Linda's Litigation Options

[Fran]

Aletheia;

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

I will post it here for you.

Thought I would bump this to make sure the right people read it. BUMP.

[Eirene]

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.

If your whole scenerio was accurate then at the very least he would be guilty of stupidity. I would think any competant lawyer would have checked the status of the activation before driving from Mass to Southern IL

[Fran]

If your whole scenario was accurate then at the very least he would be guilty of stupidity. I would think any competent lawyer would have checked the status of the activation before driving from Mass to Southern IL

Eirene;

If your scenario is correct, then the same stupidity and incompetency must apply to the Trust Fund Donors of 3ABN and donors that give to other ministries through 3ABN.

Let's compare the circumstances.

1. The lawyer sends in $500 to renew his license ahead of time and I am sure he received a receipt. I'll bet the Clerk had even made a deposit and the check had probably cleared his bank account. Now why would he not expect that all was complete?

2. Now consider the stupid, incompetent, donors that gave to 3ABN through Trust Funds. The gave their money or property; I am sure the checks got cashed and cleared the donors bank account. Why would donors go and check to make sure the donations were posted when they received a piece of paper telling them all was well. Yet, after auditors checked, low and behold, $2.45 Million Dollars was NOT posted. Why were these donors so stupid as to not even check?

3. Now consider the stupid, incompetent, donors that gave to other ministries through 3ABN, and received their cleared check from the bank and receive a very pretty receipt in the mail. Why on earth would they not think the money went to the ministry they requested it be sent to? Instead it WAS posted, but to the 3ABN account and added to the 3ABN Income?

I believe each person above that paid/donated their money, accepted by faith from their receipt, that all was well and complete. It just goes to show how many people have had their faith misplaced by deceiving paperwork and people. I ask you, just who is the stupid one here? Was it the one that gave $500.00 or those that gave $2.45 Million Dollars? This should be a real no brain-er. It is the one that DID NOT POST ANY OF THE ABOVE.

Goodness, this was in 2001! Shall we review 2002? We can, you know. What was that $1.7+Million Dollars not posted. Trust Funds again. There really must be a long learning curve for 3ABN, like maybe 20 years or however long they have been doing trust funds.

Since the checks were cleared, what bank account was used? At the end of each month all of the bank accounts are to be reconciled. They should be caught in the month they were received! Maybe I am wrong and 3ABN just doesn't bother to reconcile their bank accounts? Why did it take 1 year or more to find them not posted.

If you doubt my truth, I will be more than happy to give you a link to the IL vs. 3ABN Property Tax Lawsuit and the yearly Internal Revenue Form 990's; then you to can decide for yourself who is stupid and incompetent. That is not for me to say.

[PrincessDrRe]

To contest a divorce all you have to do is say I don't want a divorce and refuse to sign, or disagree on even "one" issue, and it becomes a contested divorce.
Regardless of which one files, a uncontested divorce is where both parties agree beforehand to be divorced and on all terms and the judge merely validates their agreement.

It takes more than this to "contest" a divorce. Been there...had it done to me....trust - it takes a bit more than this....

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.

#1 - If I get soup from China, and it is mailed to me. I got the soup from China. I may not be in China...but nonetheless the soup came from China.

If the divorce papers were sent to Guam, he got the divorce in Guam. Whether he just sent them there or went there it is a Guam divorce. Why not just do it over here? Then again....you probably know why...... Splitting hairs comes from the exact same type of people that would say that if a child "enjoys" sex then they cannot be molested.... *(I know but at the same time dead on point!)*

#2 - She didn't "lose" the case per se - she moreso "gave up"..... Linda has spoke on this in depth on her website....

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.

#3 - He was gloating - whether he was braggin in Linda's face or was seen "holding her hand".....folks know the real deal.

We can spin, spin, spin - and in the end you will be dizzy....but eventually the truth will come out after all....

This post has been edited by PrincessDrRe: Apr 27 2007, 06:27 AM

[Observer]

Regardless of which one files, a uncontested divorce is where both parties agree beforehand to be divorced and on all terms and the judge merely validates their agreement.

That is true as far as it goes.

But, divorce decrees may be limited in their scopel. Divorce decrees often do not resolve all of the issues associated with a divorce decree. A divorce decree, on its face has the main focus on the declaration that the marriage no longer exists.

Sometimes, a divorce decree will not deal with certain issues due to law. That is often the case of people who obtain the divorce decree outside of the United States. When this happepns, the decree may be very limited, and the pepople may have to go back into a U.S. court to settle certain unresolved issues. In some cases that is due to the law of the place in which the decree is obtained, and that law has limited the authority of that court to issue judgements in certain aspects of the decree. In other cases it may be due to the fact that U.S. law will allow the divorce decree to be recognized as valid in the U.S. but does not allow other associated aspects to be decided by that other court.

To be very clear: The Sheltons obtained the divorce in Guam under conditions where that court was not able to, and did not, decide certain issues associated with the marital breakup. Buth the Sheltons either knew, or should have been informed by their legal counsel that those unresolved issues would have to be decided by a U.S. court.

Sometimes those restrictions are stated as a specific part of the judicial decree. As many of you knowk, I am divorced, and remarried. My divorce decree specificly stated that certain aspects of the divorce could not be decided by the court, and they would have to be seperately litigated. At a later time we did just that.

On the other hand, the decree may not specificly state such restrictsions. In that case the future litigation is based upon the law, and the fact the the decree did not preclude such future litigation.

The present llitigation in regard to the settlement of the the issues is based both upon the law, and that fact that the Guam decree did not preclude such litigation.

What is placed in the written judicial decrees is often the result of attorney experience. In my divorce, I was represented by an attorney who specialized in family law. My ex-wife chose a licensed attorney who was in general practice, and fresh out of law school. My attorney insisted in the paragraph being placed in the decree that stated certain issues were not decided, and would have to be litigated at another time, because he did not want my ex-wife to be able to say she did not know.

Perhaps it would have been better if the divorce obtained by the Sheltons had included such a paragraph. It did not. The present litigation is going forward as the decree did not preclude it, and the law, which did not allow the court to make an independent judgement in these matter that the U.S. courts would recognize, under the conditions that the Sheltons obtained the divorce.


Could the conditions have been changed? Probably so? But, that did not happen.

[PeacefulBe]

Gregory,
Clear and thought-provoking statement.

PB

This post has been edited by PeacefullyBewildered: Apr 27 2007, 09:38 AM

[Johann]

- - --

#3 - He was gloating - whether he was braggin in Linda's face or was seen "holding her hand".....folks know the real deal.

We can spin, spin, spin - and in the end you will be dizzy....but eventually the truth will come out after all....

This gloating was something that happened a long time ago. Despite what his defenders are telling us about what happened yesterday, I understand he wasn't gloating them. Linda tells me she tried repeatedly to get his attention, but he never looked her straight in the face. What could be the reason he never dared looking into her eyes? If he did, she did not notice it.

In stead they try to get our attention by downgrading a lawyer who reminds certain people of Albert Einstein, and a man who is kind and concerned, who will work without a pause for justice and fairness. It has been said there are not too many of that kind within the legal system.

This post has been edited by Johann: Apr 27 2007, 11:41 AM

[Daryl Fawcett]

I would have thought Danny would have been gloating, especially where his lawyer successfully shut things down, but wasn't able to shut it down completely, but only delay it until they appear before the judge again in June.

[Shiny Penny]

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.

Can you please let me know (or point me to where I can find) more details about these statements?

NEXT QUESTION: What is this litigation ("Linda's Litigation") about - ie the details of what is particular is being litigated? Can anyone post court documents? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: May 3 2007, 12:59 PM

[Observer]

Can you please let me know (or point me to where I can find) more details about these statements?

NEXT QUESTION: What is this litigation ("Linda's Litigation") about - ie the details of what is particular is being litigated? Can anyone post court documents? I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Linda's Litigation:

In short the details are not available at this time. However, I can assume that any final ruling of the court will promptly be posted by someone.

The divorce that the Sheltons obtained in Guam did not resolve certain issues of marital property, and its division. Those issues remained to be decided by a U. S. court. This litigation is intended to decide those unresolved issues.

It is as simple as that.

[watchbird]

Can you please let me know (or point me to where I can find) more details about these statements?

Penny, there are three main ways to find material that has been posted on BSDA... besides the long route of going back to the beginning page and reading your way through all of the threads.

1) The pinned materials at the top. The one entitled "The Unauthorized 3abn History Threads: all 10 chapters linked here..." consists of two posts. The first one consists of links to the beginning of each of the 10 chapters. The second post is a guide in table-of-contents fashion to the most significant posts in those 10 chapters. "Table-of-contents fashion" means that it is the order in which they come in the threads... and also means that there is a one sentence description of the specific post to which you can go directly to by clicking on the urls given. By reading straight through this "guide" you can see the scope of the mateirial and can quickly find posts that have to do with different topics, such as financial matters. Once you click on a link, you will be live in the thread where it is, so you can read the discussion around that post... or you can return to the "guide" and continue to the next item of your choice.

2) By using the search engine of BSDA. Choose "Search" on the top line menu, enter your search criteria, and change one default parameter... the one which says "Show results as topics", to one which says "Show results as posts".

3) By clicking on the name of a member whose messages you want to view, you will be taken to their profile. Once there you may click on "Profile Options", then on "Find Member's Posts". This will give you all of the posts by that member since they have joined BSDA. Thus if Fran mentions something she has posted, this may be the quickest way to find the item to which she refers.

Generally speaking the posts which have given the most information come during the first 6 months after Danny's remarriage. Posts after fall of last year tend to have a larger percent of criticism from one side about the postings of the other than they do of additional facts. Though it is certainly true that there has been a lot of additional information brought for the first time to the boards since that time.

I hope this helps.

[Shiny Penny]

Linda's Litigation:

In short the details are not available at this time. However, I can assume that any final ruling of the court will promptly be posted by someone.

The divorce that the Sheltons obtained in Guam did not resolve certain issues of marital property, and its division. Those issues remained to be decided by a U. S. court. This litigation is intended to decide those unresolved issues.

It is as simple as that.

Thanks for the statement. But why are the details of this litigation not available? It would be helpful, if they were available for us to see. Or are the contents sealed?

Can you please enumerate the issues, in detail, that were not addressed in the Guam divorce?

Always good to know/see the facts.

[princessdi]

Because they have had only one date before the judge and Linda's lawyer's license had not been updated, as of yet, and the deposisitons had not been taken, etc. they have another date on June 8. IOW, it is just getting started there is nothing to tell.

[Observer]

Thanks for the statement. But why are the details of this litigation not available? It would be helpful, if they were available for us to see. Or are the contents sealed?

Can you please enumerate the issues, in detail, that were not addressed in the Guam divorce?

Always good to know/see the facts.

At this stage of the litigation, the courts do not generally post the documents in a manner where they can be viewed by the public. Once the issues are settled, they may be made available.

As to enumerating the issues, The issue is to determine and devide the marital property that has not yet been divided. That is the issue.

[Shiny Penny]

Because they have had only one date before the judge and Linda's lawyer's license had not been updated, as of yet, and the deposisitons had not been taken, etc. they have another date on June 8. IOW, it is just getting started there is nothing to tell.

Well, there must be some paperwork that has been submitted to the court that can be submitted here as well for us to scrutinize.

Enquiring minds want to know and to know now!

At this stage of the litigation, the courts do not generally post the documents in a manner where they can be viewed by the public. Once the issues are settled, they may be made available.

As to enumerating the issues, The issue is to determine and devide the marital property that has not yet been divided. That is the issue.

Yes, but what property are we talking about? House, car, stocks, bonds, gold, silver -- can anyone be specific?

This post has been edited by Shiny Penny: May 3 2007, 02:48 PM