Linda's Litigation Options

[Aletheia]

So this young single mother of two moved to 3abn without first going there and checking for possible employment and housing? Did the mother make the arrangements for her?

She didn't move to 3ABN, she moved to Illinois...

I don't know all, but I do know her Mom called Danny in Oct of 2004 and asked if there was a job opening at 3ABN as she had come through a rough time and was moving there. Danny told her "I don't know, Molly is in charge of that, have her come in and talk to molly when she get's here. I don't know who else her Mom called, but when she moved there in Nov, she did go in and apply and was interviewed by Molly. Molly hired her part time answering phones and she also worked partime in another dept?? I also know that Dr Walt Thompson has written in a e-mail around here somewhere ( the search feature isn't working, so I can't provide the link right now) that he met and shared lunch with her and her girls the day she arrived.

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 25 2007, 09:57 PM

[Pickle]

You know Bob, the accounts aren't really that different on the issues raised. In fact Aletheia was correct in everything she said. Fact, Laird did not have a valid license to practice in Il...Fact, he answered in the affirmative when ask if he did....Fact, he made excuses as to why he didn't have it yet....We know all this is true by the mere fact that the proceedings did not continue and the judge told Linda to get a licensed attorney.
Of course what you failed to mention is that DS's attorney ask for the whole thing to be thrown out since he wasn't licensed but the Judge said that wouldn't be fair to Mrs. Shelton as he was assuming that she thought she did have one.
So Bob, what's not true?

Which is it? I was told he had a license and had paid the fees. You're saying he didn't have a license. Do can you have a license and be inactive, or do you have to have your fees paid up and current in order to have a license?

Please post documentation from either state statutes or bar association by-laws that would clarify this point.

[Fran]

That sounds like a nice little spin all packaged up. One thing is wrong with that. When the judge ask if he was licensed to practice in Il he said YES YOUR HONOR! No matter how you spin it he lied. Had he not been exposed, proceedings would have went on as planned with no one the wiser.

Fran: It sounds to me that the State of IL has the same problem as the one Danny has.

1. Danny has a problem posting Trust Funds, Asset Disposals, Posting other Ministries money into the 3ABN Coffers, and things like that in General. I wonder if he taught IL his tricks

2. The money was paid. All the appropriate work was done, but Danny must have shown them how to not post stuff. Sounds like a court problem with backlogging.

You can not blame the lawyer for the IL offices not being prompt in their duties!

Come on, give us a break!

Your Comments: Are you honestly trying to say that he drove all the way from Mass, a long long trip, and Linda drove from springfield, knowing that he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything because he was going to have to admit to the judge he didn't have his license yet? Please, he thought he could get a way with it but failed miserably.

Fran: Shame on you for ridiculing Linda and the Lawyer when the blame clearly should be one the shoulders of the Stat of IL office~ And you expect us to believe you?

Your comment: No it doesn't mesh. As I said no one was questioning the legality of the finality of the divorce in june except Linda, months down the road. The divorce was final and legal and that finding was "upheld" by a court of law after Linda tried to force her own issue that it wasn't legal. There is a difference in a finding being UPHELD as compared to being "declared". The very fact that the court UPHELD the legalities of the guam divorce just proves what I am saying. They were legally divorced in june of 04 and he married Brandi spring of 06. Almost a 2 year span. For you to say they weren't divorced until 06 and he married right after, is again, why one can't trust your credibility. If you don't understand the court system or why Linda was trying to work it, then you should stay away from these types of post. If you do understand, then you were trying to spin it, again, in a certain direction that you want it to go.
Obviously not, or you wouldn't be asking Pickle.

Fran: Really, you need to wipe those eggs off your face.

1. The divorce was over in June 2004
2. When Linda was advised the divorce may not be legal in IL, she filed a what ever it is you call it!
3. THIS IS WHY Danny could not marry Brandy for 2 years.

I made a post on CA long before November 2004 about Danny having a new main squeeze when I became aware of the situation about her being close to Melody's age.

Shame on you!

[Shepherdswife]

It seems there is confusion re: terms here between licensed and activated. Yes, he has a license in IL. It was inactive for 11 years, but still a license. He set in motion the re-activation process. If he had not been licensed already in IL, he could not get activated this quickly, I don't believe. Don't attorneys have to take the bar in every state in which they wish to practice? And that is a long process?

Whether he knew the activation process was not complete or not I have no way of knowing, but he is a licensed IL attorney--or so it seems to me...

shepherdswife

[Noahswife]

It seems there is confusion re: terms here between licensed and activated. Yes, he has a license in IL. It was inactive for 11 years, but still a license. He set in motion the re-activation process. If he had not been licensed already in IL, he could not get activated this quickly, I don't believe. Don't attorneys have to take the bar in every state in which they wish to practice? And that is a long process?

Whether he knew the activation process was not complete or not I have no way of knowing, but he is a licensed IL attorney--or so it seems to me...

shepherdswife

I have not had any time to read threads for nearly a week so I am way behind on current posts and even why this particular issue is being discussed. However, i thought i would post a quick response to this.

Once an attorney has passed the bar and is licensed to practice law he can chose normally between different statuses when he registers yearly or whatever process that state has for this. After passing the original state's bar, an attorney may also want to practice in a different state. A young attorney will normally take the bar again in that second state. However, with experience an attorney may also be admitted to practice in another state upon meeting certain criteria and retaking the bar is not necessary. It is also not unusual to practice in another state using co-counsel. Federal administrative practice and federal court practice can be an entirely different animal.

This post has been edited by Noahswife: Apr 26 2007, 06:13 AM

[Eirene]

Which is it? I was told he had a license and had paid the fees. You're saying he didn't have a license. Do can you have a license and be inactive, or do you have to have your fees paid up and current in order to have a license?

Please post documentation from either state statutes or bar association by-laws that would clarify this point.

That's pretty simple Bob and really the answer doesn't affect the outcome. In order for a license to be valid in a state, it has to be kept active. That is a matter of keeping up the fees every year etc. Laird didn't. Frans statement that said it was the fault of of the state may in part, be accurate but that is a moot point on this picture. Here is the part being left out. He knew he had not been re-instated before he left Mass. If he intended to be honest and forthcoming why wouldn't he have notified the court before proceedings and ask for a continuance because he had not been re-instated? Unless he intended to try and get by with it, why drive all the way to Southern IL for nothing? And why answer to the affirmative when asked if he was licensed to practice in Il? No, don't say well he did have a license. A license doesn't count in a state if it is inactive and he knew it was still inactive. All of this "he was working on it" doesn't get it. You and Gailon are using a play on words to smokescreen the act itself.

[ex3ABNemployee]

That's pretty simple Bob and really the answer doesn't affect the outcome. In order for a license to be valid in a state, it has to be kept active. That is a matter of keeping up the fees every year etc. Laird didn't. Frans statement that said it was the fault of of the state may in part, be accurate but that is a moot point on this picture. Here is the part being left out. He knew he had not been re-instated before he left Mass. If he intended to be honest and forthcoming why wouldn't he have notified the court before proceedings and ask for a continuance because he had not been re-instated? Unless he intended to try and get by with it, why drive all the way to Southern IL for nothing? And why answer to the affirmative when asked if he was licensed to practice in Il? No, don't say well he did have a license. A license doesn't count in a state if it is inactive and he knew it was still inactive. All of this "he was working on it" doesn't get it. You and Gailon are using a play on words to smokescreen the act itself.

You can read Mr. Laird's mind and see what he knew? You're good!

The dannyscribes seem to be very concerned about the presence of Mr. Laird for some reason. Has anyone else picked up on that?

[Eirene]

Cindy,

Are you feeling a bit set up again by your info providers? What is your response to what Gailon is providing as the actual reason Linda's attorney did not have the license in hand for the hearing? Would you agree that it might have been a good idea to double check the facts before your jump to cast aspersions on Laird J. Heal?

Or, do you maintain that what you were told is the truth and Gailon is just spinning away as usual? I really am interested in knowing your take on this.

PB

PB, see my post to pickle to clarify for you, again....

[awesumtenor]

PB, see my post to pickle to clarify for you, again....

You werent there either, Eirene... someone who wasn't there offering to corroborate the account of someone else who wasn't there is nothing more than the blind leading the blind...

But I suppose some happen to like falling in ditches... which would explain the frequency with which they do so...

In His service,
Mr. J

[Observer]

That's pretty simple Bob and really the answer doesn't affect the outcome. In order for a license to be valid in a state, it has to be kept active. That is a matter of keeping up the fees every year etc. Laird didn't. Frans statement that said it was the fault of of the state may in part, be accurate but that is a moot point on this picture. Here is the part being left out. He knew he had not been re-instated before he left Mass. If he intended to be honest and forthcoming why wouldn't he have notified the court before proceedings and ask for a continuance because he had not been re-instated? Unless he intended to try and get by with it, why drive all the way to Southern IL for nothing? And why answer to the affirmative when asked if he was licensed to practice in Il? No, don't say well he did have a license. A license doesn't count in a state if it is inactive and he knew it was still inactive. All of this "he was working on it" doesn't get it. You and Gailon are using a play on words to smokescreen the act itself.

As an attorney, he would not attempt to "get by" with it. He could expect that the court would enquire an answer of him.

As I see it, he had paid the required fees to again practice. What he did not realize is that the records had not been updated so they reflected that he had not paid them, when he had.

This seems to me to be an administrative matter.

As an example: The day my teen-age son passed his driver's examination, he became licensed to drive in this State. However, it was a week or two before his actual license came in the mail that authorized him to drive. If he had been stopped by the police, he would have been licensed to drive, but not in possession of the actual license.

The attorney was authorized to practice law in IL. But, as the records had not beeen updated, the paper submitted to the judge by the other side said otherwise.

It should be noted that if the judge really thought that there was a problem, and that he was not authorized to practice law, the judge would have come down on him with a sledge hammer. The judge did not. The issue was not considered to be a big one by the judge.

[Aletheia]

Here's the scoop according to Gailon:

• Attorney Laird J. Heal is licensed to practice law in Illinois.

Here's the real scoop:

http://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp
ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of April 25, 2007 at 12:14:42 PM: for the following terms: Last Name: Heal, First Name: Laird, status: All, State: IL, Country: usa

Your search terms do not match the record of any lawyer licensed in Illinois.

http://www.iardc.org/ardcroll.asp
ARDC Lawyer Search Results from the ARDC database last updated as of April 25, 2007 at 12:14:42 PM: for the following terms: Last Name: Heal, First Name: Laird, status: All, State: MA, Country: usa

Name Laird James Heal
Date Admitted June 4, 1991
City State Sterling MA
Authorized to Practice? No

Here's the scoop according to Gailon:...

• He is an inactive member of the bar and has had that status for the last 11 years.
• He paid 11 years of fees around two weeks agho, when he found out he was going to be taking this case.
• Though the Illinois Bar was paid two weeks ago, they haven't updated their records.

You clearly don't understand what you are posting here. Not without paying he hasn't been an Inactive member. Anyway it's not them he has to worry about:

Illinois state bar:
Inactive Members - former active members of at least two consecutive years who are designated as being in inactive status by the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Dues: $55/yr.

Here's the scoop according to Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission:

LAWYER SEARCH: ATTORNEY'S REGISTRATION AND PUBLIC DISCIPLINARY RECORD

ARDC Individual Attorney Record of Public Registration and Public Disciplinary and Disability Information as of April 25, 2007 at 12:14:42 PM:

Full Licensed Name: Laird James Heal
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer
by Illinois Supreme Court: June 4, 1991
Registered Business Address: 3**** Sterling, MA 01564-2363
Registered Business Phone: (978)*******
Illinois Registration Status: Not authorized to practice law as attorney is not currently registered with ARDC - Last Registered Year: 1996


Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings: None

Check carefully to be sure that you have selected the correct lawyer. At times, lawyers have similar names. The disciplinary results displayed above include information related to any and all public discipline, court-ordered disability inactive status, reinstatement and restoration dispositions, and pending public proceedings. Investigations are confidential and information related to the existence or status of any investigation is not available. For additional information regarding data on this website, contact ARDC at (312) 565-2600 or, within Illinois, at (800) 826-8625.

Here's the scoop according to Gailon:...

• The case could have proceeded with Laird as Linda's counsel, but the judge wasn't too happy with Danny's side

.

No, the case can not proceed when Linda's Lawyer is not authorized to practice law..

Here's the scoop according to Gailon:....
Okay, here's the problem with Danny's side:

• The judge thought that there was a motion to compel.
• Danny's side brought a motion to strike instead.

The case could not proceed when Linda's Lawyer is not authorized to practice law, which is why Danny's Lawyer brought a Motion to strike, instead of the expected motion.

Since they could not proceed ,the same exact hearing has been rescheduled for June 8th. Linda was told she needed to have a liscensed attorney before then.

Here's the scoop according to Gailon:....

• The judge wasn't too happy with that and told Danny's lawyer to prepare for trial.
• The judge was bothered that there still weren't any depositions done.

Next court date is June 8. On that date the following are scheduled:

• Pretrial conference.
• Mandatory settlement conference.
• Pretrial motions.

Depositions need to be done by then.

And Why would I go by what Gailon says? He wasn't there. And the Court records are much more accurate.

Case 2005D30 Last Update 04/25/2007 Last Upload 04/25/2007 @ 04:30
Case Category Civil Case Type - Subtype D - 151 Divorce/Disolution
Litigant Information
Full Name SHELTON, LINDA SUE
Role Plaintiff
Full Name SHELTON, DANNY LEE
Role Defendant
Initial Open Date 02/08/2005

Hearings
Type Date Time Judge Location
37 - Motion/dismiss 01/30/2006 13:30 LEWIS,_R A
39 - Settlement conf 07/13/2006 09:30 LAMAR B
107 - Motion/sanctions 04/11/2007 13:30 LEWIS,_L C
10 - Motion hearing 04/25/2007 13:30 LEWIS,_L B
10 - Motion hearing 06/08/2007 10:30 LEWIS,_L B

Aletheia, as you can see above, Gailon gave quite a different account, and it sounds quite a bit more realistic.

But I'm a bit tired of posting all the time over here. I'd be more than happy for you to call Gailon and get accounts of things like this and post them instead of me. Have any interest? If you do, I can email you his phone number.

Bob, with your and Gailon's spins attatched the stories ALWAYS appear different, and they always seem realistic to you. Are you sure you don't really mean you want me to go to court and then call and let him know what happened, so you can get your spin ready, since I'm so close and he's States away???

But, no thank you. I do not wish to speak to Gailon, either now, or at any time that I can forsee...

This post has been edited by Aletheia: Apr 26 2007, 11:11 AM

[awesumtenor]

You would be surprised.....

Not responsive... were you there?

Yes or No.

In His service,
Mr. J

[princessdi]

Cindy, I am not understanding your problem. The problem is he paid the money, but his license has not been updated yet. He just has to wait and let them update it. The judge knows the process that is why he only said get it straight by June 8. If there was something fraudulent happneing, then that judge would have been talking disbarment. It is simple. He IS licensed, his license is just not up to date. I am currently in the same situation with my cosmetology license. Because I was moving I have not paid my fees. I don'tave to take to exam over, I just have to pay my fees. If I were not licensed, they would, and then still it will take them up to six weeks to update the reocrds and send my license in the mail. In fact when inpectors come to the shop you merely have to have your cancelled check(which the do very quickly) or online receipt, because they also are aware of the lag. If I were not already licensed they would have sent me my test date, not a remewal notice. Same thing. Danny's attorney did the search yesterday and it wasn't updated. Licennsing agencies seldom move quickly. I am almost sure the judge knew pretty much that it would be taken care of by the next date in six or so weeks. If I call the agnecy on the date my check clears and several there after I will find my license still not updated, but they will have the money in their hands. Same thing. I keep saying this. They keep sending you here to post this stuff because they are aware that you have absolutely no understanding of these things, and will just post as you are instructed. Leaving you to take the heat from those who know better than to buy this junk.

Just one thing.........this here statement is killing me........:

And Why would I go by what Gailon says? He wasn't there.

....Now you came yere yesterday giving the blow by blow with nary court record to be found. We were supposed to believe you? You did not get the information you first posted from court documents. You werent' there so it wasn't first hand. You even posted that information like it was the only thing the judge said to anybody that day. Just like he asked Laird about his license, and let everyone go. It wasn't until Bob's post that we found out ALL that went on in court. So now you are questioning GJ's crediblity when he sent information about in the proceedings in their entirety, and you basically presented part of the information, which has you lying by omission. Please don't try to tell me you really thought the judge only said that, because you were given the whole story, and just chose or were told to post that portion. So, once again it is not GJ credibility in question, but yours.

[runner4him]

You know Bob, the accounts aren't really that different on the issues raised. In fact Aletheia was correct in everything she said. Fact, Laird did not have a valid license to practice in Il...Fact, he answered in the affirmative when ask if he did....Fact, he made excuses as to why he didn't have it yet....We know all this is true by the mere fact that the proceedings did not continue and the judge told Linda to get a licensed attorney.
Of course what you failed to mention is that DS's attorney ask for the whole thing to be thrown out since he wasn't licensed but the Judge said that wouldn't be fair to Mrs. Shelton as he was assuming that she thought she did have one.
So Bob, what's not true?
You would be surprised.....

We would be surprised?? Why?? Why don't you just say if you were there or not? It would not be a problem for any of us to know that you were there. We know which side you would be sitting on by the nature of your posts here.

[Fran]

Here's the real scoop:

You clearly don't understand what you are posting here. Not without paying he hasn't been an Inactive member. Anyway it's not them he has to worry about:
Here's the scoop according to Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission:


No, the case can not proceed when Linda's Lawyer is not authorized to practice law..
The case could not proceed when Linda's Lawyer is not authorized to practice law, which is why Danny's Lawyer brought a Motion to strike, instead of the expected motion.

Since they could not proceed ,the same exact hearing has been rescheduled for June 8th. Linda was told she needed to have a liscensed attorney before then.
And Why would I go by what Gailon says? He wasn't there. And the Court records are much more accurate.


Bob, with your and Gailon's spins attatched the stories ALWAYS appear different, and they always seem realistic to you. Are you sure you don't really mean you want me to go to court and then call and let him know what happened, so you can get your spin ready, since I'm so close and he's States away???

But, no thank you. I do not wish to speak to Gailon, either now, or at any time that I can forsee...

Aletheia;

I made this post on ChristianForum.com yesterday. For some reason Tomatoe has not replied.

I will post it here for you.

Tomatoe;

The Attorney renewed his licence in IL and paid the fees. The Truth of the matter lies in the fact that the processing of that payment had not been posted into the records.

When lawyers move locations, there is no need to continue to pay fees for something you are not going to use. This is why he went in and took care of paperwork and payed those fees prior to the court date.

3ABN, of all people, should understand when management/employees do not process income in a timely manner or they just post other people's money into 3ABN income instead of forwarding it to the other Independent Ministries.

It is clear the courts must have a huge backlog and just had not posted the Lawyers payment as yet. For you to imply stupidity of the lawyer is not a becoming thing to do, is it?

In fact, Court Documents, the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax Lawsuit, and Federally filed Form 990 Documents, clearly call 3ABN on this very problem within 3ABN.

3ABN did not post $2.45 MILLION Dollars in TRUST FUNDS in 2001. They also mis-posted over $14,000 of money meant to be forwarded to other Independent Ministries. The funds went straight into the 3ABN coffers. I still wonder what Ministries did not get their money.

As if that was not a problem, in 2002, there was $1.7 MILLION dollars in TRUST FUNDS that were not posted.

This reminds me of the story in the Bible about the man that owed a very large sum of money to his Master.

He could not pay and begged mercy; it was granted. However, he proceeded to hunt down those that had money owed to him. He did not show any mercy at all that owed him money.

When his master heard this he took action. Do you remember that action?

I believe this is a situation that ANY lawyer could find themselves in on any given day in IL Courts. The problem was not the lawyers problem, It was the courts problem, because he fulfilled his part of the agreement by doing all the paperwork and paying his $500.00 fee. It was the clerks failure to process that payment in a timely manner.

When you come here and create impressions that are false, it decreases your credibility. Think about it.