Why would someone transfer a large sum of money to the Church of Israel, then later demand that those funds be returned? Why is it that all the major donors in the history of the Church of Israel no longer attend Dan Gayman's COI?

This is exactly the same question faced recently by Jerry Gentry, individually and as trustee of the Gentry Family Foundation. The answer is: When fraud and misappropriation of funds have taken place, the perpetrator must pay back the funds received because such funds were solicited and received under deception and false pretense.

A few facts are in order. In 1986, after having gone through divorce, Jerry Gentry remarried and began from scratch to build a new mail order needlecraft publishing company. That same company was sold 8 years later. From the sale of that company, Jerry Gentry transferred a "tithe" to the Gentry Family Foundation, and received a tax deduction. Later the Gentry Family Foundation transferred sums in excess of half a million dollars to the Church of Israel at Schell City, Missouri, under the impression that these funds would be used for the advancement of the gospel of the kingdom. It was only recently that Mr. Gentry learned that his "tithe" donations were largely misappropriated and not used for normal church operations and activities but instead were used for a secretive and clandestine Gayman family business enterprise which included coverup of gross child abuse even expending large sums in legal fees, in an effort to hold back and cover up the truth.

At the time of the "donations," it was understood by Jerry Gentry and the Gentry Family Foundation that funds would be used for the expenses incurred in 1) preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and 2) feeding the flock of God, which constitute the necessary and usual expenses of every Christian church. However, from public and private records, it has come to the attention of Mr. Gentry that Pastor Gayman used his "tithe" funds to purchase farmland, hire an attorney to cover up child abuse, build a private swimming pool for his daughter, remodel personal homes, and buy printing equipment for Paradise Press, an unincorporated commercial for profit printing company "owned" by Mr. Bob Burney and wife Becky Burney. Pastor Gayman converted large sums of "tithe" donation money from Mr. Gentry and the Gentry Family Foundation (and others before him) to promote the secretive Gayman family enterprises and other activities outside the scope of what is usual and necessary expenses generally accepted for churches, in addition to the cover up of child abuse. Pastor Dan Gayman has through subtlety and deception "embezzled" and "misappropriated" "tithe" funds for personal use. It was with great sadness that Jerry Gentry learned of such misappropriation of his "tithe" donations for the personal use of Pastor Dan Gayman, his former good friend, which was first learned from records uncovered during early 2001. According to public deed records, many different "entities" were used by Pastor Dan Gayman in an effort to obscure and cover up the purchase of farm land and other expenditures, in his personal effort to "secretly" 1) defraud the Gentry Family Foundation and other "tithe" payers, and 2) evade paying federal income taxes on "tithes" converted for personal use, while he 3) built his personal Gayman family business enterprise and covered up known child abuse.

Therefore, in an effort to hold Pastor Dan Gayman accountable for misappropriation and fraud, and to right the wrongs he has committed against his supporters, Mr. Gentry has made legal demand for the return of all funds donated by him. Attached you will read the certified letter demanding return of all received funds received by fraud and deception. You can also see where Dan Gayman and board members refused that letter, which was later delivered and signed for by their attorney. Still later, as second set of certified letters were again mailed to Daniel Lee Gayman and signed for by Reed Benson on July 17, 2001. Why were these same two letters later marked "refused" by Dan Gayman and placed back in the mail, as if he had not already received them?