Advent Talk
Issues & Concerns Category => 3ABN => Topic started by: Adam on May 29, 2011, 05:59:07 PM
-
This was emailed to me from Alex and I do not have access to a scanner to scan it in. However, maybe this will get a little bit more info of what is going on.
Dear Alex:
Please allow this correspondence to memorialize our telephone conversation of yesterday and the day before, confirming our firm's withdraw of representation of you with respect to any legal claims you may possess against the Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Tommy Shelton, and Danny Shelton, for sexual abuse you suffered at the hands of Pastor Tommy Shelton. Again, it is with great regret that we must unfortunately withdraw from representing you with respect to these claims. Such was effective on May 19, 2001, when we notified you of such during our telephone conversation.
Please remember, as we discussed, that should you choose to formally pursue these claims against any of these individuals, there are statue of limitations that limit the time frame within which you may do so. As such, time is of the essence in finding new counsel should you choose to proceed. In Illinois, the statue of limitations for your claims begin when you turn 18. The statue in effect when you turn 18, in 2004 (as amended in 2003), allows you to file a case in that jurisdiction within 10 years of turning 18, (or 5 years from discovery whichever is longer), so you should have until you turn 28 to file claims in Illinois. However, to be safe, you should file as soon as possible. The statue was extended this year to 20 years, and since your claims still was not barred by the SOL as of 2011, you may even get the benefit of that extension, to age 38. The above being said, as we do not practice in the State of Illinois, we advise you to contact an Illinois attorney immediately for a specific statue of limitations analysis.
Alex, you are a great person who deserves to find justice, and will be in good hands with attorney Mitchell Garabedian, who you told me yesterday will be meeting with you pursuant to a referral from Mr. Jeff Anderson's office. We wish you the best of luck in all of your endeavors. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very Truly yours,
John C. Manly, ESQ
MANLY & STEWART
-
Such was effective on May 19, 2001, when we notified you of such during our telephone conversation.
This seems very clear - except that one date. Should this be "2011"?
-
Yes, there are a couple of typos, as I believe that Adam retyped the letter, not havng a scanner handy, but I thinkwe get the message.
Adam, was it primarily because they don't practice in IL that they gave up the case? Just for clarification......
-
The specifics as to why there has been a change in legal representation are likely confidential between attorney and client and are not written in the lettter. That is as it should be. There is no reason why everyone should know all the little details even if we would like to know them. No adverse reasons should be attributed to this change. Changes ofthis type take place for many reasons.
Attornies of this level do not refuse to take a case simply because they do not practice in a State. If they want to take a case in a State where they do not practice, they simply retain the services of an attorney who is licensed to practice in that state. If you read between the lines as to what that law firm says about itself, they regularly do just that.
So, what does the posted letter tell us? It tells us that the parting was on friendly terms with no malice involved and that they wish the best for their former client. And that is probably all that we will ever know.
-
Gregory is correct. The attorneys and client (Alex L. Walker) did leave on friendly terms. However, you can see they encourage their former client to pursue (if he so choses), before the statues run out! It appears in this case, Alex, has until he is 28, possibly 38, to file any claims against, Tommy, Danny, or 3ABN. Alex is now 25.
Some may ask has Alex decided to continue? I believe he is taking an "evaluation period" and pursing his options. Then you may ask who is Mitch Garabedian? Mitch is a fine attorney out of Boston, Massachusetts. Yes, he has been in discussions with Alex, and continues to do so. However, as of now he is not retained counsel. Mitch is the BEST in this field. He was the first attorney to pursue these type claims. His record is amazing. Is Alex going to retain him? I do not know the answer to that question, except to say ongoing discussions are happening.
-
Such was effective on May 19, 2001, when we notified you of such during our telephone conversation.
This seems very clear - except that one date. Should this be "2011"?
That is correct my friend.
-
Some may ask has Alex decided to continue? I believe he is taking an "evaluation period" and pursing his options. Then you may ask who is Mitch Garabedian? Mitch is a fine attorney out of Boston, Massachusetts. Yes, he has been in discussions with Alex, and continues to do so. However, as of now he is not retained counsel. Mitch is the BEST in this field. He was the first attorney to pursue these type claims. His record is amazing. Is Alex going to retain him? I do not know the answer to that question, except to say ongoing discussions are happening.
Some may ask why we were misled about a lawsuit being filed on May 17...
-
Some may ask has Alex decided to continue? I believe he is taking an "evaluation period" and pursing his options. Then you may ask who is Mitch Garabedian? Mitch is a fine attorney out of Boston, Massachusetts. Yes, he has been in discussions with Alex, and continues to do so. However, as of now he is not retained counsel. Mitch is the BEST in this field. He was the first attorney to pursue these type claims. His record is amazing. Is Alex going to retain him? I do not know the answer to that question, except to say ongoing discussions are happening.
Some may ask why we were misled about a lawsuit being filed on May 17...
I think an answer has been given to this, but maybe I am wrong. I have no answer for this, but to say we should move on and see how any new counsel may proceed.
-
Some may ask has Alex decided to continue? I believe he is taking an "evaluation period" and pursing his options. Then you may ask who is Mitch Garabedian? Mitch is a fine attorney out of Boston, Massachusetts. Yes, he has been in discussions with Alex, and continues to do so. However, as of now he is not retained counsel. Mitch is the BEST in this field. He was the first attorney to pursue these type claims. His record is amazing. Is Alex going to retain him? I do not know the answer to that question, except to say ongoing discussions are happening.
Some may ask why we were misled about a lawsuit being filed on May 17...
I think an answer has been given to this, but maybe I am wrong. I have no answer for this, but to say we should move on and see how any new counsel may proceed.
Sorry - I must have missed it. What was the answer?
-
Yes, there are a couple of typos, as I believe that Adam retyped the letter, not havng a scanner handy, but I thinkwe get the message.
Adam, was it primarily because they don't practice in IL that they gave up the case? Just for clarification......
Then why did they take the case in the first place knowing it was in Illinois? Makes no sense whatsoever. And, why did Adam post that the "deed was done" as in the lawsuit was filed when the lawyers had withdrawn?
-
Ok, OK, remember I was asking questions that have since been aptly answered. Now as to Alex' statements, he willhave to answer for that.
-
SAM- you are an idiot. The lawyers with drawled after it was claimed it was filed. Trust me it's not over yet.
-
SAM- you are an idiot. The lawyers with drawled after it was claimed it was filed. Trust me it's not over yet.
So you want us to believe that Alex's ex-attorneys lied to him and told him a case had been filed when it really had not? Seems like a stretch to me...
-
SAM- you are an idiot. The lawyers with drawled after it was claimed it was filed. Trust me it's not over yet.
So you want us to believe that Alex's ex-attorneys lied to him and told him a case had been filed when it really had not? Seems like a stretch to me...
Believe what you choose. No one's making you?
-
SAM- you are an idiot. The lawyers with drawled after it was claimed it was filed. Trust me it's not over yet.
So you want us to believe that Alex's ex-attorneys lied to him and told him a case had been filed when it really had not? Seems like a stretch to me...
Believe what you choose. No one's making you?
No need to cop an attitude. I am simply trying to make sense of information you have posted.
-
Sometimes it is best to allow legal proceedings to take their course sans commentary and speculation, which are most often the same thing. Not every communique between legal representation, client, and opponent is an earthshaking matter. Indeed, most legal communication is not. The integrity of the public view of the parties on both sides is compromised equally by "leaking" of info and by commentary.