Re: Planet X: a NEW Zetan Emissary?
Sarah Mc wrote:
> In Article <ume6n23ios7t57@corp.supernews.com> ABC wrote
>> Sarah Mc wrote:
>>
>> > In Article <umcn855h7nhk0e@corp.supernews.com> ABC wrote
>> >> Sarah Mc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In Article <umb8und2a0qe1c@corp.supernews.com> ABC wrote
>> >> >> Sarah Mc wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > In Article <um64n0p1k8u4b6@corp.supernews.com> ABC wrote
>> >> >
>> >> > <big snip>
>
> <snip>
>> > Outsider, huh? Boy Nancy, you'd best watch what you post. You're
>> > starting to give away your identity.
>>
>> F&%# you Sarah.
>
> Guess that answers the question.
>
>
>>
>> > Since when is IBM or Oracle
>> > non-profit corporations? Don't get so comfortable with the idea that
>> > Troubled Times is a "safe" bet with the IRS.
>> >
>> I'll bet I could chop your ass in half.
>
> And that has something to do with IBM and Oracle not being non-profit
> corporations?
>
>>
>> > Just a little hint Nancy. Watch your political rants in public forums
>> > that refer to Troubled Times. As a board member of Troubled Times,
>> > you're putting your own corporation in jeopardy by making biased and
>> > unproven political statements to a audience.
>> >
>> You can't prove I am Nancy though. That's the real problem
>
> I don't need to. Your statements on your IRC chat tonight was enough
> for me.
>
>
>> > Here's another hint - take the refering pages to your "movie script"
>> > off the Troubled Times non profit pages located on Zetatalk.com at
>> > C:\Zeta\www.zetatalk.com\nonproft\97001001.htm Trying to sell your
>> > script through the non-profit website, well, it just looks a little
>> > fishy, don't you think?
>> >
>> I think you're a looooooser.
>
> What you think of me is irrelevant to the tax issues regarding
> Troubled Times.
>
>>
>> > And while you're cleaning up your non-profit blunders, Try explaining
>> > why "ZetaTalk TM" appears all over the Trouble Times webpages. One
>> > single directory alone has 267 references to Zetatalk. No relation,
>> > right? Some other "trademarked" ZetaTalk, perhaps?
>> >
>> Is a trademark like when they stamp 666 on church members heads?
>
> Was that supposed to be another one of your claims that I'm part of the
> "religious right" or a devout Catholic, Nancy? The more you mouth off,
> the more obvious it becomes.
>
>>
>>
>> > Think that links Troubled Times to ZetaTalk at all? Almost 400
>> > references to ZetaTalk on the Troubled Times website? Must be a fluke,
>> > right?
>> >
>> Consider contacting a corporate attorney.
>
> I'm not the one that's going to need the attorney.
>
>>
>> > Yeah, you're right. No need to worry about the IRS. After all, they
>> > just look through peoples income taxes for a couple hundred dollars
>> > here or there. No need to worry about $50,000+ that was taken under
>> > false pretenses, not to mention what may have been hidden form Jan
>> > Rypdal's "audits".
>> >
>> I know I'm right.
>>
>> > I understand you owe the non-profit some money too Nancy. How does a
>> > board member of a non-profit corporation borrow money from donations?
>> > What interest rate did you pay? How long have you owed this back to
>> > the non-profit? Was that loan reported to the IRS on your 990's?
>> >
>> Who told you that? I would like to know your source.
>
> Try your most recent log of the board meeting.
>
> "(Nancy) My brother is purchasing the cottage and land, for what I put
> into it and paid for it, and this should allow me to REPAY the
> nonprofit the $1,000 plus that I owe it.
> (Nancy) I think it is either $1,020 or at least under $1,100.
> (Nancy) This is not in hand yet, but appears to be running to the
> finish line, so next month I may be able to confirm and actualize
> this, making a deposit.
> (Nancy) Does this need to be accepted or some such by the board? I
> would think not...
> (Jan) Sounds good, Nancy. How long has this item been in the books
> now?
> (Jan) I do not think the board needs to get involved in this
> transaction except for the information already given, Nancy
> (Nancy) I think since 2000, when there was a change of plans re the
> place here.
> (Brent) I don't think so Nancy....you should just announce when the
> payment is made, for the record.
> (Nancy) It was being considered a NONPROFIT property, Clipper inviting
> all nonprofit members to visit, etc. and not my personal residence
> which it of course IS."
>
>
>>
>> > But stoping now may not keep the IRS out of Jan Rypdal's "audits".
>> > It's a matter of fact that it's all archived on the internet for the
>> > IRS to peruse at their leisure. Hell, I archived the entire website in
>> > 10 minutes - I'll bet they can do it even faster.
>>
>> Did you use a computer to do that? That's cheating, sarah pophead.
>
> Really" Cheating whom?
Ok, Sarah, I'll allow that you have probably found some interesting issues
with the IRS rules maybe. I am not an IRS expert or know much about what
the exact laws are regarding non-profits but you seem to have done some
fairly non-biased research on it.
Maybe there are some problems. But I am not yet convinced that they were
done intentionally with the purpose of defrauding. That's another proof
that has to be made, another argument that has to be made, right?
As you well know, the logs for Nancy's TT meetings are on the website for
all to see. If they didnt put them there, you wouldn't have some of the
evidence you do. If it IS evidence.
I always felt that Nancy and team were being very honest and open with all
their dealings by placing their meeting minutes and irc chat logs on the
site for everyone's perusal.
It would very hard for me to believe they made up these fake logs to try
and throw people off. Rather it seems like they might be doing things that
they don't realize might constitute a problem with regard to certain areas
of the IRS tax law for non-profits. Because why would she put up evidence
on her chat logs that incriminates her operation? Only if she didn't
realize it was wrong, only if she didn't realize it violated some rule
hidden away somewhere. That doesn't make it right but I guess nancy is not
perfect. My best argument!
ABC
