Linda's Litigation Options

[Observer]

Gregory, I have a question. Some have commented on Linda's lack of contesting the divorce. When Danny went to Guam to get the divorce, was there any way for Linda to actually contest the divorce? I mean, was she served papers? Was there due process? I know that it took some time to have the divorce declared legal. Can you comment on that, or have you already done so in a thread I have not yet read? I am not asking for whatever personal reasons she had for whether or not she contested the divorce, but if it was even possible for her to contest the divorce from a legal standpoint.

At the time of the Guam divorce, Linda had been served papers, and she had signed them. IOW, she did not contest it at that time. If she had refused to sign the papers, it would have been another legal situation. The result probably (?) (from a practical standpint) would have been that a divorce would not have been granted in Guam, but it would have been obtained in the United States.

You asked for a statement of fact, without any explaination of her reasons. I have attempted to respond as you requested, although I wanted to say more. :-)

[Eirene]

Gregory, I have a question. Some have commented on Linda's lack of contesting the divorce. When Danny went to Guam to get the divorce, was there any way for Linda to actually contest the divorce? I mean, was she served papers? Was there due process? I know that it took some time to have the divorce declared legal. Can you comment on that, or have you already done so in a thread I have not yet read? I am not asking for whatever personal reasons she had for whether or not she contested the divorce, but if it was even possible for her to contest the divorce from a legal standpoint.

Grith, Let me clarify some things:
1. Danny did not go to guam to get the divorce. All the paperwork was sent there.
2. Linda of course could have contested the divorce and it would have went no farther, as far as down that avenue.
3. It took minimal time for the divorce to be legal. What you refer to is months down the road Linda decided to try challenge the legalities of the divorce that she had agreed to get. There were several reasons for this, but one major reason was because if she could somehow find a loophole for the guam divorce to be declared invalid, then she would be entitled to half of DS's income for the months between the guam divorce and when she decided to contest the legalities and it is my understanding she was also going to go after even more of the marital assets than she had already been given. If she would have been succesful in her quest, it would have been like starting all over with a clean slate and I would guess she was going after more than her share, which she had already received. So the Guam divorce was legal and binding all along and no one challenged it except, her, later down the road. DS's attorney new it was legal from the day of the divorce decree. So when people say they weren't actually divorced until 6 or8 months later, that would be a lie. Just because she chose to challenge it as invalid didn't make it invalid. And in fact, she lost the case as there was no legal cause to challenge it in the first place.

[Observer]

Grith, Let me clarify some things:
1. Danny did not go to guam to get the divorce. All the paperwork was sent there.
2. Linda of course could have contested the divorce and it would have went no farther, as far as down that avenue.
3. It took minimal time for the divorce to be legal. What you refer to is months down the road Linda decided to try challenge the legalities of the divorce that she had agreed to get. There were several reasons for this, but one major reason was because if she could somehow find a loophole for the guam divorce to be declared invalid, then she would be entitled to half of DS's income for the months between the guam divorce and when she decided to contest the legalities and it is my understanding she was also going to go after even more of the marital assets than she had already been given. If she would have been succesful in her quest, it would have been like starting all over with a clean slate and I would guess she was going after more than her share, which she had already received. So the Guam divorce was legal and binding all along and no one challenged it except, her, later down the road. DS's attorney new it was legal from the day of the divorce decree. So when people say they weren't actually divorced until 6 or8 months later, that would be a lie. Just because she chose to challenge it as invalid didn't make it invalid. And in fact, she lost the case as there was no legal cause to challenge it in the first place.

There were several reasons for this, but one major reason was because if she could somehow find a loophole for the guam divorce to be declared invalid, then she would be entitled to half of DS's income for the months between the guam divorce . . .

Are you telling us that you are/wer cloe enough to Linda to know what her motive was. I do not think so.

[Johann]

Grith, Let me clarify some things:
1. Danny did not go to guam to get the divorce. All the paperwork was sent there.
2. Linda of course could have contested the divorce and it would have went no farther, as far as down that avenue.
3. It took minimal time for the divorce to be legal. What you refer to is months down the road Linda decided to try challenge the legalities of the divorce that she had agreed to get. There were several reasons for this, but one major reason was because if she could somehow find a loophole for the guam divorce to be declared invalid, then she would be entitled to half of DS's income for the months between the guam divorce and when she decided to contest the legalities and it is my understanding she was also going to go after even more of the marital assets than she had already been given. If she would have been succesful in her quest, it would have been like starting all over with a clean slate and I would guess she was going after more than her share, which she had already received. So the Guam divorce was legal and binding all along and no one challenged it except, her, later down the road. DS's attorney new it was legal from the day of the divorce decree. So when people say they weren't actually divorced until 6 or8 months later, that would be a lie. Just because she chose to challenge it as invalid didn't make it invalid. And in fact, she lost the case as there was no legal cause to challenge it in the first place.

Irene, I was close to Linda all this time, and I never heard her voice what you are stating here. All I remember her stating at that time was that she wanted to be sure the Guam divorce was legal in the state of Illinois. Danny gloated in his email when the divorce was declared legal and he could marry Brandy immediately after that.

Who told you what Linda was thinking?

[Aletheia]

Irene, I was close to Linda all this time, and I never heard her voice what you are stating here. All I remember her stating at that time was that she wanted to be sure the Guam divorce was legal in the state of Illinois.

Then she merely had to ask legal counsel that question before or after they obtained the uncontested divorce in Guam.

Why would she need to file a civil case to get that question answered?

Plus, since you all published Danny's emails to her, and you have him talking about being the same man 8 mos later after the divorce and still willing to talk reconciliation of both their marriage and her ministry the very same morning of the day she filed in court to sue him to get what would have been automatically hers also, had she wanted to reconcile...

Well sorry. one of you is not being totally honest here, either you or your source.



Y

Are you telling us that you are/wer cloe enough to Linda to know what her motive was. I do not think so.

No, the divorce has been declared valid, and yet the case is still ongoing. Why? What is she going after Mr Matthews? Don't her actions prove what her motive and intent is in filing the case?

Are you trying to act like the litigation "right now" is about anything other then trying to get more then she already got?

What would that be?????

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 25 2007, 11:59 AM

[Observer]

No, the divorce has been declared valid, and yet the case is still ongoing. Why? What is she going after Mr Matthews? Don't her actions prove what her motive and intent is in filing the case?

Are you trying to act like the litigation "right now" is about anything other then trying to get more then she already got?

In regard to the validity of the Guam divorce, and your suggestiong that she simply had to ask legal council: It is self-evident that she did, and that she was told by legal council that the Guam divorce was not valid in IL. Why? That is self-evident because she retained an attorney to filed the lawsuit, and then litigated it in court. No attorney is going to file a lawsuit, and litigate it, if that attorney believes that the client will lose. Why. Because, in a case where it is self-evident that the client will lose, the party to the lawsuit who prevails will be entitled to file a lawsuit against that attorney for "misuse of process." No attorney will risk that. If you understood the law, you would understand that Linda was advised that she potentially had a case. The case was litigated, and she lost. The divorce was declated valid.

Yes the divorce was declard valid. That case is not on-going. The divorce was settled when the IL Court declared it valid. There has been no further llitigation since on that issue.

The issue currently being llitigated in another issue. If you understood the law of Guam, you would know that divorces obtained in Guam, under the conditions that the Sheltons obtained the divorce do not settle several issues commonly related to divorces. Yes, there are other conditions under which those issues are settled. But, those conditions did not exist in the Shelton divorce, and threfore were not settled. Both Danny and Linda signed papers to obtain that divorce in which it was stated that they understood that the divorce did not settle certain issues, and if litigated it would have to be litigated in a United States court. The current litigation is simplly to settle those unresolved issues.

Of course, the Sheltons could have obtained their divorce in IL, which would have settled all issues at one time. But, the Sheltons decided not to do that, and to go a route the essentially guaranteed further litiigation in a U.S. court.

Linda's actons prove that she is attempting to resolve the unsettled issues. So, if you want to say that they are attempts to get more than she got, you are correct on one level. Issues that were not resolved were not part of any settlement. They remained for disposition with later litigation, and that is what it happening.

Referemces have been made to Linda recieving $250 thousand dollars. You will note that the funds you reference largely came from an agreement in regard to Linda's employment, and largely did not involved resolution of marital property. It is largely unresoled marital property issues that are in litigation.

Does that mean that there will never be further litigation in regard to Linda's employment at 3-ABN?

No, it does not. But, that remains to be seen. I am not going to speculate there.

[Aletheia]

Most of you probably know that Linda Shelton and Danny Shelton are litigating certain unresolved issues that were not settled by the Guam divorce decree.

Recently Linda changed from the attorney who had represented her in the past to a new attorney, named Laird Heal. located in Massaschusets. The major point of interest in this is that Mr. Heal works quite closely with a man named Gailon A. Joy.

Gailon A. Joy, as you know, is associated with the Internet site: www.save3abn.com

People in the past have laughed at some of the claims made by Mr. Joy in regard to statements that he would aggressively defend against any lawsuits filed against him, and that he was able to help obtain legal representation for people who might be sued.

O. K. if we watch the play of this litigation, we may get an idea as to the quality of representation that Mr. Joy is able to obtain.

Some of us believe that this is a significant change in the legal climate.

Today Linda and her new lawyer were in court, and it went something like this:

The proceedings started and the Judge point blank asked him:
Do you have a liscence to practice law in Illinois?

Laird J. Heal: Yes your honor.

Danny's counsel approach the bench with documentation that he does not.

When confronted by the Judge about this.

Laird J. Heal : I am trying.... they haven't got back to me...

Judge: You aren't just tardy on your fee... it is supposed to be paid yearly... you haven't been liscenced in eleven years..

Laird J. Heal: I know.. I moved alot... guess they couldn't find me... blah blah and more blah..

Judge to Linda: ... Get a liscenced Attorney before June 8th...


Guess we'll be hearing more now from Gregory about Linda's new, professional lawyer who is such a mover and shaker....

"The Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, an agency of the Illinois Supreme Court, is responsible for maintaining current records of registration and discipline information for lawyers licensed to practice in Illinois, investigating allegations of misconduct by lawyers, and prosecuting the cases where a lawyer's misconduct suggests a threat to the public or to the integrity of the legal profession."


http://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp

ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of April 16, 2007 at 12:18:14 PM: for the following terms: Last Name: Heal, First Name: Laird, status: All, Country: usa Name:Laird James Heal

Date Admitted June 4, 1991

City State Sterling MA

Authorized to Practice? No


Address information is not available online for retired judges or lawyers who are retired, inactive, deceased or who never registered with ARDC, due to privacy considerations or because ARDC never received those addresses. For those lawyers, "N/A" is displayed above to indicate that the city and state information is not available online. Click on the name of a lawyer to obtain more detailed information regarding the lawyer, including registration status, registered business address and telephone number if available, and any public disciplinary or disability history.

http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=781992972
Illinois Registration Status: Not authorized to practice law as attorney is not currently registered with ARDC - Last Registered Year: 1996

[Eirene]

Irene, I was close to Linda all this time, and I never heard her voice what you are stating here. All I remember her stating at that time was that she wanted to be sure the Guam divorce was legal in the state of Illinois. Danny gloated in his email when the divorce was declared legal and he could marry Brandy immediately after that.

Who told you what Linda was thinking?

That would be odd since the legal divorce was obtained and final in the early summer of 04, and he didn't marry Brandy until spring of 06. Your story doesn't mesh....

[awesumtenor]

Today Linda and her new lawyer were in court, and it went something like this:

The proceedings started and the Judge point blank asked him:
Do you have a liscence to practice law in Illinois?

Laird J. Heal: Yes your honor.

Danny's counsel approach the bench with documentation that he does not.

When confronted by the Judge about this.

Laird J. Heal : I am trying.... they haven't got back to me...

Judge: You aren't just tardy on your fee... it is supposed to be paid yearly... you haven't been liscenced in eleven years..

Laird J. Heal: I know.. I moved alot... guess they couldn't find me... blah blah and more blah..

Judge to Linda: ... Get a liscenced Attorney before June 8th...
Guess we'll be hearing more now from Gregory about Linda's new, professional lawyer who is such a mover and shaker....

As if you were there...


In His service,
Mr. J



This post has been edited by princessdi: Apr 26 2007, 12:05 PM

[Grith]

You asked for a statement of fact, without any explaination of her reasons. I have attempted to respond as you requested, although I wanted to say more. :-)

Ahhh, then please say more.

The issue currently being llitigated in another issue. If you understood the law of Guam, you would know that divorces obtained in Guam, under the conditions that the Sheltons obtained the divorce do not settle several issues commonly related to divorces. Yes, there are other conditions under which those issues are settled. But, those conditions did not exist in the Shelton divorce, and threfore were not settled. Both Danny and Linda signed papers to obtain that divorce in which it was stated that they understood that the divorce did not settle certain issues, and if litigated it would have to be litigated in a United States court. The current litigation is simplly to settle those unresolved issues.

Thanks for this explaination.

[PeacefulBe]

Today Linda and her new lawyer were in court, and it went something like this:

The proceedings started and the Judge point blank asked him:
Do you have a liscence to practice law in Illinois?

Laird J. Heal: Yes your honor.

Danny's counsel approach the bench with documentation that he does not.

When confronted by the Judge about this.

Laird J. Heal : I am trying.... they haven't got back to me...

Judge: You aren't just tardy on your fee... it is supposed to be paid yearly... you haven't been liscenced in eleven years..

Laird J. Heal: I know.. I moved alot... guess they couldn't find me... blah blah and more blah..

Judge to Linda: ... Get a liscenced Attorney before June 8th...
Guess we'll be hearing more now from Gregory about Linda's new, professional lawyer who is such a mover and shaker....

Cindy,
Thank you for bringing this information to the forum. While it would be interesting to know who provided you with the information, I would only ask the following:

1. Was the person who provided you this information actually in that courtroom this afternoon?
2. Are you positive this information accurately reflects the discussion in that courtroom?

Do any of us outside of that courtroom really know why Laird J. Heal did not have his Illinois license in hand? If it was a question of this man overlooking that detail, I would have to agree with your sarcastic remarks about him being a "professional lawyer who is such a mover and shaker..." for attention to detail is vitally important for any practicing attorney.

I won't even be a bit surprised if there are remarks similar to yours made tomorrow evening on a certain LIVE program.

However, if there is another, more reasonable explanation for his lack of having that license in hand - say like crossed wires with the Illinois State Bar or whoever grants those licenses once fees are paid, USPS not delivering it in a timely manner, etc., etc. - then the glee of your post might be just a bit premature or even blatantly uncalled for.

[princessdi]

It meshes fine if you comprehend what is being said. In 2004, Danny UPS'ed(Ijes" made that up ) him a quickie divorce in Guam and thought he could marry Brandy(which is also problmatic in itself but for another discussion,). and his trouble were over, but once Linda contested that divorce it was not valid until a judge ruled it so. He was gloating about Brandy in 2004, until he got the court papers.

That would be odd since the legal divorce was obtained and final in the early summer of 04, and he didn't marry Brandy until spring of 06. Your story doesn't mesh....

[Seraphim7]

It meshes fine if you comprehend what is being said. In 2004, Danny UPS'ed(Ijes" made that up ) him a quickie divorce in Guam and thought he could marry Brandy(which is also problmatic in itself but for another discussion,). and his trouble were over, but once Linda contested that divorce it was not valid until a judge ruled it so. He was gloating about Brandy in 2004, until he got the court papers.

[Aletheia]

It meshes fine if you comprehend what is being said. In 2004, Danny UPS'ed(Ijes" made that up ) him a quickie divorce in Guam and thought he could marry Brandy(which is also problmatic in itself but for another discussion,). and his trouble were over, but once Linda contested that divorce it was not valid until a judge ruled it so. He was gloating about Brandy in 2004, until he got the court papers.

well he had 8 mos to do so, if that was true, for that's how long it took Linda to decide to contest. The case and dates are online at franklin County, Illinois...

But that is impossible as Brandi didn't even move from FL to Il until months after the divorce, (Nov I believe) acording to those at 3ABN, and even 8 months after the divorce D.S. was still talking about reconcilliation with L.S. as the published "private" letters on the save 3abn not website prove.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 25 2007, 04:15 PM

[princessdi]

Gurl, Please....you and Eirene going half on those bridges?

well he had 8 mos to do so, if that was true, for that's how long it took Linda to decide to contest.

But that is impossible as Brandi didn't even move from FL to Il until months after the divorce, Nov I believe, acording to those at 3ABN, and even a 8 months after the divorce D.S. was still talking about reconcilliation with Linda as the published "private" letters on the save 3abn not website prove.