The IRS Criminal Division has done extensive discovery and I just discovered it has done even more. What is the implication of this?
Gailon Arthur Joy
So, you actually expect us to believe that the IRS is filling you in on their investigation? That is ridiculous. They are not going to share their findings with someone who has nothing to do with the investigation (except to report 3abn in the first place) and carries no credentials to obtain private information. I have a relative who is a criminal investigator and giving any information out to a, let's say, curious spectator, is a big no no. They will be giving information out to whoever is representing 3abn. You know....real attorney's that have a license and everything.
Sam,
So good to see you back.
Now, I know you have been repeatedly factually challenged, but I assumed you had reasonably good command of the English Language. I said I had "DISCOVERED" they were doing more discovery. Now, Sam, does "DISCOVERED" in any way imply that the Criminal Division is passing me information?
Let me put your mind at peace and state emphatically they do not share anything with us, anymore than they will share with you, until they are ready. But, every investigation leaves tracks, Sam. Follow the tracks and you can follow the trends in any investigation. Investigative journalism builds a nose for this. Maybe, you ought to try it and you wouldn't be so factually challenged. Try it, you may like it!
Now, let us take up your other decisively antagonistic statement:
(except to report 3abn in the first place). Bad news, Sam...the IRS was already on the trail building a file before Bob or I got involved. I have already given a history of this as we were able to follow it. Did I encourage frustrated former employees and donors to contact them???Absolutely.
BUT: For clarification, if I had the information that we now know and if I had the documents that we are discovering, and if I had the statements we have accumulated, and we saw just how deliberate the board was in its refusal to bring discipline and order, I WOULD SHARE IT WITH THE IRS AND THE ILLINOIS, AND 49 OTHER STATES, AG's AND Dept's Of REVENUE, and various other state and federal agencies. From Washington State to Florida and from Maine to California, anyone that would take action would be be given every note and every document to bring this mis-use of a religious facade to an end. And I say that, now knowing, that the board is virtually irresponsible in refusing to take appropriate steps to end this abuse until it was simply too late.
When you send warning after warning, and they go speeding through stop sign after stop sign, ignoring every reasonable effort to bring an end to this 20 year abuse and (and we were neither the first nor the last to raise the red flags) the directors simply ignore it all to end up in a mine field, they get nothing less than what they deserve.
Sam, have you read
"Who Watches? Who Cares?" by Doug Hackleman? I have lived through every one of these crisis in stewardship within the church, and so have the 3ABN Directors, yet they followed the same path of intransigence and ommission that has PLAGUED the Seventh-day Adventist Church for nearly thirty years. And that is thirty years TOO LONG in my book!!!
I would guess you could argue I am intolerant of Institutional arrogance and the abuses of self inurement that comes with it. It must end within the church. The church needs entrepreneurial
spirit, but it needs to be unselfish and to the benefit of the institution, not the benefit of a few individuals and founders, while employees and volunteers barely survive or end up victims. Explain to me when it became the Christian model for the president of an adventist institution to live in a 4000 square foot house with a large horse barn and paddock, gated of course, and running side deals to get the institution to buy their books so they can make a small fortune, while the people that work at making the ministry happen every day barely survive, sometimes requiring assistance. The President gets a jet but the peons are lucky to be able to afford enough gas to get to work every day to get the next paycheck. Just how many raises were there in nearly a million dollars a year in Jet expense?
Just how many benefits for the masses were there in a $3Million dollar book deal? And just how many cola increases will have to be waived to cover that $3,000,000 dollar loss from simply irresponsible efforts in 2006?
You have the tax case, the Linda Shelton Debacle, the Sky Angel problems, the Jet issues, the remarriage to Brandy issues, the lawsuite issues and the Tommy Shelton issues. We could go on, but you live it every day. Don't tell me you don't feel the weight of erroneous judgment on your shoulders as well. And don't you wonder how it is possible that building goes on, but annual cola's are waived?
Sam, we have the weight of evidence in our favor. We are so convinced that the weight of evidence will support our claims and the cross claims,
we are preparing for trial. And we are encouraging others to do the same thing. By the time it is done, 3ABN will have so many fronts to deal with and so many lawyers yipping at the heals of the organization and its directors, they will wish they had taken the right turn when they had the opportunity. But, it is too late now. Too many hungry lawyers, too many bureaucrats with agenda's and simply too much history ignored.
Now, once again Sam, 3ABN gave us our license the day they served us with a lawsuite. Just ask that investigative relative of yours. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give us license to discover any material that may lead to relevant information and here is a sample:
FRCP 26 (b) "Discovery Scope and Limits.
(1) Scope in General.
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense — including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C)."
A FRCP 34: (a) In General.
"A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):
(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control:
(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information — including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations — stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form; or
(B) any designated tangible things; or
(2) to permit entry onto designated land or other property possessed or controlled by the responding party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure, survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any designated object or operation on it."
The rest of the rules are readily available online for your careful review.
In summary, they will be giving information out to anyone whom they sue or that sues them if the litigants do proper discovery.
So, get a nose like Pinnochio and follow the trail of evidence, you will be less factually challenged and more factually accurate, and your analytical skills will improve as well.
Good to have you back as you are such a terrific platform upon which to build ones responses.
Gailon Arthur Joy
Author
Topic: Nick Miller forgot to ask the right question (Read 45023 times)
