the like. What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?

The reality is:  As much as Bob and others would like to believe that the above has been conclusively proven,  Much of the above has not been conclusively proven and is considered to be overstateI am aware that I will probably be challenged for saying such.  So be it.

Hogwash, Gregory.

We have proof for all of the above.

Interesting to see which side you are effectively defending.

[Artiste]

What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?

The difference with 3ABN is that it provides a national/international media platform for church leaders to use for their benefit.

Many of them seem to enjoy appearing on TV.

[Gregory]

Well, I expected to get some comments on my statement.   

Who am I defending?  No one.  To say that someting is overstated is not to say that nothing happlened..

My thinking: Some of what has been charged has happened.  Some of what has been stated has been overstated but is based upon some truth.  Some charges are simply false.

To further challenge:  I believe that some of 3-ABNs harshest critics have actually been of benefit to 3-ABN.  [NOTE: That is not defending 3-ABN.]  I will give you an example.  In my opinion, the extensive, public, discussion as to who might be a parent of a young child, served, in my opinion, to generate sympathy and support for 3-ABN.   Just one example of my thinking.

Another example, in my opinion:  The charges against 3-ABN that led to an IRS investigation.  I clearly beleive that charges were made in this that were overstated and were not substantied by the IRS investigation.  Does that    mean that there was no basis for the charges?  No.  Does it mean that there was nothing to them?  No.  It simply means, in my opinion that charges were overstated.

Just  my thinking.

 

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory, you didn't answer my question.

Here we have the cover up of child molestation allegations, private inurement, kickbacks, retaliatory lawsuits, whistleblower terminations, and the like. What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?

I asked you, "Which item in the above list do you believe has not been conclusively proven?"

You mention "The charges against 3-ABN that led to an IRS investigation." If there wasn't substantial truth to the problems, why was the IRS paid over $1 million dollars? According to our sources, they were paid over $1 million.

And remember that Simpson admitted to me that the IRS did not investigate the 1998 house deal. Plus, there is no possible way that the IRS could have approved of Danny's kickback scheme. Even Simpson admitted that Remnant did in fact make payments to Danny for the PPPA booklets that 3ABN bought from Remnant.

[Gregory]

Bob, my statement used the term "overstated."    It did not say that there was nothing there.  You may disagree with me, and that is fine.  But, as I recall the discussion, in my opinion, the clharges were overstated.  If it is accurate that 3-ABN paid more than $1,000,000 in payments to the IRS, tha only points out that there was someting to the charges that were made.  However, in my mind, such a payment would not negate my statement that the charges made in the public discussion were overstated.  Dlisagree with me, and I will understand.  I am not attempting to convince you.

[Bob Pickle]

Gregory,

You're still not answering my original question. You stated:

2) Bob asks:

Here we have the cover up of child molestation allegations, private inurement, kickbacks, retaliatory lawsuits, whistleblower terminations, and the like. What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?

The reality is:  As much as Bob and others would like to believe that the above has been conclusively proven,  Much of the above has not been conclusively proven and is considered to be overstateI am aware that I will probably be challenged for saying such.  So be it.

Which item was overstated out of the list that I gave?

If you are saying that "private inurement" or "kickbacks" was overstated, then that leads to the conclusion that you think there was no private inurement and/or kickbacks going on.

However, the wording of your last post suggests that you weren't really commenting on the list that I gave, but instead on specific comments made by perhaps others in the past that deal with these same topics. Yet it isn't fair to suggest that I overstated things in my list if I wasn't even referring to those other comments in my list.

I do not recall anyone raising a public issue about the kickbacks until we did in the summer of 2008. At that point in time, according to Danny's misinformation campaign, the IRS investigation was already entirely over. Whether the IRS picked up on the fact that Remnant was paying Danny for sales of books that Remnant didn't even publish, I don't know, but perhaps they did.

[Artiste]

What all did Remnant Publishing do in regards to Danny Shelton's books? 

[Artiste]

Here we have the cover up of child molestation allegations, private inurement, kickbacks, retaliatory lawsuits, whistleblower terminations, and the like. What makes 3ABN so different that Jackson would be supportive of 3ABN despite the iniquitous practices that have occurred?

Much of the above has not been conclusively proven

Gregory:

You did say "Much of the above has not been conclusively proven".

Bob asked you which of the above has not been conclusively proven.

Did you specify even a single thing on the list that you believed unproven?

Here is the list:

1)   Cover up of child molestation allegations
2)   Private inurement
3)   Kickbacks
4)   Retaliatory lawsuits
5)   Whistleblower terminations       

[Gregory]

Yes, I said:

Much of the above has not been conclusively proven.

My intent was to state the above in the context of statements that were origonally made a long time ago.  i was not intending to make any comment in regard to Bob Pickle or to be a response to his question.  He was correct when he stated that I did not answer his question.

I was intentional in not responding to his question for a couple of reasons:
1) In my origonal statement regarding overstatements which I beleive had generated sympathy for 3-ABN I had in mind comments of a long time ago as I believe that such generated sympathy a long time ago.
2) I did not want to get into arguements of the validity of what I simply stated as a personal opinion which can be rejected out of hand.
3) I did not want to focus on Bob.  That is why I used the phrase "harshest critic" and I placed that in the context of the discussions in regard to who was a parent of a young child.  On that one, I have not considered Bob Pickle to be the harshest critic. So, my thought was directed to another.

This is probably an example of my not communicating clearly what I was thinking.  I do that at times.

[Bob Pickle]

What all did Remnant Publishing do in regards to Danny Shelton's books?

Beginning in January 2005, 3ABN began buying Danny's PPPA booklets from Remnant instead of from Danny for the same higher price than if they had bought them straight from PPPA. But Remnant didn't even stock them, and had to have PPPA drop ship them.

Therefore, Danny must have received royalties from PPPA for these books, and kickback payments from Remnant. And 3ABN facilitated the scheme by buying the books at a higher price from Remnant than from PPPA.

Note, if I recall correctly, that 3ABN was listed inside the cover along with PPPA, as if 3ABN was a co-publisher. Kind of strange that 3ABN would buy them for more money than what a retailer could have bought them for. See page 3 of the affidavit at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-96-10.pdf#Page=3.

And Danny did all that knowing full well that the property tax case said he shouldn't be profiting from his 3ABN activities.

[Artiste]

What all did Remnant Publishing do in regards to Danny Shelton's books?

Beginning in January 2005, 3ABN began buying Danny's PPPA booklets from Remnant instead of from Danny for the same higher price than if they had bought them straight from PPPA. But Remnant didn't even stock them, and had to have PPPA drop ship them.

Therefore, Danny must have received royalties from PPPA for these books, and kickback payments from Remnant. And 3ABN facilitated the scheme by buying the books at a higher price from Remnant than from PPPA.

Note, if I recall correctly, that 3ABN was listed inside the cover along with PPPA, as if 3ABN was a co-publisher. Kind of strange that 3ABN would buy them for more money than what a retailer could have bought them for. See page 3 of the affidavit at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/mad-07cv40098-doc-96-10.pdf#Page=3.

And Danny did all that knowing full well that the property tax case said he shouldn't be profiting from his 3ABN activities.

That's an interesting and complicated scheme.  I tried to explain it to someone once but wasn't very successful.

PPA is Pacific Press Publishing Association, I take it.  I didn't realize that they were involved. 

[Artiste]

Here is some partial info from www.3abnvjoy.com:

Case 4:07-cv-40098-FDS Document 96-10 Filed 08/26/2008 Page 2 of 7

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is but one of about 77 invoices, purchase orders, or related documents pertaining to purchases of non-Shelton-authored materials by 3ABN directly from PPPA for resale or giving away. These documents were produced by the plaintiffs of the underlying case (hereafter “Plaintiffs”) to the defendants of the underlying case (hereafter “Defendants”) on June 20 and 27, 2008.

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is the only document thus far produced by the Plaintiffs pertaining to 3ABN’s purchases from D&L and DLS Publishing, Inc. (hereafter “DLS”). It was produced on June 27, 2008.

5. Shelton’s Schedule C’s for D&L for 2001 through 2003 also show other income on line 6 of $2,716, $14,332, and $2,678 respectively. The $14,332 figure for 2002 is marked “Royalties.” As a courtesy to Shelton, I am seeking by motion to file these Schedule C’s separately under seal as Exhibits F–H.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a copy of Shelton’s Final Decree for Dissolution of Marriage issued by the Superior Court of Guam, dated June 25, 2004. Shelton and his ex-wife Linda still have a case pending in Illinois regarding the division of their marital assets.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit J is a printout of information from the Illinois Secretary of State’s website regarding DLS.

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit K is a contract concerning Kay Kuzma’s book Mending Broken People. The Plaintiffs produced this contract on June 20, 2008. Attached hereto as Exhibit L is the epilogue of Mending Broken People which states on page 366 that the finishing touches on the last few chapters were being done by May 2004.

9. I have perused 3ABN’s Form 990’s for 1998 through 2006, and 3ABN’s financial statements for 2000 through 2006, and I have not been able to find any items of revenue identified as pertaining to royalties.

[Artiste]

Bob, could you explain a little more as to what was happening exactly with the case?

It's all a bit confusing.

[Bob Pickle]

Bob, could you explain a little more as to what was happening exactly with the case?

It's all a bit confusing.

What did you want explained more? The kickback scheme?