Print

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

[Sam]

[b]AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE[/b]. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!

None SDA law students would not be useful to this process at this point, although I do not recall suggesting I would bring any such group into the case, despite their ready availability.

As to the rest of your psychological pablum, lets clarify one thing, defendants do not select their status. We have not counterclaimed. We have simply defended. Nothing eleborate, yet.



Gailon Arthur Joy

Please don't force me to go copy and paste from the savenot sight.  Does the name Gerry Spence ring a bell.  Ding a ling? I remember well all the hoopla you wrote about how he was an "old friend" and he was a mover and shaker and you had written him about possibly helping you?

Then we come to Laird Heal.....a force to be reckoned with.  Heal wasn't scared to take on anyone..even judges.  Things were really going to explode when he came in the picture.

Truth is, Spence never even answered your letter and Linda didn't win one motion in the marital property case with Laird at the helm. First he is working for Linda. Then he is helping you and Pickle. But since he was representing you in your bankrupcty case, there was a conflict of interest. (which you would think Laird would know??)So Pickle get's thrown under the bus and that leaves  just you and Laird on the bankruptcy case where your combined motions have sunk like a torpedoed ship. Then Linda fires Heal as she is getting nowhere with the "mover and shaker".

Who knows what all you have said behind the scenes to GM or anyone else but considering the outcome, you publically made a complete fool out of yourself concerning the "help" you didn't receive from Laird and Spence.



 










[/quote]

[Bob Pickle]

Go ahead and copy whatever you want. His letter to Gerry Spence does not ask for assistance in Gailon's case, of which there wasn't such a case at the time.

Gerry Spence did answer Gailon. What makes you think he didn't?

You are incorrect regarding why I went pro se.

[Gregory]

In the case of Linda’s relationship in regard to any association to Joy and Pickle, by Linda’s own words, I believe that is what you and a small group of individuals, in a combined effort, attempted. Although your attempt in “helping Linda” failed, it had the appearance of taking advantage of a known weakness and exploiting it. Had it achieved the desired results, Linda would have been lead to make a statement on the internet that broke any association with Joy and Pickle and would have resulted in you being the spokesperson for Linda. In my opinion that is manipulation, not counseling.

Sister, I have decided to respond to the above comment of yours.

1) You mention an attempt to help Linda which failed:

Linda came to us (three people) and requested  some very specific help in regard to relationships that she had with certain people.  [NOTE:  I am not going to go into detail as to the specifics of the help that she requested.  It should be noted that your comment is not totally accurate as to the people involved.]  She outlined a plan and asked for our help.  I considered the request and decided that I would have nothing to do with it.  One major reason for my decision was that, as I told Linda, she did not need our help as she was competent to achieve her objectives without our help.

The plea for our involvement continued after my refusal to participate.  My wife came into agreement and she encouraged me to re-think my position.  [NOTE:  Linda  was well aware that I kept my wife informed in regard to what was happening with Linda and what Linda wanted of us.]  I re-thought my position and I stated that I would respond to the plea for help from Linda if three specific conditions were met.  I was very clear that all three conditions had to be met and that I would not participate if any of the three were not met.  I was told that all three would be met, and I agreed to respond positively to Linda's request for help.

Hours before the plan was to be put into action, in a conversation with Linda, I was informed that two of my conditions were  no longer a part of the plan.  I immediately called the operation off.  Linda had made her choice and that was O.K. with me.  As I had told Linda in the beginning, she was competent to achieve her objectives without our invnolvement.  She is/was competent and she had the power to do so.  She had the ability to accomplishe everything that she wanted to do without the intervention of any of us.  With this change in what she wanted to accomplilsh I was no longer going to be a part of it.

2)  I assume that you have a copy of an e-mail that I sent to  Linda on the morning of April 18, 2008.  I shall quote my  Beginning and closing sentences:

"God has intervened.  God has moved upon the situation in a manner that you are free to disassociate yourself from . . .."  and  "Remember, God has accomplished for you today much of what we wanted to accomplish in the plans that were stopped earllier this week."

In my second paragraph I stated:  "Linda you have a decision to make.  The choice is yours.  . . . No one can make this decision for you."

3) I am not going to get into a specific discussion, at this time, of what Linda wanted to accomplish or of the people involved.  Your reference to Gailon and Bob is partial, it is incomplete and it has some implied inaccuracies.  But, I am not going to correct you.

4) I would not charactereze the plan to help Linda as a failure.  We responded, after much discussion, to Linda's request for help.  We did not initiate that plan.  In fact, I and another person strongly suggested that there was another way for Linda to achieve her objectives.  The plan came to an end when I called it off because Linda had changed her mind as to what she wanted to accomplish.  That was O.K. with me and the others.  She had been told she could achieve her goals without us.  She had made her decision and she was not manipulated by any of us in regard to the decision that she made at any time. With this change in her goals I was no longer going to be involved.

5)  As I stopped from the role that I had filled for several years I left with nothing but best wishes for Linda.  I continue to support her, but I do not do it in the same manner that I had done so for several years.  I have continued to state that I do not believe that:  a) she gave her husband Biblical grounds for the divorce and b) that 3-ABN treated her fairly in her termination.

Linda is a competent person, well able to make decisions for herself (and to accept the consequences of those decisions) and I support her in the right to do so, whatever those decisions are that she makes.

[reddogs]

The one problem, Rick, is that I'm not the one who sued, so it isn't my choice to stop or even draw back. As long as they continue this suit, it can't be over.

According to their own time table, today they are 11 months late giving us a demand to settle. 11 months late!

Bob,

It has been my experience that in all matters, if there be the desire, backchannels can be used to work things out and to smooth and prepate the way for a solution to come about no matter the circumstances. I think the time has come for all parties to the fullest extent possible, begin working to facilitate closure on this sad state of events at 3ABN. It is a absolute black mark against everyone involved, it gives others outside of the church, reason to find fault or demure about looking at much less joining the Adventist faith, and makes members hesitate about sharing or telling others about 3ABN. Evil has scored on every level on this as bad news has a way of traveling much faster than good, and continues to wreak havoc on what once was spreading the Adventist message in a bright and shinning manner, now it has a dark underside if not sad reputation...

Rick

[Bob Pickle]

See what backchannels you can find.

Last year I spoke with Walt Thompson prior to the lawsuit. I recall asking him if we could come and speak with the board to share our concerns. He told me it was too late for that. Of course, he never wanted that to begin with. It was always too late.

Now if he is having second thoughts, let me know.

[Bob Pickle]

Rick,

I think it is important that proper apologies are made to those that have been wronged. Walt could start by contacting Duane and Roger Clem, and Brad Dunning, and a few others, and tell them he's sorry he didn't contact them sooner. He could listen to their story.

It's so simple and biblical.

Bob

[ex3abnemployee]

Please don't force me to go copy and paste from the savenot sight.

While you're copying and pasting, why don't you copy and paste what I asked for as well? Does it even exist? Did you try to mislead others?

[irspro]

No, it doesn't mean that at all. While it could be over it very well might not be over.

Gerald Duffy came out with a letter last Friday in which he makes pretty clear that the IRS has not said that the investigation is over. Rather, since the IRS allegedly asked whether 3ABN wanted documents returned or destroyed, 3ABN and company are assuming that the investigation is over.

Duffy also makes clear that the timeframe for the documents in question is 2000 to 2006, thus excluding the 1998 real estate deal.

Moreover, for Doug to assert that there was no infraction or discrepancy suggests that he thinks that the IRS will not consider to be an infraction or a discrepancy the cash receipting of a donation of property. But I highly doubt that either the IRS or the Amazing Facts business office will agree with him on that one.

If you don't believe me, call up Amazing Facts' business office and offer to donate a $5000 car or horse or whatever on condition that they give you a $20,000 cash receipt that you can then deduct off your taxes. I am certain that the AF business office will tell you that there is no way they are going to do that. And you can call up the IRS and they will confirm that such a maneuver is either an infraction or discrepancy.

Bob quit wasting your time looking for an official notification other than a copy of a "No Change Letter" from a District Director of the IRS.  It would be simple enough to honestly publish  a copy showing the tax year with the  taxpayer's name edited to some extent.   There is too much funny-talk about returning copies of records to taxpayer etc for me to even believe some of the averments attributed to even alleged preachers.  My 25 years never found me with the need to return one document to a taxpayer other than a document needing the ink to be "dated!"

[Fran]

This has always been my understanding too.  Thank you for your post.

[Cindy]

This has always been my understanding too.

of course it is...

Fran you mentioned in another post.. well let me quote you:

Just Checking in.  I have NOT heard ANYTHING about everything being over.  I haven't heard from the IRS in over a week.  In my opinion, it is not "completely" over.  Just my $ .02.

Surely if you hadn't heard from the IRS in over a week before your post (aprox July 22?) you heard from them then as they had something to say??? and surely you must have asked some questions???

Can you share that with us?

If not? well then I am wondering why not?!?

Thank you in advance for your clarification and answer here.

  Thank you for your post.

[Fran]

Ian;

A company I was the CFO of had 8 businesses.  Prior to my arrival things were very bad.  I began the gigantic task of starting to correct the wrongs.  It took me over 2 years! 

Then there was an IRS Criminal Investigation.  They came with Guns!  They were ambidextrous; they keyed the calculator with the left hand and wrote with their right hand.  Needless to say, they could chew bubble gum and walk at the same time.  At the beginning of the audit, they had their guns on the table next to them.  I told them to let me show them the facility and show where the firearms were on the premises.  My boss agreed to lock them up when the auditors were there, if they would leave their guns in the car!  They agreed

The owner of the businesses was a colorful fellow to say the least!  My x returns hitting the IRS correcting prior year returns sent red flags everywhere!  That is why they were there.  They went through hours and hours of investigation.  I was present every second of the time.  They audited my corrections and the current return just filed.  That was 3 years.  The first year had an amount due of $1,000 and $500.  They netted out to be $500.00 due to the IRS.  My next two years were clean as you say.  They don't say "Clean".  They took a check I wrote for $500.00 and just left!  No letters.

Now my boss gave me a very large bonus and $750.00 for my church.  Soon after that we moved and left the country.  He paid for my flight back and gave me a car, gas and a hotel room, however, I chose to stay with very good friends.  I stayed working 14-18 hour days cleaning up messes and then I filed taxes again for that last year ended.  He wanted my signature on the line for the IRS to see!  He was so funny.

3ABN's was off site.  They should have stayed on site.

I still haven't heard anything.  Silence is golden sometimes.  Once I hear, I will not say a word about it!

3ABN say that no money was paid by Danny and 3ABN.  This brings to question if "Mr Ubiquitous Money" paid the price?? 

[irspro]

This has always been my understanding too.

of course it is...

Fran you mentioned in another post.. well let me quote you:

Just Checking in.  I have NOT heard ANYTHING about everything being over.  I haven't heard from the IRS in over a week.  In my opinion, it is not "completely" over.  Just my $ .02.

Surely if you hadn't heard from the IRS in over a week before your post (aprox July 22?) you heard from them then as they had something to say??? and surely you must have asked some questions???

Can you share that with us?

If not? well then I am wondering why not?!?

Thank you in advance for your clarification and answer here.

  Thank you for your post.

Ian, I can only speculate that Fran used the wrong preposition, anything from rather than anything about, unless her personal tax return was being examined.  Is Fran in a "representative" position for the taxpayer with the IRS as a professional?  I doubt it as she wouldn't need to disclose IRS communication facts.

Let me be succinct as a tax professional with you, I see this whole IRS matter as more about SDA integrity to the "shareholder in the pew" rather than "additional taxes" which even a No Change Letter will not fully address, stranger than fiction to all except this tax professional.  Even the "possibility of being informed on" does wonders for taxpayer integrity when you understand that the US taxpayers voluntarily acknowledge 97% of their tax liability on the filing of their returns with only 3% being asessed by the Examination Division of the IRS,  a pretty high standard for even a practicing SDA!

Since I have never lost a penny in this semi-independent ship and I will never accept its version of spiritual adultry, my total interest here seems to be the financial integrity of some of my fellow church members concerned about the moral integrity of some of their investment vehicles.  I find spiritual adultry moreso in all the independent religious publications with my correct address not having been furnished by me which go straight to my trash can even to those having to do with the Ten.  I have no problem with any of the Ten since I have always accepted them as Promises rather than Demands so I intentionally avoid independents and let them independently live in confusion, some with a firey end!

[Snoopy]

Well said, irspro.  You cut right through the mess and red tape and hit the nail on the head.  It is about integrity and doing the right thing, both of which the world needs more of, in my opinion.  Thank you for being here!

Ian, I can only speculate that Fran used the wrong preposition, anything from rather than anything about, unless her personal tax return was being examined.  Is Fran in a "representative" position for the taxpayer with the IRS as a professional?  I doubt it as she wouldn't need to disclose IRS communication facts.

Let me be succinct as a tax professional with you, I see this whole IRS matter as more about SDA integrity to the "shareholder in the pew" rather than "additional taxes" which even a No Change Letter will not fully address, stranger than fiction to all except this tax professional.  Even the "possibility of being informed on" does wonders for taxpayer integrity when you understand that the US taxpayers voluntarily acknowledge 97% of their tax liability on the filing of their returns with only 3% being asessed by the Examination Division of the IRS,  a pretty high standard for even a practicing SDA!

Since I have never lost a penny in this semi-independent ship and I will never accept its version of spiritual adultry, my total interest here seems to be the financial integrity of some of my fellow church members concerned about the moral integrity of some of their investment vehicles.  I find spiritual adultry moreso in all the independent religious publications with my correct address not having been furnished by me which go straight to my trash can even to those having to do with the Ten.  I have no problem with any of the Ten since I have always accepted them as Promises rather than Demands so I intentionally avoid independents and let them independently live in confusion, some with a firey end!

[Gailon Arthur Joy]

[b]AT NO TIME DID I EVER SOLICIT ANY HELP FROM ANY ATTORNEY FOR OUR OWN CASE[/b]. In fact, I have unilaterally refused assistance from various counsel, including public citizens, for some very specific reasons. And you, of all the people, have been privy to and known exactly why!!!

Gailon Arthur Joy

Please don't force me to go copy and paste from the savenot sight.   Does the name Gerry Spence ring a bell.  Ding a ling? I remember well all the hoopla you wrote about how he was an "old friend" and he was a mover and shaker and you had written him about possibly helping you?

Then we come to Laird Heal.....a force to be reckoned with.  Heal wasn't scared to take on anyone..even judges.  Things were really going to explode when he came in the picture.

Truth is, Spence never even answered your letter and Linda didn't win one motion in the marital property case with Laird at the helm. First he is working for Linda. Then he is helping you and Pickle. But since he was representing you in your bankrupcty case, there was a conflict of interest. (which you would think Laird would know??)So Pickle get's thrown under the bus and that leaves  just you and Laird on the bankruptcy case where your combined motions have sunk like a torpedoed ship. Then Linda fires Heal as she is getting nowhere with the "mover and shaker".

Who knows what all you have said behind the scenes to GM or anyone else but considering the outcome, you publically made a complete fool out of yourself concerning the "help" you didn't receive from Laird and Spence.

[/quote]

Please do copy from the save-not sight so we can see just who is the "complete fool". Jerry did respond and his dean of the college was most helpful in finding counsel in Southern California and some references for certain other potential litigants. There were no graduates in Southern Illinois and that has been a severe handicap to the potential litigants there. Seems there is not much real high caliber litigation talent in Southern Illinois.

Jerry Spence is at best an aquaintance from the Island Pond case many years ago. But he has a great Trial Lawyers College and I would consider most graduates from that program as very competent counsel for litigation issues. I also happen to enjoy reading most of what he has written, and have on occasion commented to him on my view of the issues or the book content. Let me simply say that when Jerry Spence speaks, I listen.

We never have asked for a referral for the Worcester, Mass case for either Bob or myself. We discovered quite quickly that we were comfortable managing the pre-trial portion of the case ourselves.
We have had offers for assistance and they are appreciated and will be used as required.

As to Heal, well, let just say that discovery is re-opened in Shelton v Shelton and depositions are pending on a case that was supposed to be ready for trial. Wonder what happened that it is now re-opened? Wonder what will be discovered? Wonder what it will cost Danny Lee Shelton to close that chapter? Want to comment, SAM?

Gailon Arthur Joy
 

[anyman]

As to Heal, well, let just say that discovery is re-opened in Shelton v Shelton and depositions are pending on a case that was supposed to be ready for trial. Wonder what happened that it is now re-opened? Wonder what will be discovered? Wonder what it will cost Danny Lee Shelton to close that chapter? Want to comment, SAM?

Gailon Arthur Joy

I am wondering if you have a comment in regards to this:

http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=07-1026.01A

Maybe you can clear up some of the claims made by the judge in this case in regards to this fantastic attorney you keep advocating. It is interesting how a judge would take an attorney to task so obviously. Also, what about the admission by Atty. Heal that he was/is inexperienced in practicing law (sound familiar?). But then maybe the judge in the case was the same one who didn't understand your argument in the embezzlement case.