Linda's Litigation Options

[steffan]

Disagree.....If the "client" is wise and claims to be a follower of Christ.....then "he" would be the one who sets the stage and makes the decisions. Who wants to blindly follow any person who claims the world as his home?...Not wise. I would never put my trust in a man rather than in my Lord. That is the weakest argument and one not believed by those who are watching.
I so agree...

Wrong. How can the client decide legal strategy when unversed in the law?
You say you wouldn't put your trust in one who makes this world his home? You are assuming the 3abn attorney's are not christians? Where would you get that information?
You would never put your trust in man rather than the Lord? Good point except there is so much more depth in that statement than what you have written.
If you need surgery, you are putting your life in the hands of that surgeon. Now, you can pray and ask God to guide his hands and be with you and him during that surgery but...you still must depend on the doctor's skills to a certain degree. Why? Because you don't have the knowledge to operate on yourself. So you come to a point of having to trust a skilled surgeon as you pray for God to direct him.
This same scenerio can apply here. The client does not have the legal expertise to know what decisions to make or what options are avaliable so he puts it in the hands of those who do know, and prays that God will guide and direct them to make the right decisions and use their specific skills accordingly. Just like the surgeon.

[LaurenceD]

"Just like the surgeon." ...and just like the lawyer(s) that lost the case against the Dept. of Rev. in Il. for 3abn. What a slam!

[Observer]

Wrong. How can the client decide legal strategy when unversed in the law?
You say you wouldn't put your trust in one who makes this world his home? You are assuming the 3abn attorney's are not christians? Where would you get that information?
You would never put your trust in man rather than the Lord? Good point except there is so much more depth in that statement than what you have written.
If you need surgery, you are putting your life in the hands of that surgeon. Now, you can pray and ask God to guide his hands and be with you and him during that surgery but...you still must depend on the doctor's skills to a certain degree. Why? Because you don't have the knowledge to operate on yourself. So you come to a point of having to trust a skilled surgeon as you pray for God to direct him.
This same scenerio can apply here. The client does not have the legal expertise to know what decisions to make or what options are avaliable so he puts it in the hands of those who do know, and prays that God will guide and direct them to make the right decisions and use their specific skills accordingly. Just like the surgeon.

Steffan, I work in a teaching hospital. We expect that patients will be involved. Yes, our MDs are experts. They recommend. They guide. But, utilmately, they tell us whether or not we operate, what medication they will not take, and much more.

Tonight, I will meet with a group of people, who will vote to ask an attorney to come to our group and give us some advice. Yes, that will be on the clock, and we will pay the bill. On the date that lawyer comes I will be prepared. I am obtaining copies of legal documents today. I will know a lot about the issues. I will be prepared with questions that will be pointed. In the end, the group of people whith whom the attorney will meet, will take a vote that will instruct the attorney in what that lawyer will do. You see, even lawyers take instruction from clients. That is why we pay them. We pay them to advise us. We decide. That is why the client is responsible for the actions of an attorney.

This post has been edited by Observer: Jun 11 2007, 01:22 PM

[mozart]

good post gregory. what i'm thinking is that if the client has so many issues that are the result of secrecy and the client is innocent, they might reconsider the way they have dealt with things and think it would be a good idea to have things out in the open for a change. i'm sure the attorneys and the client in this case, want things hidden from view for good reason. the client is more interested in winning the case for the purspose of SPIN, than he is in winning/satisfying the hearts of his viewers and contributors. i don't think it is any surprise to any of us that they don't have any respect or concern for us. this is strictly business.
it seems clear, and i think pickle touched on this some time ago, that not all court cases are good for the client even if they do win. one reason being the exposure. i have a feeling that the client and the attorneys in this case will seek to permanently seal the records of this case and the records of any future cases. as has been the strategy in this whole situation, the so-called evidence is used to the fullest extent without ever having to be revealed. therefore, there will always be unanswered questions and that is the way they need it to be to maintain any hope of redeeming their reputation through false pretenses. open, honest repentance and restoration does not seem to be anywhere on their radar even tho' it is the only true Christian hope.
i would like to make it clear to "them" that we want something back for our support and what we want "back" is the truth.
i believe that only God can make that happen. if they do not listen to God, then some day, some time, the bottom is gonna fall out.
remember in forrest gump when captain dan was up on the mast of the "shrimpin' boat" and he was raging back at the raging storm and forrest said, "i think that's when God...... showed up". God will show up and He will be right on time.

Steffan, I work in a teaching hospital. We expect that patients will be involved. Yes, our MDs are experts. They recommend. They guide. But, utilmately, they tell us whether or not we operate, what medication they will not take, and much more.

Tonight, I will meet with a group of people, who will vote to ask an attorney to come to our group and give us some advice. Yes, that will be on the clock, and we will pay the bill. On the date that lawyer comes I will be prepared. I am obtaining copies of legal documents today. I will know a lot about the issues. I will be prepared with questions that will be pointed. In the end, the group of people whith whom the attorney will meet, will take a vote that will instruct the attorney in what that lawyer will do. You see, even lawyers take instruction from clients. That is why we pay them. We pay them to advise us. We decide. That is why the client is responsible for the actions of an attorney.

[runner4him]

Steffan, I work in a teaching hospital. We expect that patients will be involved. Yes, our MDs are experts. They recommend. They guide. But, utilmately, they tell us whether or not we operate, what medication they will not take, and much more.

Tonight, I will meet with a group of people, who will vote to ask an attorney to come to our group and give us some advice. Yes, that will be on the clock, and we will pay the bill. On the date that lawyer comes I will be prepared. I am obtaining copies of legal documents today. I will know a lot about the issues. I will be prepared with questions that will be pointed. In the end, the group of people whith whom the attorney will meet, will take a vote that will instruct the attorney in what that lawyer will do. You see, even lawyers take instruction from clients. That is why we pay them. We pay them to advise us. We decide. That is why the client is responsible for the actions of an attorney.

Amen!

good post gregory. what i'm thinking is that if the client has so many issues that are the result of secrecy and the client is innocent, they might reconsider the way they have dealt with things and think it would be a good idea to have things out in the open for a change. i'm sure the attorneys and the client in this case, want things hidden from view for good reason. the client is more interested in winning the case for the purspose of SPIN, than he is in winning/satisfying the hearts of his viewers and contributors. i don't think it is any surprise to any of us that they don't have any respect or concern for us. this is strictly business.
it seems clear, and i think pickle touched on this some time ago, that not all court cases are good for the client even if they do win. one reason being the exposure. i have a feeling that the client and the attorneys in this case will seek to permanently seal the records of this case and the records of any future cases. as has been the strategy in this whole situation, the so-called evidence is used to the fullest extent without ever having to be revealed. therefore, there will always be unanswered questions and that is the way they need it to be to maintain any hope of redeeming their reputation through false pretenses. open, honest repentance and restoration does not seem to be anywhere on their radar even tho' it is the only true Christian hope.
i would like to make it clear to "them" that we want something back for our support and what we want "back" is the truth.
i believe that only God can make that happen. if they do not listen to God, then some day, some time, the bottom is gonna fall out.
remember in forrest gump when captain dan was up on the mast of the "shrimpin' boat" and he was raging back at the raging storm and forrest said, "i think that's when God...... showed up". God will show up and He will be right on time.

Amen again!

[Fran]

I guess judging from recent events in the business world, one could say the same of accountants...no offense...

LT,

I believe you make some excellent points!!

Snoopy;

Oh yes, the same can be said for all professionals/non-professionals. No offense taken at all! I have just had my share of bad/good luck and am very gun shy. Lawyers and Doctors are at the top of my list. Sorry.

I guess I have dealt with more sorry Doctors than Lawyers! Yes, I have had my share of stupid Accountants too. ( I have done a few "stupids" myself! But experience taught me a lot. Do it once, you won't do it again; mark my word! )

LT;

Your comments were excellent. We lose desire for their services "Until they are needed" is so true.

My problem is figuring out which one to trust. How can we know? Can't tell by their rates! Many people think that the more they charge the better they are. I don't think that is correct either.

I have called many getting referrals and still don't know. I have 2 doctors I would fight to keep; two I would like to dump, but can't decide who to choose as a replacement.

I have a lawyer. However, one lawyer does not cover all of my needs. I can only afford one. Do I change? Well, it depends on if a problem is in mid stream!

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I have been on break from 3ABN issues, all Internet links, and my email. I am now back and things seem to be progressing as expected.

Good points, Snoopy

[sonshineonme]

Do you really think that pickle and joy are looking to Him with their tabloid sensational headlines splashed all over the internet. Do you honestly think that Jesus would bless those actions. The slanderous and hateful accusations by 2 men that have never even met Danny or the 3abn board and have never spent anytime at 3abn. They are so far off the track spiritually how in the world could they be blessed.
Then on the "muzzle" issue, I take it you have never been involved in a detailed court case and litigation. The "client" doesn't make those kind of decisions that pertain to legal terms like impoundment. The attorney's decide their strategy's and tell the client what they think is best. If DS or 3abn knew enough about the law to strategize their case, they would handle it themselves.

Steffan, just how many times did Pickle and Joy ask to see the evidence and also ask to meet with the board? And what was the response of Danny and his hand picked board??? Must be that filing suite in a US District Court now meets the new biblical standards of the firm that is suppose to counter-act the counterfit rather than meeting face to face and discussing the allegations and the evidence. But that is the issue...they are a law unto themselves..able to make and grant ecclesiastical law relating to divorce and remarriage in defiance of Jesus very clear standard in Matthew. So why would they give serious consideration to meeting with "nobodys" anyway? Right?



Now back to the marital property case.
One might ask the question "Does anyone know what it means when a court sanctions someone? Do we all agree this is a very serious judgment handed down by a court? When someone is caught lying to the court for example, a judge will sometimes place sanctions on the side caught lying to the court.

Steffan, any more serious than failing to fully answer interrogatories, failing to update answers to interrogatories, answering with non-substantive answers? Now lets see, if Danny's lawyer claims the answers are complete when they clearly are not is that SERIOUS? If he fails to amend and state the truth, "the whole truth and nothing but the truth", will he face sanctions? And how would this compare to separate statements, one of which was answered by counsel in 2005, the other answered by Linda in 2006 and was suppose to be corrected by her counsel who failed to correct the record. On the other hand deliberately refusing to provide evidence and disclose ones assets correctly could have far more serious consequences, wouldn't you agree?



One of the first punishments for being sanctioned by a judge is usually making the team caught in the lie to pay for the other sides attorneys fees. Why? Usually when a petitioner for example, accuses a respondent of false allegations, the respondent has to spend lots of money for a law firm to defend him/her. This case may go to several hearings before a judge has enough information to make a decision. If the judge feels that the petitioner, for example, has lied about whatever, he will rule in favor of the respondent and place sanctions on the petitioner, making her/him pay for all the respondents attorneys fees. This could be thousands of dollars!

And what would be the penalty if the respondents claims and responses were found deficient when his counsel claims they are complete and accurate? And what would the respondent have to pay?



It will be interesting to see how closely this follows with the DS & Ls case. It will be interesting to see if the judge made such a sanction against Linda for lying. If he did, there can be no valid excuses offered on her or her attorney Heal's part. If this scenerio resembles what happened in their recent hearing, The fact will go down permanetly in the court records that, they are guilty of misrepresenting facts to the court.

Yes, it will be interesting to see won't it?? Because you and I both know that counselor Laird entered this situation and appeared well after the incident in question. The request to admit relative to the June 2004 agreement was answered by counselor Drew in 2005. The answers to interrogatories propounded by respondent to the petitioner were answered in late 2006 by Drew. Respondents counselor sought to strike the interrogatory answer and requested his costs for the motion. Drew said he was going to answer the motion and supplement petitioners answers to correct the differing answers, but did not do so by the hearing date, several months after he was suppose to answer the motion and supplement Linda's answers. Counselor Drew withdrew the day of the hearing and Laird Heal entered an appearance but counselor Drew still failed to deliver the file to Heal until the end of May. Now, is this Linda's problem...Drew's problem or counselor Lairds problem? And would you be giving notice to your malpractice carrier of a potential claim?

Tell me steffan, what are they guilty of representing to the court? Whether the copy of the agreement done in June 2004 was a true copy of the one signed by Linda...and why did Linda question the document? Because Drew claimed he could not find his copy of the original and had to wait for respondent to produce a copy. Linda simply questioned the authenticity of the copy tendered as she was not certain she had signed it with all the conditions purportedly included in the one produced by respondent that did not have her initials on all pages. Now, would you question the authenticity of this document tendered under the circumstances? Would you question the due diligence of counselor Drew? And what would you do Steffan? Hire new counsel, just maybe?

Now, lets watch carefully to see how respondent answers motions to compel responses to interrogatories? That will be a much more interesting show! Wonder just how honest and forthright respondent will be? And don't forget those sanctions you educated us too!

[mikell]

Wrong. How can the client decide legal strategy when unversed in the law?
You say you wouldn't put your trust in one who makes this world his home? You are assuming the 3abn attorney's are not christians? Where would you get that information?
You would never put your trust in man rather than the Lord? Good point except there is so much more depth in that statement than what you have written.
If you need surgery, you are putting your life in the hands of that surgeon. Now, you can pray and ask God to guide his hands and be with you and him during that surgery but...you still must depend on the doctor's skills to a certain degree. Why? Because you don't have the knowledge to operate on yourself. So you come to a point of having to trust a skilled surgeon as you pray for God to direct him.
This same scenerio can apply here. The client does not have the legal expertise to know what decisions to make or what options are avaliable so he puts it in the hands of those who do know, and prays that God will guide and direct them to make the right decisions and use their specific skills accordingly. Just like the surgeon.

Steppan, like I said before, you really need to cut back on your coffee drinking, and start drinking de-cafe.

This post has been edited by mikell: Jul 6 2007, 08:08 PM

[Daryl Fawcett]

The following was posted by steffan in another topic here at BSDAOL:

As for Laird's part in the whole scenerio, well if his first appearance for Linda was without an actived license and the next court date he was a no show, I wouldn't hold my breath for any brilliant legal strategy from him. By the way, his request for yet another continuance on the marital property case arrived approx 15 minutes after the Judge ruled against Linda. The judge stated that contrary to what she said, she knew what she was signing when she signed the marital property agreement and the contract is valid. The judge sanctioned her and she will be responsible for paying Danny's attorney's fees for this part of the case, in which, she had no case (forgive the pun.)

Did this actually happen as posted?

Can anybody verify what happened, one way or the other?

[Pickle]

The following was posted by steffan in another topic here at BSDAOL:

Did this actually happen as posted?

Can anybody verify what happened, one way or the other?

I'm not sure what event he was talking about, but I understand that Linda has to pay half a day's legal fees for Danny's side due to her previous attorney not doing something he was asked to do and which he said that he would do and which he really needed to do. This was over an issue that came up a number of months ago and was never dealt with properly. That's my understanding, right or wrong.

[Observer]

I'm not sure what event he was talking about, but I understand that Linda has to pay half a day's legal fees for Danny's side due to her previous attorney not doing something he was asked to do and which he said that he would do and which he really needed to do. This was over an issue that came up a number of months ago and was never dealt with properly. That's my understanding, right or wrong.

Bob:

As you have stated it, typically the court would sanction the attorney, charge the lawyer, and not allow the lawyer to charge the client for the mistake of the attorney.

[lurker]

In regard to Steffan's post about Linda being sanctioned-If you look at the case information, it lists fines and fees. I have seen at least $100 of that there for a long time. While I don't see a single item of $12, an item or items may have increased by that much to bring up the total to $112. If you look at payments, there was $100 paid February 8 2005 and $12 paid March 12 2007. I don't see anything new.

[runner4him]

Then on the "muzzle" issue, I take it you have never been involved in a detailed court case and litigation. The "client" doesn't make those kind of decisions that pertain to legal terms like impoundment. The attorney's decide their strategy's and tell the client what they think is best. If DS or 3abn knew enough about the law to strategize their case, they would handle it themselves.

I would like some clarification on the law suit and the impoundment order, steffan.....you seem to know quite a bit although W.T. says you do not....I just want to know if you knew what the order to impound was about? Do you think it was something that the attorneys wanted to do and not 3abn? That is what you seem to imply. I think you said in another post somewhere that it was doomed to fail because it was unconstitutional or something like that. I assume you are saying it was a lost cause from the very moment that the petition was requested and therefore just a manuver to stall and take up the judge's or someone's time?

Thanks for answering.

r4Him

[Daryl Fawcett]

I can, therefore, assume that Linda's litigation against Danny Shelton is still ongoing?

[Pickle]

I haven't heard a word about it being over.