[7. Is this uncited, quoted statement which Mr Pickle offers as proof of his allegation:
"My wife and I have asked that we not get retirement. My Board has offered me retirement and I’ve always told tell them if I asked for retirement I’ve lost my vision for what I’m saying so, not to do that. So it’s not been my Board’s fault that we don’t have it."
actually proof? or the same as what Mr Pickle previously claimed/posted: " it looks like Danny testified under oath
GrammieT, I took his words to mean that he would lose his spiritual sense of where the work should go, not his literal vision.
Sorry for the confusion.
To Bob:
That's the way I meant what I said. 
GrammieT
in court, he believes that he lost his vision by 1996 or 1998."]
I'm sorry folks, but I must protest the foolishness in making an issue out this whole subject. The bolded part of the above quote says to me that Danny was saying if the board had been asked by he and Linda for retirement benefits that this would be a denial of his 'vision' for the work he was doing with 3ABN.
This seems to be the usual thinking in the Adventist world of 'sacrificing for the work' and in no way suggests that Danny was saying that he had lost his eyesight as some of you seem to be saying. But then maybe I am wrong, who knows? Can anybody clear this up or is the muddiness just too deep? 
GrammieT 
Dear Grammie T,
You see we have e-mails produced by the official voice of 3ABN, Dr Walter Thompson, claiming that the house was transferred to allow for large capital gain a few days later in consideration of the fact that the Shelton's did not have a retirement plan from 3ABN. One must realize that setting up a pension plan for two executives, pursuant to ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) would mean setting up one for the entire staff that qualified. This "alternative retirement plan" was a nice easy way to compensate the founders without having to take care of the "little people" that make everything work from day to day.
But keep in mind, with all the explanations comes additional questions. How was the giftee able to gift money to 3ABN so that 3ABN could purchase the property and then it would benefit not only the giftee, as in an annuity or other trust instrument, but also to benefit the founders? And, the board approved the little plan to convert the asset in 1986 but the "deferred comp" was not taken until over two years later...how did this meet IRS Rules? Was this in effect a "top hat" deferred comp plan?
As you can see, the mud gets deep and gets even deeper when you see the explanations of the "official voice" and why we will have to hire a forensic accountant to help us sort out all the "mud" into some logical defense that a plain old all american jury can understand.
In any event, I took it to mean that Danny was so busy trying to inure himself in various ways that he really didn't want to make provision for the "little guys". I think the judges concluded the same thing. And that is why they declared 3ABN a Shelton business [coming soon on a thread near you!!!].
Thank-you for your inquiry.
Respectfuly Submitted,
Gailon Arthur Joy
To Gailon:
Your reply does indeed make it look like the mud is even deeper than we thought. But are you certain that what you are implying is not your extrapolation of the 'facts' to make a point in your direction?
It kind of looks like that to me but I can see where you are coming from too; so I guess that you need to do what you need to do.
GrammieT
Author
Topic: What's Happening With the Lawsuit? (Read 130687 times)
