IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

NOW COMES Petitioner, Linda Sue Shelton, by her attorneys, Bickes, Wilson, Moss & Gibson, and for her Second Amended Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, respectfully states as follows:

1. On February 6, 2006, the Respondent filed a Response to the Petitioner’s Petition for Dissolution of Marriage.

2. In paragraph 10 of the Respondent’s Response to the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, the Respondent alleged that the parties executed an Agreement dated June 4, 2004, a copy of which was attached as Exhibit A (hereinafter referred to as the “partial marital settlement agreement”).

3. The agreement referenced by Respondent is subject to the terms of 750 ILCS 5/502.

4. The partial marital settlement agreement, in light of the conditions under which it was made, and in light of the economic circumstances of the parties that resulted from its execution, is unconscionable. As such, the partial marital settlement agreement should be set aside, found to be unenforceable and not incorporated into any order entered by the Court regarding the division of marital property, maintenance or attorney fees.

5. The partial marital settlement agreement has never been considered or approved by the Court.

6. Section 502 of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act states:

“The terms of the agreement, except those providing for the support, custody and visitation of children, are binding upon the court unless it finds, after considering the economic circumstances of the parties and any other relevant evidence produced by the parties, on their own motion or on request of the court, that the agreement is unconscionable.”

7. The inquiry into unconscionability requires a two-prong analysis under which the Court must consider: (1) the conditions under which the agreement was made; and (2) the parties’ economic circumstances resulting from the agreement.

8. In terms of the conditions under which the partial marital settlement agreement was made, the Petitioner alleges as follows:

a. The parties are co-founders of the Three Angels Broadcasting Network (“3ABN”), the second largest Christian broadcasting network in North American in terms of ownership and operation of UHF stations;

b. 3ABN is a worldwide supporting ministry of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, and it broadcasts its programming to every inhabited continent on earth;

c. Prior to the spring of 2004, both parties were well known, highly regarded, well respected and recognized televangelists by reason of their connection to 3ABN;

d. In March 2004, the Plaintiff was Vice President of 3ABN and was the Secretary of the 3ABN Board of Directors. The Plaintiff also regularly appeared in 3ABN television programs and program segments, and she was extremely popular with the network viewing audience;

e. In March 2004, the Respondent was the President and CEO of 3ABN and was also on its Board of Directors. As a result of the Respondent’s position and influence, the Respondent, for all practical purposes, controlled 3ABN and the actions of its Board of Directors;

f. In March 2004, the Respondent publicly, but falsely, accused the Petitioner of engaging in adultery. Thereafter, the Respondent engaged in and carried out both a public and private campaign to remove the Petitioner as an employee, officer and director of 3ABN. The Respondent thereafter also engaged in and carried out a public campaign to destroy the Petitioner’s reputation and standing as a televangelist within the Seventh Day Adventist community;

g. Shortly before June 4, 2004, at the insistence of the Respondent, the Petitioner was removed as an officer and director of 3ABN. Her employment was terminated, she was shunned by 3ABN employees and locked out of the 3ABN headquarters. Further, any reference to the Petitioner was removed from any video programming, publications, newsletters or other written material published by 3ABN;

h. Shortly before June 4, 2004, the Petitioner was presented with a “Separation Agreement” or severance agreement by 3ABN (hereinafter referred to as the “3ABN Separation Agreement”);

i. Under the 3ABN Separation Agreement, the Petitioner was to receive a lump-sum amount of cash in exchange for releasing 3ABN from any legal claims associated with her termination from 3ABN. The Petitioner was also to receive twenty-four (24) monthly payments of $6,250.00, which roughly approximated her then-existing annual income. The 3ABN Separation Agreement further provided that these monthly payments would terminate if the Petitioner made any public statements that were “critical” of 3ABN, its Board of Directors, or any of its officers or employees, including the Respondent. The Agreement, however, contained no language prohibiting 3ABN or the Respondent from making critical, disparaging or even slanderous statements against the Petitioner;

j. Prior to June 4, 2004, the Respondent indicated to the Petitioner that HE controlled whether or not the Petitioner would be offered a separation agreement from 3ABN and, if so, the ultimate terms of that agreement, including any amounts of money to be paid. The Respondent had also indicated to the Petitioner that if she used an attorney to review the 3ABN Separation Agreement, the “deal” was “off,” and there would be no 3ABN separation agreement;

k. The Petitioner believed the Respondent’s threats concerning his ability to control the existence and terms of any 3ABN Separation Agreement, and consequently, she did not have any attorney review the 3ABN Separation Agreement;

l. Upon the execution of the 3ABN Separation Agreement, the Respondent and 3ABN could publicly disparage the Petitioner and make public statements that would ruin her reputation within the Seventh Day Adventist community, and the Petitioner would be unable to defend herself without losing or jeopardizing the receipt of the 24 monthly payments referred to above;

m. Because the Petitioner could not defend herself against any publicly disparaging or even slanderous statements made by the Respondent or 3ABN without losing her sole source of income at the time, the Petitioner’s ability to earn a living in Christian ministry work after June 4, 2004 was wholly dependent upon neither the Respondent nor 3ABN publicly disparaging her to the Seventh Day Adventist community;

n. On June 4, 2004, the day the Petitioner was to sign the 3ABN Separation Agreement, the Respondent told the Petitioner that she would also have to sign the partial marital settlement agreement he had instructed his attorneys to prepare. The Respondent referred to the agreement as the “agreement in regards to selling your [Petitioner’s] half of the house to me [Respondent];”

o. The Respondent told the Petitioner that if she did not sign the partial marital settlement agreement, there would be no 3ABN Separation Agreement and, therefore, no money paid to the Petitioner from 3ABN. The Respondent told the Petitioner that the agreements were connected and they had to be signed the same day. The Respondent told the Petitioner, “Otherwise, you get nothing. You’ll get nothing from 3ABN and you’ll get nothing from me;”

p. On June 4, 2004, the Petitioner had just recently been terminated as an employee, officer and director of 3ABN, and she had no money and no source of income;

q. On June 4, 2004, the Petitioner was locked out of the marital home and was alternating between living in a mobile home in Carbondale, Illinois and living with her daughter in Springfield, Illinois;

r. The Petitioner did execute the partial marital settlement agreement and the 3ABN Separation Agreement on June 4, 2004;

s. The Petitioner signed both agreements at approximately 5:00 p.m. at the law offices of the Respondent’s attorney, Mike Riva. The 3ABN Separation Agreement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and incorporated herein. The partial marital settlement agreement is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated herein;

t. The Petitioner had neither seen nor read the partial marital settlement agreement before appearing at the offices of Mike Riva on June 4, 2004;

u. The Petitioner’s attorney was not at this meeting, although the Petitioner was allowed to call her attorney and read the partial marital settlement agreement to him over the phone;

v. The partial marital settlement agreement awarded the Petitioner one-half (1/2) of the equity in the marital home that she already owned jointly with the Respondent. The partial marital settlement agreement also awarded the Respondent the contents of the marital home, except for a few small items which were awarded to the Petitioner. The partial marital settlement agreement then barred both parties from any right or claim to maintenance. The partial marital settlement agreement further provided that the “horses and guitars and miscellaneous small items are not part of this agreement,” indicating that this was all the property left to divide. Finally, the partial marital settlement agreement allowed the Petitioner to retain any settlement money she received from 3ABN.

9. In terms of the economic circumstances of the parties that resulted from the execution of the partial marital settlement agreement, the Petitioner alleges as follows:

a. After eighteen (18) years of marriage, the Petitioner was barred of any maintenance whatsoever;

b. The Petitioner was unemployed, having just been terminated by 3ABN, an organization which the Respondent controlled;

c. The monthly payments from 3ABN under the 3ABN Separation Agreement would continue for two years, and they would only be paid if the Petitioner did not defend herself against attacks by 3ABN by saying anything “critical” of 3ABN, its Board of Directors, officers and employees, including the Respondent;

d. The decision as to whether the Petitioner was saying anything “critical” of 3ABN or the Respondent was left solely to the discretion of 3ABN, an organization which the Respondent controlled;

e. Other than Christian ministry work, the Petitioner had limited education, training or employment opportunities;

f. The Respondent was being paid a significant salary from 3ABN and was also receiving valuable “perks,” such as a company vehicle, lawn care, free farm labor and unlimited use of a private jet;

g. The Petitioner had little or no money in any of her bank accounts;

h. The Respondent had in excess of $180,000.00 in his bank accounts, funds of which the Petitioner was unaware;

i. The Petitioner’s ability to earn a living in Christian ministry work was wholly dependent upon 3ABN not publicly disparaging her to the Seventh Day Adventist community;

j. The Petitioner had no ability to respond to or defend herself against disparaging attacks on her from either 3ABN or the Respondent, due to the fear of losing her monthly payments from 3ABN, an organization which was controlled by Respondent;

k. The Respondent was living in a large $300,000.00 house on 18 acres, complete with a pool and horse stables. Conversely, the Petitioner was living in a mobile home in Carbondale, Illinois;

l. The Respondent was awarded nearly all of the contents, household goods and furnishings located in the marital home;

m. There was no provision for the Petitioner to share in the royalty income generated and to be generated from the sale of books written during the marriage;

n. On information and belief, 3ABN, led by the Respondent, intended to engage in a campaign of publicly disparaging the Petitioner, with the effect of ruining her reputation within the Seventh Day Adventist community;

o. 3ABN and the Respondent did in fact immediately embark upon a campaign of publicly disparaging the Petitioner, with the intent to ruin her reputation within the Seventh Day Adventist community;

p. Upon 3ABN and the Respondent embarking on this campaign and effectively labeling the Petitioner an adulteress, the Petitioner could not find Christian ministry work but could also not defend herself against the false accusations without losing the 24 months of payments under the 3ABN Separation Agreement.

10. On June 8, 2007, this Court found after a hearing on discovery matters that the Petitioner judicially admitted that she signed the partial marital settlement agreement voluntarily. By reason of this pleading, the Petitioner is not requesting that the Court modify or vacate the June 8, 2007 order. The Petitioner is alleging, however, that there is a distinction between “voluntary” and “unconscionable,” and an agreement can, as a matter of law, be deemed unconscionable.

11. The partial marital settlement agreement dated June 4, 2004 is unconscionable in light of the conditions under which it was made and in light of the economic circumstances of the parties that resulted from its execution.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner, Linda Sue Shelton, respectfully prays that this Court:

A. Grant the Petitioner the relief prayed for in her Petition for Dissolution of Marriage and, in doing so, that it find the partial marital settlement agreement to be unconscionable and set it aside for the reasons stated above and refuse to incorporate the same into any order it may enter;

B. Grant the Petitioner such other and further relief as may be equitable and proper.

LINDA SUE SHELTON, Petitioner

BICKES, WILSON, MOSS & GIBSON

Kurt B. Bickes

CERTIFICATION

Under penalties of perjury as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters, the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the same to be true.

___________________________________

Linda Sue Shelton

PROOF OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that on February _____, 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Second Amended Reply to Respondent’s Response to Petition for Dissolution of Marriage was sent in an envelope First Class mail with sufficient postage affixed thereto, securely sealed and deposited in a United States Post Office Mailbox at Decatur, Illinois, and addressed to:

Mr. Timothy R. Neubauer

Neubauer, Hanson & Overstreet, P.C.

123 S. 10th Street, 6th Floor

Mount Vernon, IL 62864

D. Michael Riva, Ltd.

Attorney at Law

226 E. Main Street

West Frankfort, IL 62896

DATED this ______ day of February, 2009.

__________________________________

BICKES, WILSON, MOSS & GIBSON

Attorneys at Law

101 S. Main, Suite 600

P.O. Box 1700

Decatur, IL 62525

Telephone: (217) 423-3614

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FRANKLIN COUNTY, ILLINOIS