Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

IDon'tKnow · 03-23-2009, 05:55 AM

In the tape recording between Sal Benoit and Witness Lee about Daystar debts.

1. That Overseas Christian Stewards an unregistered entity owned Phosphorous, I.E. the Overseas Christian Stewards which was composed of Witness Lee and two other brothers owned Phosphorous personally.

2. Phosphorous produced the Daystar motorhomes and sold them to Daystar. So when Witness Lee got the saints to invest in Daystar he was investing in a guaranteed buyer for his motorhomes.

3. Daystar went bankrupt, Phosphorous did not.

4. Daystar owed Phosphorous money (according to Witness Lee).

5. Witness Lee got Max to convince the saints to forgive the Daystar debts.

First question does the fact that Daystar still owed Phosphorous money mean that Witness Lee required the money owed to him by Daystar even after he convinced the saints to forgive those debts?

Second question given that donations from the trainings went to pay off Daystar debts. Does that mean that they went to pay off Phosphorous (I.E. Witness Lee)?

Third question, It is my understanding that the Daystar motorhomes were being sold by saints through door to door sales (I.E. using free labour). It is also my further guess that the capital for such a business would primarily be tied up in the motorhomes on hand. Therefore any debts which the company had would in all likelihood have been for the purpose of buying Motorhomes off Witness Lee. Furthermore the majority of the saints money which was invested into the business would also have gone to buy Motorhomes off Witness Lee. Therefore all (or most) moneys from Daystar would have gone to Witness Lee, K.H. Weigh, and Samuel Chang (The owners of Overseas Christian Stewards as well Phosphorous). Less the expenses for the actual construction of the motorhomes. Does this mean that Witness Lee made off with all the Daystar money?

Does this make any sense or am I merely frothing at the mouth.

Here is link to a diagram which illustrates what happened with the money (not made by me just to be clear) http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...chInBoston.pdf

03-23-2009, 05:55 AM	#9
IDon'tKnow Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 67	Questions about Daystar In the tape recording between Sal Benoit and Witness Lee about Daystar debts. 1. That Overseas Christian Stewards an unregistered entity owned Phosphorous, I.E. the Overseas Christian Stewards which was composed of Witness Lee and two other brothers owned Phosphorous personally. 2. Phosphorous produced the Daystar motorhomes and sold them to Daystar. So when Witness Lee got the saints to invest in Daystar he was investing in a guaranteed buyer for his motorhomes. 3. Daystar went bankrupt, Phosphorous did not. 4. Daystar owed Phosphorous money (according to Witness Lee). 5. Witness Lee got Max to convince the saints to forgive the Daystar debts. First question does the fact that Daystar still owed Phosphorous money mean that Witness Lee required the money owed to him by Daystar even after he convinced the saints to forgive those debts? Second question given that donations from the trainings went to pay off Daystar debts. Does that mean that they went to pay off Phosphorous (I.E. Witness Lee)? Third question, It is my understanding that the Daystar motorhomes were being sold by saints through door to door sales (I.E. using free labour). It is also my further guess that the capital for such a business would primarily be tied up in the motorhomes on hand. Therefore any debts which the company had would in all likelihood have been for the purpose of buying Motorhomes off Witness Lee. Furthermore the majority of the saints money which was invested into the business would also have gone to buy Motorhomes off Witness Lee. Therefore all (or most) moneys from Daystar would have gone to Witness Lee, K.H. Weigh, and Samuel Chang (The owners of Overseas Christian Stewards as well Phosphorous). Less the expenses for the actual construction of the motorhomes. Does this mean that Witness Lee made off with all the Daystar money? Does this make any sense or am I merely frothing at the mouth. Here is link to a diagram which illustrates what happened with the money (not made by me just to be clear) http://www.laymansfellowship.com/pub...chInBoston.pdf