Are you a lawyer? If so, do you want to the case. Because you'll win. Even though the statute has run out. Thanks for the profile, your talents could be used in better places. FYI 1 and 2 were not correct in this case. #3 is almost correct.
Hypothetically if the church found a witness placing Paul and I at a gay bar instead of Motel 6 just 2 days before trial. How credibile would that be? Consider I was 13 years old, and looked 8 on a good day. I have been very honest here, to the best of my ability and corrected any misunderstandings. So, please understand the above hypothetical is simular to what happened. ( no there was not a witness a forgery maybe) But whatever happened to stop the Seattle lawyers had nothing to do with me and can be proven as false as I have the evidence.
Rocket, you really should check your dates! I did not take any of this to the papers, it was done by the Seattle lawyers and they threatened to drop my case if I did not do it. I was also told at that time there would be more to follow. So, check your dates of when this case was dropped and the article published.
rcrocket wrote:His Seattle law firm was one of the top local plaintiff's firm. They specialized in these kinds of cases.
His lawyers filed a motion to withdraw as his counsel. When the matter is a contingent fee case, as this one is, these are the possible reasons in descending order of probability: (1) he wouldn't cooperate with them in discovery or preparing for trial, (2) a settlement was offered; he refused it; they disagreed and said the case wasn't worth pursuing; (3) the facts as they came out in discovery showed that the case wasn't worth pursuing.
Before the motion was actually heard, it appears (or maybe it was heard but the court hadn't entered an order yet), he signed a stipulation dismissing the case. It does not appear that there was any settlement. When a plaintiff stipulates to dismiss the case, it usually means it isn't worth pursuing So, in combination with the lawyers moving to withdraw and the case being dismissed, I can only conclude it was not meritorious.
Finally, it would be impossible to revive the case due to the statute of limitations.
I didn't see a reference to a Minnesota lawyer, but I wasn't looking; I have to pay money everytime I access the data base.
It seems he took his battle to the press; his accounts show that he has a troubled mental history and is gay. (The two combined are, indeed, symptomatic of abuse.)
In this case I'm not sure that coming to the source will answer your questions. His complaint about the $20,000 surely piqued my interest. No plaintiff in these cases ever has to worry about paying anything if a lawyer takes it. Either the case was so weak that the lawyers demanded money from him, or he is mistaken about this claim. $20,000 would cover less than one month's work.
But I am interested in the claim that the church lawyers were unscrupulous. I wonder what he means by that?