I stand corrected..thanks Salem!.. in going back and re-reading the article, and then going back to the posts of discussion regarding this issue which as I mentioned we had one of our verified attorneys involved and weighing in on the issue from their standpoint as well.. I now see where my incorrect statement came to be..
In Mark Redwine's making this statement in the correct context as you mentioned, he says that LE had suggested this to which he says that Elaine has failed to agree to it.. IMO in his having made the statement about the mediation he pointedly remarks that its Elaine who is responsible for that mediation having still not occurred..
So, LE has made this suggestion to Mark Redwine at some point in the past(no knowledge of when just know that its in the past).. he IMO makes it a point to tell us that its only Elaine's fault as to why that mediation has never happened. . So IMO we are to believe that everything's all ago for the mediation with the exception of Elaine's agreeing to participate..So Mark Redwine's attorney is:
A) all ago for the mediation
B) has no idea of any mediation plans
C) has advised Mark not to participate in any such mediation
Moo remains the same in my strongly believing that no attorney would ever allow their client to do a "mediation" in this situation.. IMO NO WAY!..So, I still come to the same issue of my calling into question the entire claim made by Mark Redwine that its only due to Elaine why this mediation has not occurred.. IMO that fully implies that A, B, or C is true ..Mark IMO may not be being completely honest in his making a point to tell the public that this issue is yet another that is Elaine's fault.. all jmo, tho.
again thanks for setting me straight, Salem