Gailon Joy's riddle and Pickle's new "Save-3abn exclusive"

[Cynthia]

Bob Pickle
Defendants
Veteran Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


Wrote:


Brandy Shelton files for divorce
« on: March 22, 2010, 07:22:39 AM »

"Brandy Shelton files for Divorce from Danny Shelton"

The above was a hyperlink leading to the save-3abn [not] site and a new page ther which was just added and which in addition to the divorce announcement says:

A Save 3ABN Exclusive

...
The actual court papers: Danny claims land gift was bought

On pages 4 to 17 of the PDF file of court papers posted here is the original post-nuptial agreement Brandy and Danny signed in April 2008, determining how they would divide their assets and liabilities if they separated or divorced. (Save 3ABN heard reports of such discussions by the fall of 2007, so this divorce has been long in coming.) Page 5 of that agreement, which is page 8 of the PDF, states in part:

The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.

However, that real estate was apparently given to Danny Shelton by 3ABN instead. He did not purchase it.

Around September 2007, when Danny Shelton stepped down from being the visible president of 3ABN, some reported that the 3ABN Board had gifted 40 acres of land to Danny. Danny purportedly sold his former home to new president Jim Gilley for $295,000, and began construction on new property nearby. On the building permit for that construction, Danny claimed that he was the owner of the property, but the courthouse noted that according to their records, 3ABN was still the owner, not Danny. But on January 24, 2008, court documents were filed by which 3ABN asserted that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000. (Doc. 224-8 p. 3 at ln. 11).

So which was it? Did Danny Shelton pay 3ABN $96,000 for the land, or did the 3ABN Board gift to Danny that 48 acres?
3ABN sets the record straight: 48 acres was a gift

In an extremely late filing, Jim Gilley signed 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 on January 5, 2010. Schedule J of that filing, on page 33 of the PDF, states:

Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees.

That Form 990 was filed with the states of Oregon and Illinois. But in 3ABN's 2008 Form 990 filed with the IRS, and not signed until January 15, 2010, that language is missing from Part III of Schedule J.

At any rate, if Danny Shelton had really bought those 48 acres as he claimed in his post-nuptial agreement, certainly Jim Gilley would not have signed the Form 990 under penalty of perjury, declaring that 3ABN had given Danny that land instead.

In the Three Angels v. Joy case, filed in retaliation for Joy and Pickle's blowing the whistle on Danny Shelton's cover up of the child molestation allegations against Tommy Shelton, one of the defendants on November 29, 2007, requested documents concerning the gift of these 48 acres of land. (Doc. 63-20 p. 5 at ¶ 16(c), p. 9 at Request #1). On July 10, 2008, 3ABN, Danny Shelton, and Attorney Gregory Simpson again refused to produce the board minutes authorizing that transaction, claiming that these board minutes were subject to attorney-client and work-product privilege. (Doc. 92 pp. 4–5).

The actual court papers: Danny claims more "non-compete" money given to him in 2009

On page 41 of the PDF posted here which contains Brandy's divorce filing, Danny Shelton reported receiving $155,688 in income in 2009. Of that amount, $52,407.41 was additional money beyond his salary given to him as part of a "non-compete agreement."

[Cynthia]

Ian
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 475


"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"


Wrote:


Property discussion
« on: March 22, 2010, 01:51:13 PM »

I have a riddle for you: We have a 2008 IRS Form 990 filed with Illinois and indicates the 48 acres across from Linda’s old Homestead was gifted by 3ABN to Danny Lee Shelton. We have another 990 that does not seem to disclose the Schedule J...

As to the credibility of witnesses, can you explain to me which one is lying?

Gailon, the 990 filed with the IRS has a Schedule J, but Part III is blank.

The part in navy above is correct. It says:
" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

That Form 990 was filed with the states of Oregon and Illinois.

And I have figured out part of this already. In regards to credibility of witnesses you are both WRONG here.(see red font above)

I suggest you look at your IRS pdf file again. Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of the pdf file. ( It says 13 of 15 on the page) edited to add: on the IRS form it is schedule J part II

Here's your link to it:
http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-for ... 08-irs.pdf

What do you see, gentlemen?

I will address more of this confusion and error on Bob's new thread later...

« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 02:23:01 PM by Ian »

[Cynthia]

Bob Pickle
Defendants
Veteran Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2010, 02:24:17 PM »

I suggest you look at your IRS pdf file again. Scroll down to Page 51 of 53 of the pdf file. ( It says 13 of 15 on the page)

Here's your link to it:
http://www.save-3abn.com/media/3abn-for ... 08-irs.pdf

What do you see, gentlemen?

I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.

Perhaps the "additional data table" referred to is what is on page 15 of 15, and there is nothing about land on that page either.

Why don't you ask 3ABN if they are going to refile, and thus end up with 4 versions of the 2008 Form 990 instead of 3?

[Cynthia]

Ian
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 475


"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2010, 02:41:27 PM »
...

I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.

It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000. One day somebody is going to pop you right upside your little head for your shenanigans , and pardon me if I can't stop laughing even while I ask you if you are all right...

[Cynthia]

Bob Pickle
Defendants
Veteran Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2010, 03:45:37 PM »


...Someone called me amazed at how much rage they think you are manifesting. They thought you might want to offer your services to Nancy Pelosi as a sort of Rahm Emanuel.

I looked, Cindy, and I still don't see anything that says anything about land. It's not there. And that's the point.

It doesn't need to say the word "land" it says "other reportable compensation" and lists 96,000.

The 2008 Form 990 filed with the state of Illinois and Oregon also lists $96,000 under "other reportable compensation" in Part II of Schedule J. The point is that on two versions it is admitted that land was given, and on the version filed with the IRS there is no such admission. Why not? Why is Part II filled out in all three versions, but Part III is blank only on the version filed with the IRS.

[Cynthia]

Ian
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 475


"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2010, 07:26:29 PM »

You know Bob, there is a difference between anger and rage which I do not expect you to admit to understanding but that's ok because I know that "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day."

So, moving on to part two and your next error/ falsehood

In reporting about all this on your website, and trying to promote this as a huge problem, Bob Pickle says:

"But on January 24, 2008, court documents were filed by which 3ABN asserted that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000. So which was it? Did Danny Shelton pay 3ABN $96,000 for the land, or did the 3ABN Board gift to Danny that 48 acres?"

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/m ... -224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

That's just what they reported:

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.


« Last Edit: March 22, 2010, 07:45:07 PM by Ian »

[Cynthia]

Bob Pickle
Defendants
Veteran Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2095


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #5 on: March 22, 2010, 09:52:34 PM »

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/m ... -224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

The Save 3ABN article is correct. See line 11 on page 4 of http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/m ... -224-8.pdf which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.

My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.

Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.

And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits.

[Cynthia]

tinka
Veteran Member
*****
Online Online

Posts: 528

wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #6 on: March 22, 2010, 11:45:57 PM »

Helps with understanding when you can see documents. The word "consideration" in legal document

a recompense or payment, as for work done; compensation.
6.
importance or consequence.
7.
estimation; esteem: He is held in great consideration by the community.
8.
Law.
a.
something that suffices to make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in exchange for the promise.

Whats the promise??? Maybe none just transfer of assests of 3abn to DS.

Just like I thought in simplicity before even seeing documents.. DS is given $96,000 (all land has value) worth of land and the claimer of $1.00 makes it a sale where he bought it. Good deal. Now builds a house on it. He did not have to pay the estabished value. The land was actually donated in beginning ...for this purpose?? Would be very interesting now the can of worms of the contollers of 3abn Stenson and Gilly. But now the whole scam seems worse. Not so sure of titles here.

Should not all be held accountable for the giving to "individual assets" intended for non-profit "evangelisim" from the Adventist unknowlingly to non-denomenational off shoots. I sure did not know it..until all came to surface. Just like the rest will too. If all was pure, good and honest none of the above would be in question.

Yes Ian, Bob is right. Your given something of high value for $1.00 for legal sale to say something that is not true. and that is the side you stand on.

[Cynthia]

Ian
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 475


"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #7 on: Yesterday at 04:39:10 AM »

Helps with understanding when you can see documents. The word "consideration" in legal document

a recompense or payment, as for work done; compensation.
6.
importance or consequence.
7.
estimation; esteem: He is held in great consideration by the community.
8.
Law.
a.
something that suffices to make an informal promise legally binding, usually some value given in exchange for the promise.

Whats the promise???...

Thank you. The promise was a A non compete employment agreement. You could maybe look that up too as that is very helpful to anyone reading here and trying to understand all this.

" Form 990 Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

As that also says, he is no longer President and is at present a trustee and consultant. As such his salary has dropped to about 1/2 of what it was before he stepped down as President and signed the non-compete agreement. That is revealed in the financial part of the dissolution of marriage Papers Bob published if you want to look that up too.

It also appears that that all total DS received about 100,000 dollars less than LS received when she signed the separation agreement between she and 3abn. (She was given just under 250,000)

The main point here is that it was all reported by 3abn as "other reportable compensation" to DS given to him in addition to his salary that year as part of the non compete agreement they signed, so it is above board and legal and there are no IRS problems and there is no funny business going on here.

[Cynthia]

Ian
Senior Member
****
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 475


"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good"


Wrote:


Property discussion
« Reply #8 on: Yesterday at 05:21:55 AM »

Now here is your link to that "court document":
http://www.3abnvjoy.com/mad-07cv40098/m ... -224-8.pdf

What does it really say, Bob? Because it doesn't say "that 48 acres of land was given to Danny in exchange for $96,000" as you claim.

It says the land (worth 96,000) was deeded to Danny Shelton for "ONE DOLLAR"


Now straighten up and get right, Bob!

See line 11 on page 4 of which says that the "Full actual consideration" was $96,000.

Yes, that is the taxes part and what it is worth, and that worth was deeded to Danny by 3abn. (other reportable compensation, 96,000) Moving on...

" Schedule J part III -- Land valued at $96,000 was deeded to Danny Shelton (former president and current trustee/consultant) per the terms of a non-compete employment agreement vote by the Board of Trustees."

and it counts as "other reportable compensation" ---> 96,000 also just as they reported.

My point is still that the 2008 Form 990 that was filed with the IRS omits the above language from Part III of Schedule J, even though that language is in Part III of Schedule J of the version of the same form filed with the states of Illinois and Oregon.

Any member of the public who is considering donating to 3ABN who gets a copy of the 2008 Form 990 from the IRS will not know that 3ABN gave $96,000 worth of land to Danny Shelton instead of summarily firing him and booting him out the door for his reprehensible misdeeds.

I dare to say most are only looking at what he was compensated which is the 96,000 and could care less how he was compensated, ie was the 96,000 paid in cash, by check, in land, or with a hill of beans..

Moving on...

And that gift of land was voted by the 3ABN Board while 3ABN's property tax case was still in appeal, a case in which Danny Lee Shelton testified under oath that he didn't receive housing or retirement benefits.

I shouldn't have to point out the obvious to you, Bob.

A non compete employment agreement is NOT housing or retirement benefits.

Which brings us to your last error/falsehood in your little scenario, and Gailon's riddle. He posted:

Now we have a Post Nuptial Agreement done by Danny Lee Shelton with Brandy in 2008 that declares that Danny Lee Shelton took the proceeds of the sale of the old homestead to James Gilley and purchased the land for $96,000.

That agreement also doesn't say what you claim it does..

It says:

The parties acknowledge that the Husband had a home which he was awarded pursuant to his agreement with his former wife, Linda Sue Shelton. That home has been sold and the proceeds from that sale have been used to purchase new real estate in West Frankfort, Illinois, on which he is currently building a home which will be subject to a mortgage.

Real estate is not just land, Bob Nor does that agreement say Danny paid 96,000 for the land.

So let's recap. Danny paid Linda 150,000 for her part of their house making it all his.

Next the house is too big for him and he sells it to Jim Gilley.

Then he takes the money from that sale and builds the house he wants and adds what he wants to the land which was deeded to him as part of the non-compete agreement.

Real estate definition according to the legal dictionary:

real estate
n. land, improvements and buildings thereon, including attached items and growing things. It is virtually the same as "real property," except real property includes interests which are not physical such as a right to acquire the property in the future.

Riddle over. No one is a false witness here, except you and Gailon. I know you could not possibly be deliberately or knowingly doing that, so you must have misunderstood, and made a mistake and that is why you were in error.

But-- being that you are both dedicated to truth, justice and the american way, and are trying to serve God in all this, I am sure you will do the right thing here and correct your false claims here, and edit your "save-3abn exclusive" report on your web page.

Because to not do so will be to continue bearing false witness, knowingly and deliberately, and I know God's people would NEVER do that, or continue to argue, justify and excuse that kind of thing.

So where do you stand, and what will you do, Bob? Who are you going to be?