Was Linda Innocent? Options

[Aletheia]

Actually it doesn't; the papers are filed after a 7 day stay in Guam by one of the parties. If that party declares an intent to be a resident of Guam "in good faith" then after 90 days he will be considered a resident of Guam...even though he does not have to actually remain in guam for those 90 days that establishes residency. Once he is deemed a resident, he will be granted the divorce even if his spouse doesnt sign the papers; the judge will sign the papers on her behalf, whether she was willing to sign or not.

It takes one to get a divorce in guam... not two.

In His service,
Mr. J

Why are you arguing here? As far as I can see, the only purpose it serves is to sew confusion...

You are describing a divorce by default. That is neither the type of divorce the Sheltons got, nor is it quick, it takes 90 days from filing here in the U.S. also...

I repeat it takes 2 to get a "quick, uncontested divorce" in Guam.

Troubled 3ABN Fires Linda Shelton
By Edwin A. Schwisow www.atoday.com
" the 3ABN board in June voted to dismiss Shelton's now-ex-wife, Linda, from her position as vice president and on-air hostess. The dismissal came just days before the couple's divorce became final in late June; an uncontested divorce filed in Guam by Danny Shelton, naming Linda as respondent, according to divorce papers obtained by Adventist Today, Linda's dismissal in June was followed immediately by an official release by 3ABN's board chairman, Walter Thompson, to the effect that Linda Shelton had chosen to go a 'different direction' from her husband and 3ABN."



www.guamdivorce.us

Non-Residents
Seven Day Uncontested Divorce. Under current Guam law, an uncontested divorce may be granted to non-residents (you do not have to be a U.S. citizen) if both husband and wife agree to ALL terms and if one of the parties visits Guam for at least 7 days immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Prior to 2006, Guam courts granted uncontested divorces without either party being present on Guam . However, in January 2006, Guam law was changed to add the requirement for one party to spend the 7 days (6 nights) on Guam.

Community Property and Custody Settlement. Guam is a community property state. According to Guam divorce laws, martial property, property acquired during the marriage - community property, generally must be divided equally unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Separate property shall be retained by the owning spouse.


Guam is a U.S. territory with the same legal definitions we have..

http://www.uslegalforms.com/legaldefinitio...ted-divorce.php
"In contested divorces, the parties are adversarial and unable to agree on the terms of divorce. Common areas of disagreement include, but are not limited to: grounds for divorce, custody of the children, visitation rights, division of the assets of the marriage, child support, maintenance (alimony), payment of family debts, contribution toward educational expenses (college or parochial), payment of health insurance for the dependent spouse, income tax structuring, etc. Both parties may desire a divorce, but cannot agree on important issues like, but not limited to, property distribution, debt allocation, child support, custody, and alimony. In a contested divorce, the couple seeks to let the court system decide the matters related to the divorce.

In uncontested divorces, the parties are in agreement on all matters, and the court serves to approve their divorce agreement. In some states, expedited procedures exist for uncontested divorce, sometimes referred to as a dissolution. Such a dissolution may be a faster and less expensive alternative, as the parties may file the papers without hiring an attorney."




-- Aletheia

Edited to fix bold text and colored font only

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 3 2007, 08:15 AM

[awesumtenor]

Why are you arguing here? As far as I can see, the only purpose it serves is to sew confusion...

That is neither the type of divorce the Sheltons got, nor is it quick, it takes 90 days from filing here in the U.S. also...

I repeat it takes 2 to get a "quick, uncontested divorce" in Guam. I already posted all this info for Greg Matthews, 3 or 4 times.
Wannt me to look it up for you? BTW, it was also reported by Adventist Today who have copies of the divorce papers.

-- Aletheia

You made a statement that was not factual... trying to be snide.

I called you on it and you were wrong. While it can take 2... it doesnt need 2.

Live up to your screen name and verify the things you declare as fact. Then we wont have the conundrum of someone calling herself 'truth' declaring things that arent as if they were.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

You made a statement that was not factual... trying to be snide.

I called you on it and you were wrong. While it can take 2... it doesnt need 2.

Live up to your screen name and verify the things you declare as fact. Then we wont have the conundrum of someone calling herself 'truth' declaring things that arent as if they were.

In His service,
Mr. J

There was NOTHING snide, unfactual or wrong in what I wrote at all.. You were apparently replying here while I was adding references in edit mode to demonstrate that and to prove what I was saying. --- See my previous post above please.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 1 2007, 01:33 PM

[awesumtenor]

Why are you arguing here? As far as I can see, the only purpose it serves is to sew confusion...

You are describing a divorce by default. That is neither the type of divorce the Sheltons got, nor is it quick, it takes 90 days from filing here in the U.S. also...

I repeat it takes 2 to get a "quick, uncontested divorce" in Guam.

home editor's page about archive atnewsbreak reviews donate subscribe contact Troubled 3ABN Fires Linda Shelton
By Edwin A. Schwisow


www.atoday.com
" the 3ABN board in June voted to dismiss Shelton's now-ex-wife, Linda, from her position as vice president and on-air hostess. The dismissal came just days before the couple's divorce became final in late June; an uncontested divorce filed in Guam by Danny Shelton, naming Linda as respondent, according to divorce papers obtained by Adventist Today, Linda's dismissal in June was followed immediately by an official release by 3ABN's board chairman, Walter Thompson, to the effect that Linda Shelton had chosen to go a 'different direction' from her husband and 3ABN."
www.guamdivorce.us

Non-Residents
Seven Day Uncontested Divorce. Under current Guam law, an uncontested divorce may be granted to non-residents (you do not have to be a U.S. citizen) if both husband and wife agree to all terms and if one of the parties visits Guam for at least 7 days immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Prior to 2006, Guam courts granted uncontested divorces without either party being present on Guam . However, in January 2006, Guam law was changed to add the requirement for one party to spend the 7 days (6 nights) on Guam.

Community Property and Custody Settlement. Guam is a community property state. According to Guam divorce laws, martial property, property acquired during the marriage - community property, generally must be divided equally unless there is an agreement to the contrary. Separate property shall be retained by the owning spouse.
Guam is a U.S. territory with the same legal definitions we have..

http://www.uslegalforms.com/legaldefinitio...ted-divorce.php
"In contested divorces, the parties are adversarial and unable to agree on the terms of divorce. Common areas of disagreement include, but are not limited to: grounds for divorce, custody of the children, visitation rights, division of the assets of the marriage, child support, maintenance (alimony), payment of family debts, contribution toward educational expenses (college or parochial), payment of health insurance for the dependent spouse, income tax structuring, etc. Both parties may desire a divorce, but cannot agree on important issues like, but not limited to, property distribution, debt allocation, child support, custody, and alimony. In a contested divorce, the couple seeks to let the court system decide the matters related to the divorce.

In uncontested divorces, the parties are in agreement on all matters, and the court serves to approve their divorce agreement. In some states, expedited procedures exist for uncontested divorce, sometimes referred to as a dissolution. Such a dissolution may be a faster and less expensive alternative, as the parties may file the papers without hiring an attorney."
-- Aletheia

edited to add proof

Your proof is weak...at best.

ANYONE can file an uncontested divorce. The spouse can then contest it but in most US states and Territories she can delay the processing of said divorce ad infinitum by simply not signing the papers. The atoday statement says "Danny Shelton filed an uncontested divorce" not "The Sheltons filed an uncontested divorce". Guam law is written such that if one party takes a passive line of resistance, the divorce will still be issued by default, eventually.

Your regurgitation of generic information provided for business solicitation is well intentioned... but this proves nothing.

In His service,
Mr. J

[Johann]

Actually it doesn't; the papers are filed after a 7 day stay in Guam by one of the parties. If that party declares an intent to be a resident of Guam "in good faith" then after 90 days he will be considered a resident of Guam...even though he does not have to actually remain in guam for those 90 days that establishes residency. Once he is deemed a resident, he will be granted the divorce even if his spouse doesnt sign the papers; the judge will sign the papers on her behalf, whether she was willing to sign or not.

It takes one to get a divorce in guam... not two.

In His service,
Mr. J

Both of you people are referring to the law in 2006. Remember that Danny filed for that divorce back in 2004, and the divorce was effective on June 21, 2004, when the law did not require any residence in Guam. There is not much sense in discussing what the law of 2006 requires, becaue that law did not apply in 2004.

This post has been edited by Johann: Jan 1 2007, 03:06 PM

[awesumtenor]

You people are referring to the law in 2006. Remember that Danny filed for that divorce back in 2004, and the divorce was effective on June 21, 2004, when the law did not require any residence in Guam. There is not much sense in discussing what the law of 2006 requires, becaue that law did not apply in 2004.

Good point...but the 2004 law didnt require Linda to concur, IIRC and he was able to get the divorce unilaterally...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Aletheia]

QUOTE(Johann @ Jan 1 2007, 04:01 PM)

You people are referring to the law in 2006. Remember that Danny filed for that divorce back in 2004, and the divorce was effective on June 21, 2004, when the law did not require any residence in Guam. There is not much sense in discussing what the law of 2006 requires, becaue that law did not apply in 2004.
-----------------------

The ONLY change in the law regarding a quick uncontested divorce which can be done in about seven days, is that now one party has to stay in Guam for seven days All else is the same. That was in my link above...

Good point...but the 2004 law didnt require Linda to concur, IIRC and he was able to get the divorce unilaterally...

Think about what you are saying and claiming. The divorce was signed in June of 2004, are you trying to say Danny filed it 90 days before then??

If so, proof?

If Linda didn't agree, then that would be a contested divorce. If both parties agree they want a divorce and yet don't agree on the other terms it is still a contested divorce.

The sheltons got a "uncontested divorce" which means they both agred to all terms, and both signed their agreement and the judge just validated their agreement.

I suggest you also read the references I gave above. If you do, it's not hard to understand.


~ Aletheia

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 1 2007, 03:55 PM

[awesumtenor]

I suggest you also read the references I gave above. If you do, it's not hard to understand.
~ Aletheia

Pot. Kettle. Black. You could stand some remedial reading comprehension in your own right. Your 'come into a nearly 3 year old conversation, preconceived notions in tow and proceeding to tell those involved they should listen to you because you know better than they' act has grown tiresome...especially since it is plain your sole purpose for being here is not to learn anything; it is to tell people what they should believe. It's diatribe rather than discorse... and it's

In His service,
Mr. J

This post has been edited by awesumtenor: Jan 1 2007, 03:56 PM

[Aletheia]

Pot. Kettle. Black. You could stand some remedial reading comprehension in your own right. Your 'come into a nearly 3 year old conversation, preconceived notions in tow and proceeding to tell those involved they should listen to you because you know better than they' act has grown tiresome...especially since it is plain your sole purpose for being here is not to learn anything; it is to tell people what they should believe. It's diatribe rather than discorse... and it's

In His service,
Mr. J

sigh...

WHY should I accept your opinions about me, or the Shelton divorce, when you haven't offered me any evidence or proof besides your opinions; and when you claimed the cited law and legal definitions didn't prove anything, also without giving any evidence why, except your own opinions???

[awesumtenor]

sigh...

WHY should I accept your opinions about me, or the Shelton divorce, when you haven't offered me any evidence or proof besides your opinions; and when you claimed the cited law and legal definitions didn't prove anything, also without giving any evidence why, except your own opinions???

1. Legal definitions are not law. You made a claim about the law but cited none...

2. The AToday article you cited does not say what you claim; re-read it.

Since what you cited does not say what you claim it does there is no need on my part to refute it beyond stating the obvious... that it doesn't say what you claim it says.

The bigger question is who you think you are fooling with this feigned objectivity when it has been plain that while you have been a great many things in your short stay here, objective doesnt make that list.

What's in this for you, Cindy? Why are you *really* here?

In His service,
Mr. J

[Observer]

Both of you people are referring to the law in 2006. Remember that Danny filed for that divorce back in 2004, and the divorce was effective on June 21, 2004, when the law did not require any residence in Guam. There is not much sense in discussing what the law of 2006 requires, becaue that law did not apply in 2004.

Johann, Alethia and I have gone this round before. Alethia continues to judge the 2004 divorce by a 2006 law. She supports that by stating that only one aspect of that law was changed. That is a lay position, taken by a person who does not understand the law. Even worse, she does not understand that she does not understand! There is not use attempting to argue with her.

She compounds her errors in other legal ways. In some of the issues I challenged her on, she had cited a post on a legal website that came from an attorney who was willing to accept clients in such issues. She did not seem to me to understand that a better reference would have been the statute. [NOTE: I am not stating that she never cited a 2006 statute.]

Overall her legal analysis appeared to me to fail to reflect any nuanced understanding of what she was discussing.

[awesumtenor]

Johann, Alethia and I have gone this round before. Alethia continues to judge the 2004 divorce by a 2006 law. She supports that by stating that only one aspect of that law was changed. That is a lay position, taken by a person who does not understand the law. Even worse, she does not understand that she does not understand! There is not use attempting to argue with her.

She compounds her errors in other legal ways. In some of the issues I challenged her on, she had cited a post on a legal website that came from an attorney who was willing to accept clients in such issues. She did not seem to me to understand that a better reference would have been the statute. [NOTE: I am not stating that she never cited a 2006 statute.]

Overall her legal analysis appeared to me to fail to reflect any nuanced understanding of what she was discussing.

Which was my point when I got on this merry go round... regarding both her statement and the purported proof of said statement...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Chez]

You guys can talk about Linda all you want, but have you seen Brandi (or Brandy) lately? She looks unhappy and indifferent. I feel sorry for this lady. I think that she didn't know what she was getting into, but now reality has set in. She is not happy. Pray for the lady. She needs it.

[Aletheia]

[quote name='Observer' date='Jan 1 2007, 05:32 PM' post='166963']
Johann, Alethia and I have gone this round before. Alethia continues to judge the 2004 divorce by a 2006 law. She supports that by stating that only one aspect of that law was changed. That is a lay position, taken by a person who does not understand the law. Even worse, she does not understand that she does not understand! There is not use attempting to argue with her.
-------------------------------------------------------


When you tried to argue this you cited an article saying the exact same thing I did about that being the only change in the law, do you remember that?

That was the only reference or citation you ever gave.


AND I REPEATEDLY ASKED you to cite the 2004 law which backs up your claims, or lacking that any reference at all. Remember this from maritime?

[quote]Greg,

I am sure you know it is impossible for me to prove a negative.

I already know and posted that the change in the law was that a non-resident obtaining a uncontested divorce with another non-resident in Guam is required to now reside in guam 7 days prior to filing.

If there is some other change in the law, do us the courtesy of posting it. It is entirely possible for you to prove that, if true.

When you do so, please point out to me and others reading here, my grave legal blunder as so far I still don't know what you are talking about, or why you are repeatedly insisting that.

Thank you,
Aletheia [/quote]

You NEVER answered.

The last time I asked you was here on BSDA when you came making the same unsupported statements and i gave all the evidence to support what I was sayiny: http://www.blacksda.com/forums/index.php?s...mp;#entry164425 Again you NEVER answered.

Now here you are making claims again that you do not prove.

Have you ever supplied any backup evidence or support? As that is the complaint you are now trying to makie about me, that seems like a reasonable question

If you did where's the link?


snipped more opinions...

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Jan 1 2007, 09:12 PM

[HUGGINS130]

Which was my point when I got on this merry go round... regarding both her statement and the purported proof of said statement...

In His service,
Mr. J

Mr J, when you can't get their attention because they don't have a teachable spirit, and you know that what you are trying to get across to them is then you know it's probably best to move on... but you can handle your business im sure!!! happy new year Elder J...