Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bob Pickle]

A presumptive trial date of April 2013 has been set by the federal court in East St. Louis for Alex Walker v. Three Angels Broadcasting Network, Inc., Tommy Shelton, before the chief judge.

If you want to read the order, or whatever it may be called, see http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ilsd-12cv00114/ilsd-12cv00114-doc-29.pdf.

It would be nice if it could be all over before camp meeting. I wonder if Simpson will get things delayed way beyond April 2013. Personally, I think it's in 3ABN's best interest to get it over sooner rather than later.

In fact, I think it would have been in 3ABN's best interest never to have gotten it started.

[Alex L. Walker]

It will be very interesting too see how the next year play's out! I know when I contacted my attorney, Jessica Arbour on friday, she was ecstatic to hear that Tommy was sentenced to 6 years in prison.

[Alex L. Walker]

Hey, Bob, I guess Tommy will have plenty of time writing his own court filings now, huh?

Maybe he can become a top-notched pro se defendant, and learn alot about the law.

In fact, maybe he can become so good he can be a legal mentor to his fellw inmates since my case, Lord willing, will be over before 6 years.

[Bob Pickle]

Wouldn't you know it. 3ABN filed yet another motion to dismiss. See #30 on the docket at http://www.3abnvjoy.com/ilsd-12cv00114/.

[Gregory]

Well, I read the 13 page document.  At first I thought that the 3-ABN attorney was making a case.  But, the further I read, the more I grew in my opinion that the judge would not dismiss the case at this point in time.  IOW, I do not beieve that the 3-ABN attorney made a convincing case as to why it should be dismissed.

One point of interest to me: The 3-ABN attorney is esentially arguing that the case against TS should be dismissed.  As a representative of 3-ABN, all the atorney needed to do was to argue reasons why 3-ABN should be dismissed as a defendent.  3-ABN does not need to have the charge against TS dismissed in order to serve the interests of 3-ABN.  3-ABNs interests would be served by being dismissed as a defendent.

[Alex L. Walker]

Well, I read the 13 page document.  At first I thought that the 3-ABN attorney was making a case.  But, the further I read, the more I grew in my opinion that the judge would not dismiss the case at this point in time.  IOW, I do not beieve that the 3-ABN attorney made a convincing case as to why it should be dismissed.

One point of interest to me: The 3-ABN attorney is esentially arguing that the case against TS should be dismissed.  As a representative of 3-ABN, all the atorney needed to do was to argue reasons why 3-ABN should be dismissed as a defendent.  3-ABN does not need to have the charge against TS dismissed in order to serve the interests of 3-ABN.  3-ABNs interests would be served by being dismissed as a defendent.

I am confident that my attorneys will make a convincing case in their response as too why it should not be dismissed.

I believe they did this in their past respose and will do it again.

I have retained a great team of legal counsel and they have my full confidence.

[horsethief]

I will especially like this when 3abn's insurance is unwilling to pick up the tab for the restitution damages that they will have to pay.

[Gregory]

The folowing is one example taken from an actual policy that is typical of insurance policies:

                    Sexual Abuse Exclusion
In consideration of the premium charged, it is agreed that such coverage as is provided by this policy shall not apply to any claim, demand and causes of action arising out of or resulting from either sexual abuse or licentious, immoral or sexual acts, whether caused by, or at the instigation of, or at the direction of, or omission by, the insured, his employees, patrons, or any causes whatsoever.

[Gregory]

However, notwithstanding what I and others have posted, the actual situation in regard to insurance coverage for 3-ABN in a sexual abuse case may not be clear and as a result, 3-ABN may have insurance coverage.

1)   The Supreme court for the State of Maine has ruled that insurance companies are not required to provide coverage for sexual abuse cases where the defendant is the one accused of the abuse.  However, it has also ruled that when the defendant is not the one accused of the abuse, the insurance company may be required to provide coverage.  Under this type of a situation 3-ABN might be covered by an insurance policy.
2)   There are some insurance policies that can be purchased that are specific for sexual abuse coverage.  However, these have typically reduced liability from multiple millions to much less amounts which may be as little as $300,000 or even $100,000.

The following is one comment on this:

One of the coverage areas that seems to causing the most distress is liability coverage for allegations of sexual abuse and molestation committed by a paid or volunteer staff member or a client. This coverage is sometimes labeled "improper conduct" or "improper sexual conduct," or even "explicit sexual abuse/molestation." In recent weeks the Center has received a flood of calls from nonprofits: facing nonrenewal of sexual abuse coverage and dim prospects for obtaining the coverage elsewhere; receiving notice of drastic reductions in limits of liability, such as limits of $1 million per occurrence/$3 million in the aggregate reduced to $100,000/$300,000; scurrying to respond to demands from underwriters that the nonprofit implement costly and time-consuming risk management measures before a quote will be released; or facing new policy exclusions that eliminate coverage altogether for sexual abuse on other liability policies.

* * * *
 How Is Coverage Sold?

 Coverage to protect a nonprofit against claims alleging sexual abuse is available in many forms.
 Provider types: it's possible to purchase coverage from a domestic, admitted carrier; from an excess and surplus lines carrier; or from a risk retention group or other alternative market insurance provider.

 Policy types: sexual abuse coverage is sometimes sold as a separate policy, while in other cases it's covered under the Commercial General Liability or Professional Liability policy. In one unusual case the Center found coverage provided under an Employment Practices Liability policy (in this example the policy responded to claims by participants, clients and third parties alleging abuse by paid and volunteer staff, as well as clients).

 Defense costs: some policies pay defense costs above and beyond the limit of liability that's available for judgments and settlements. Other providers offer coverage with defense costs included in the limit of liability. Some providers offer both options.

* * * * * *
 The following is an abbreviated listing of several companies and an underwriting manager that continue to offer sexual abuse coverage — on a risk-by-risk basis — to nonprofits.

* * * * * * *

 Alliance of Nonprofits for Insurance, Risk Retention Group
 First Nonprofits Mutual
 Great American Insurance Companies
 J.J. Negley Associates
 Nonprofits' Insurance Alliance of California
 Markel Insurance Company
 Philadelphia Insurance Companies
 Riverport Insurance Company

[Gregory]

To me, the law is interesting.  Surprised?   

In my opinion, the Odenthal case is a seminal one which illustrates how a religious organizaiton can become entangled in a sexual abuse cae.  Some aspects of the decision of the State Supreme Court do not apply in the TS/3-ABN case.  However, the State Supreme Court in part of its decision declared that the District Court could determine whether or not The Local Conference had failed in its duty to supervise an employee.  At that point Chubb Insurance, acting on behalf of the defendents, made a large financial payment to the plaintiff and the litigation was dropped.

It is of note to me that the Odenthal case has been cited multiple times in other litigation.  I would not be surprised if in the next decade it might have a similar effect on society to that of the Tarasoff case in California many years ago.  But, this opinion is simply speculative and others would disagree with me.   Fear of that happening may have been one of the reasons sthat the case was ultimately settled without going to trial.

NOTE:  To our legal experts, I am well aware that the Odenthal case has established very limited precedence.

[Gregory]

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2002/c101278.html

The above URL will give the decision in the Odenthal case.

NOTE:  Budd v. Budd is one 2011 case that gave precedence to the Odenthal case.

[Snoopy]

http://law.justia.com/cases/minnesota/supreme-court/2002/c101278.html

The above URL will give the decision in the Odenthal case.

NOTE:  Budd v. Budd is one 2011 case that gave precedence to the Odenthal case.

That was an interesting read.  Thank you for posting that, Gregory.  What was the final resolution of the Odenthal case?

[Gregory]

The final resolution was a substantial payment to the plaintiff which was funded primarily by the Chubb Insurance Company.  SDA Church organizations had very little financial investment in this litigation.  They probably paid a deductable.  Staff attornies were involved in following the case due to denominational organizations (and individuals) being named defendents.

NOTE:  Early on the courts limited the named defendents and certain denominational organizations (and other individuals) were severed from the case.  But, the local conference remained a defendent to the end of the litigation.

The plaintiff re-married and got on with his life.

The plaintiff's wife has not had an easy life.  I believe (I could be wrong.) she spent some time in a shelter.  She married, as I recall, the pastor after he divorced his wife.  That was not an easy relationship and I think that they are now divorced, but, I could be wrong.

[Bob Pickle]

IOW, I do not beieve that the 3-ABN attorney made a convincing case as to why it should be dismissed.

Interesting.

The 3-ABN attorney is esentially arguing that the case against TS should be dismissed.  As a representative of 3-ABN, all the atorney needed to do was to argue reasons why 3-ABN should be dismissed as a defendent.  3-ABN does not need to have the charge against TS dismissed in order to serve the interests of 3-ABN.  3-ABNs interests would be served by being dismissed as a defendent.

I expect 3ABN to defend Tommy without representing him. That could be a way for 3ABN to "pay" his legal expenses in a manner that is more difficult to raise questions about.

[Artiste]

How could they defend Tommy without representing him?