On May 22, 8:29 am, Chris <Electric.Skep...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Australian novelist is writing a story involving a USA murder trial]
> What I need to know is along the lines of what the order of the
> various things (grand jury, arraignment, bail hearing, trial, etc.,)
> is and what the time periods between them is likely to be, along with
> any other pertinent information
These matters vary considerably from state to state. What IMO you really need to do is find one or more "legal consultants" for your book in the state where the action takes place, and then milk those persons for the info you need (and of course, give effusive credit to them in your book's introduction).
> (for example, situations in which
> (hypothetically) a grand jury mightn't be needed,
In some jurisdictions a criminal complaint for a felony such as murder can be issued on an "information" (the result of a police investigation) and does not require an "indictment" (the result of a grand jury hearing).
> at what point is a defense attorney assigned
Whenever the suspect wants to get one, if he can afford it, including before he is even a suspect.
If you're talking about a state-assigned attorney for an indigent defendant, he also can get one of those as soon as he asks for one, at any time after his arrest (as noted, of course, in the famous "Miranda" warnings).
> - do they represent him at the grand jury,
The defendant is not going to be called to testify at a grand jury. He has a 5th amendment right not to testify against himself. The people who get called to testify at the grand jury are not "suspects", but "witnesses", i.e. those who have any kind of information that _might_ be used to determine whether the state has shown sufficient probable cause to prove that (a) a crime has been committed, (b) which criminal offense should be charged on those facts, and (c) against whom the charges should be brought.
AFAIK in most jurisdictions there is no right to have defense consel present at a grand jury hearing, which is held in a sealed chamber and not open to the public. Only the prosecutor and the witness who is testifying are there at any one time (along with the grand jury itself, of course).
> Does anyone know of a website which might give me this sort of
> information?
The official website of the state court system in question may have a FAQ that could help you
> Or is anyone prepared to help me out in this thread?
I'm sure you'll get more useful responses if you tell us more about the exact situation (without revealing any whodunit details, etc.) but if suspense is an issue, you're better off getting a private (and confidential) consultant than fishing for ideas on a public forum. Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Myspace extortion scheme
On May 22, 8:29 am, bizee <bizeesh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a case here at home. There is a local gal with a beef with my
> daughter. The gal has a myspace profile for her adult entertainment
> business. Placed my daughter's photo on there as an employee of
> hers. Daughter does not work for her.
Granting the truth of everything you say, how does this local gal even know your daughter? What age are these people -- HS teens, college age, or older twentysomethings? What is the "beef" all about? Not that it matters to the legal analysis, but it sure would help us understand the backstory better and maybe give some clues to what's really going on and therefore how best to handle it. So without knowing more, all anyone can do here is give some general guidelines.
> This offender wants $50.00 from my daughter to remove the photo.
Demanding money in such circumstances is probably the crime of extortion. The other gal could be prosecuted for making such demands. Assuming, of course, there is suficient evidence she actually made the demand. Was it in writing? Did she leave a recorded phone message? If it's just your daughter's word against hers, don't count on anybody taking action.
> We aren't sure what we can do at this point. Just keep notifying
> myspace?
You shouldn't have to keep whacking the mole every time it pops up through a different hole. But I guess that's a first step.
> Find a local police official with more knowledge?
You don't say where you live, and local laws differ, but chances are you can swear out and file a criminal complaint if you are the victim of a crime even if the police won't do it for you. BTW it is your daughter who would have to do that, not you. It will still be up to the prosecutor whether to prosecute, and rest assured he or she will want to know answers to the kind of questions I asked above to get the complete context before making any such decision.
> Direct call to local prosecutor?
Well, no one is stopping you from doing that, but it may not get you very far; in most jurisdictions AFAIK you would have to go thru the police to swear out a victim complaint. But as they say, "there's no harm in asking."
> Civil suit?
Defamation? Invasion of privacy? Also a possibility. Also fraught with many of the same difficulties of proof and context as a criminal complaint for extortion would be. At the very least, nothing is stopping you from consulting a local personal injury lawyer in a confidential meeting to find out if he or she thinks your daughter has a case worth pursuing. It should not be hard to find a plaintiff's lawyer who gives free initial consultations for screening purposes, and then will take her case on a contingent percentage fee if the lawyer feels it has potential to bring in some money for your daughter (and earn a fee for the law firm). Even if the case has legal merit, it may not be worth pursuing if the other gal is asset-free and therefore judgment-proof, or it may be something that could be pursued to get an injuction (court order) demanding that the other gal cease and desist, but most lawyers would only do so for payment up front since there is no money to be won that way against which a contingent fee could be taken.
Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> We have a case here at home. There is a local gal with a beef with my
> daughter. The gal has a myspace profile for her adult entertainment
> business. Placed my daughter's photo on there as an employee of
> hers. Daughter does not work for her.
Granting the truth of everything you say, how does this local gal even know your daughter? What age are these people -- HS teens, college age, or older twentysomethings? What is the "beef" all about? Not that it matters to the legal analysis, but it sure would help us understand the backstory better and maybe give some clues to what's really going on and therefore how best to handle it. So without knowing more, all anyone can do here is give some general guidelines.
> This offender wants $50.00 from my daughter to remove the photo.
Demanding money in such circumstances is probably the crime of extortion. The other gal could be prosecuted for making such demands. Assuming, of course, there is suficient evidence she actually made the demand. Was it in writing? Did she leave a recorded phone message? If it's just your daughter's word against hers, don't count on anybody taking action.
> We aren't sure what we can do at this point. Just keep notifying
> myspace?
You shouldn't have to keep whacking the mole every time it pops up through a different hole. But I guess that's a first step.
> Find a local police official with more knowledge?
You don't say where you live, and local laws differ, but chances are you can swear out and file a criminal complaint if you are the victim of a crime even if the police won't do it for you. BTW it is your daughter who would have to do that, not you. It will still be up to the prosecutor whether to prosecute, and rest assured he or she will want to know answers to the kind of questions I asked above to get the complete context before making any such decision.
> Direct call to local prosecutor?
Well, no one is stopping you from doing that, but it may not get you very far; in most jurisdictions AFAIK you would have to go thru the police to swear out a victim complaint. But as they say, "there's no harm in asking."
> Civil suit?
Defamation? Invasion of privacy? Also a possibility. Also fraught with many of the same difficulties of proof and context as a criminal complaint for extortion would be. At the very least, nothing is stopping you from consulting a local personal injury lawyer in a confidential meeting to find out if he or she thinks your daughter has a case worth pursuing. It should not be hard to find a plaintiff's lawyer who gives free initial consultations for screening purposes, and then will take her case on a contingent percentage fee if the lawyer feels it has potential to bring in some money for your daughter (and earn a fee for the law firm). Even if the case has legal merit, it may not be worth pursuing if the other gal is asset-free and therefore judgment-proof, or it may be something that could be pursued to get an injuction (court order) demanding that the other gal cease and desist, but most lawyers would only do so for payment up front since there is no money to be won that way against which a contingent fee could be taken.
Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
School religious accommodation, part 3
On May 19, 7:44 am, David Chesler <ches...@post.harvard.edu> wrote:
> There is a fine distinction between that and "I don't judge a man by
> the color of his skin, but by the thickness of his lips." When you've
> got near 100% correlation, it doesn't matter if you actually specify
> the religion. (I think they call this disparate impact, don't they?
IMO we're going astray by using an analysis derived from the statutory anti-discrimination laws when applied to religion. Sure, most anti-discrimination statutes forbid even private actors in certain contexts (public accomodation, housing, employment, for example) from discriminating against potential customers on the basis of religion, as well as on the basis of race, gender, national origin etc. But for religion, we also have to consider the impact of First Amendment rights (both the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause) when we're talking about _government_ action, including action by a public school system. I apologize if my earlier discussion using your terminology may have helped lead us down that path instead of staying with a First Amendment analysis.
But your above citation of "disparate impact" is nonsensical. It is the individual religious person whose religious obligation to wear religious headgear is disparately impacted by a general government rule forbidding any type of headgear, not the other way around. The punk who wants to wear his baseball cap to school is not disparately impacted by this rule; he is in fact falling within the general applicability of this non-content-based, secular rule with a legitimate secular purpose.
> IIRC simply having a legitimate reason [like a height requirement for
> cops, or a weight-carrying requirement for firefighters] doesn't
> always beat disparate impact.)
Exactly. But it is the female applicant who can't meet the height or weightlifting requirement who is disparately impacted and needs an accomodation to be made, not the male applicant. Surely you don't think that just because accomodation needs to be made for female applicants to "level the playing field", that means it is unfair for male applicants to still have to meet the general height and weight requirements?
All I am saying is, the person who does not qualify for a special exemption has no right to complain when someone else _does_ qualify to be exempted from a general requirement. If you accept that, we are on the same page. If you don't, I frankly don't know what you're getting at except to pick nits at the illogic of the law. And as I concede, the law is not always logical. That's just the way it is.
> But I asked "What is the current thinking?" not what would it be in
> the world where I am king and there is complete justice, so I guess
> that's what it is: accomodation overrides equal treatment.
Yes it does, where we are dealing with government action, because the Free Exercise clause requires reasonable accomodation to be made in individual cases where that can be done without undue disruption of the general governmental scheme that would otherwise have applied to everyone.
> Mike Jacobs writes:
> > I do take your question seriously, David, but pardon me if at first
> > glance it looks like a little kid saying "Wah! Davey gets to wear a
> > hat to school because he says G-d told him to, but I don't!!"
>
> Are you suggesting that the law doesn't concern itself with this
> because it is such a triviality?
Not at all. I'm suggesting that your reliance on grammatical logic and common English meaning is leading you astray in trying to interpret law. I don't know if you're being obstinate for the sake of argument or simply just don't see what I'm trying to say, and maybe it's my fault for not saying it clearly enough, but IMO all laws require the interpreter to look at them with an eye toward the ultimate social policy that the law is trying to further, since even the most elegant and precise words are imperfect and approximate indicators of what is really sought in terms of doing justice. Looking at virtually any law I can think of, if one were to insist only on "strict constructionism" (whatever that is) of the law's words, the result would be manifest injustice in a substantial number of cases.
> In English, words have clear meanings.
I disagree. All words (in every language, not just English) are symbolic and metaphorical, and hence inherently ambiguous. Otherwise, poetry could not exist. And hence, the difficulty of translation and the loss of meaning in the effort. Nor could philosophers argue over the meaning of existence, or the nature of reality; it would all be clear as a bell to everybody. Maybe it will be, when we all achieve Satori/Nirvana, and when Moshiach comes. But right now, using words, it's all clear as mud.
> Some laws or bodies of laws admit to the exceptions ("All X are Y,
> however Z, which is X, is not Y", or "All X are Y, however Z, which
> might seem to be X, is not X") but MGL C 272 s 98 doesn't seem
> to contain any exceptions to ""Whoever makes any distinction,
> discrimination or restriction..."
While the words of that law may not contain an explicit exception, the net effect of application of other laws, including the ones requiring reasonable accomodation of individual religious needs, is to carve an exception into that law in the particular case. If you agree that a law containing an exception is OK, what's wrong with that?
And part of the problem is that we're talking about "discrimination", a concept which has both a common sense English meaning, and a specific legal meaning which is somewhat different. Bottom line is, _all_ laws of any kind, "discriminate" in the plain English sense. That is, they apply to some persons and not others.
"Thou shalt not murder" discriminates against murderers because it treats them differently than non-murderers as far as sending them to jail or the gallows. Immigration laws discriminate because they treat citizens differently from non-citizens when they are trying to cross the border to get back into the country. Tax laws discriminate when they require the rich to pay more taxes than the poor. Ad nauseam.
And each of those laws of broad application also contains exceptions, and the exceptions may contain exceptions, all in an effort to refine the concept the law is trying to get at and to do substantial justice. In addition, many laws explicitly provide, and most will implicitly allow, a certain degree of ad-hoc, case-by-case fact-based determination using a rule of reasonableness with the ultimate policy goal in mind, in order to accomplish substantial justice. Each and every one of those exceptions is, in a sense, discriminating against all the other people who do not qualify for that exception, whether we are talking about wearing hats in school, or whether we are talking about qualifying for a tax credit for oil depletion allowances or for not growing soybeans.
So, in that sense, I think it is David's argument that trivializes the law, by reducing all of it to a mere question of whether people are being treated differently on the basis of the law. My answer is, of course they are, but while that is true, it is trivial, so let's forget about that and focus on what really matters in terms of the distinctions that are being made, and whether those distinctions make sense and are fair in terms of the ultimate social policy goals that are being pursued.
If that doesn't explain where I stand clearly enough, I give up, David. Maybe someone else will want to continue the argument, but I won't. Cheers,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> There is a fine distinction between that and "I don't judge a man by
> the color of his skin, but by the thickness of his lips." When you've
> got near 100% correlation, it doesn't matter if you actually specify
> the religion. (I think they call this disparate impact, don't they?
IMO we're going astray by using an analysis derived from the statutory anti-discrimination laws when applied to religion. Sure, most anti-discrimination statutes forbid even private actors in certain contexts (public accomodation, housing, employment, for example) from discriminating against potential customers on the basis of religion, as well as on the basis of race, gender, national origin etc. But for religion, we also have to consider the impact of First Amendment rights (both the Establishment clause and the Free Exercise clause) when we're talking about _government_ action, including action by a public school system. I apologize if my earlier discussion using your terminology may have helped lead us down that path instead of staying with a First Amendment analysis.
But your above citation of "disparate impact" is nonsensical. It is the individual religious person whose religious obligation to wear religious headgear is disparately impacted by a general government rule forbidding any type of headgear, not the other way around. The punk who wants to wear his baseball cap to school is not disparately impacted by this rule; he is in fact falling within the general applicability of this non-content-based, secular rule with a legitimate secular purpose.
> IIRC simply having a legitimate reason [like a height requirement for
> cops, or a weight-carrying requirement for firefighters] doesn't
> always beat disparate impact.)
Exactly. But it is the female applicant who can't meet the height or weightlifting requirement who is disparately impacted and needs an accomodation to be made, not the male applicant. Surely you don't think that just because accomodation needs to be made for female applicants to "level the playing field", that means it is unfair for male applicants to still have to meet the general height and weight requirements?
All I am saying is, the person who does not qualify for a special exemption has no right to complain when someone else _does_ qualify to be exempted from a general requirement. If you accept that, we are on the same page. If you don't, I frankly don't know what you're getting at except to pick nits at the illogic of the law. And as I concede, the law is not always logical. That's just the way it is.
> But I asked "What is the current thinking?" not what would it be in
> the world where I am king and there is complete justice, so I guess
> that's what it is: accomodation overrides equal treatment.
Yes it does, where we are dealing with government action, because the Free Exercise clause requires reasonable accomodation to be made in individual cases where that can be done without undue disruption of the general governmental scheme that would otherwise have applied to everyone.
> Mike Jacobs writes:
> > I do take your question seriously, David, but pardon me if at first
> > glance it looks like a little kid saying "Wah! Davey gets to wear a
> > hat to school because he says G-d told him to, but I don't!!"
>
> Are you suggesting that the law doesn't concern itself with this
> because it is such a triviality?
Not at all. I'm suggesting that your reliance on grammatical logic and common English meaning is leading you astray in trying to interpret law. I don't know if you're being obstinate for the sake of argument or simply just don't see what I'm trying to say, and maybe it's my fault for not saying it clearly enough, but IMO all laws require the interpreter to look at them with an eye toward the ultimate social policy that the law is trying to further, since even the most elegant and precise words are imperfect and approximate indicators of what is really sought in terms of doing justice. Looking at virtually any law I can think of, if one were to insist only on "strict constructionism" (whatever that is) of the law's words, the result would be manifest injustice in a substantial number of cases.
> In English, words have clear meanings.
I disagree. All words (in every language, not just English) are symbolic and metaphorical, and hence inherently ambiguous. Otherwise, poetry could not exist. And hence, the difficulty of translation and the loss of meaning in the effort. Nor could philosophers argue over the meaning of existence, or the nature of reality; it would all be clear as a bell to everybody. Maybe it will be, when we all achieve Satori/Nirvana, and when Moshiach comes. But right now, using words, it's all clear as mud.
> Some laws or bodies of laws admit to the exceptions ("All X are Y,
> however Z, which is X, is not Y", or "All X are Y, however Z, which
> might seem to be X, is not X") but MGL C 272 s 98 doesn't seem
> to contain any exceptions to ""Whoever makes any distinction,
> discrimination or restriction..."
While the words of that law may not contain an explicit exception, the net effect of application of other laws, including the ones requiring reasonable accomodation of individual religious needs, is to carve an exception into that law in the particular case. If you agree that a law containing an exception is OK, what's wrong with that?
And part of the problem is that we're talking about "discrimination", a concept which has both a common sense English meaning, and a specific legal meaning which is somewhat different. Bottom line is, _all_ laws of any kind, "discriminate" in the plain English sense. That is, they apply to some persons and not others.
"Thou shalt not murder" discriminates against murderers because it treats them differently than non-murderers as far as sending them to jail or the gallows. Immigration laws discriminate because they treat citizens differently from non-citizens when they are trying to cross the border to get back into the country. Tax laws discriminate when they require the rich to pay more taxes than the poor. Ad nauseam.
And each of those laws of broad application also contains exceptions, and the exceptions may contain exceptions, all in an effort to refine the concept the law is trying to get at and to do substantial justice. In addition, many laws explicitly provide, and most will implicitly allow, a certain degree of ad-hoc, case-by-case fact-based determination using a rule of reasonableness with the ultimate policy goal in mind, in order to accomplish substantial justice. Each and every one of those exceptions is, in a sense, discriminating against all the other people who do not qualify for that exception, whether we are talking about wearing hats in school, or whether we are talking about qualifying for a tax credit for oil depletion allowances or for not growing soybeans.
So, in that sense, I think it is David's argument that trivializes the law, by reducing all of it to a mere question of whether people are being treated differently on the basis of the law. My answer is, of course they are, but while that is true, it is trivial, so let's forget about that and focus on what really matters in terms of the distinctions that are being made, and whether those distinctions make sense and are fair in terms of the ultimate social policy goals that are being pursued.
If that doesn't explain where I stand clearly enough, I give up, David. Maybe someone else will want to continue the argument, but I won't. Cheers,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Punctured hairspray can case, part 2
On May 19, 7:45 am, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> Right, New York Post, not New York Times. While I don't practice in
> NY so I'm not an expert on using this site, I went to the NY State
> court website, where they say they have "information about cases in
> Civil Supreme Court in all 62 counties of New York State."
>
> On that site Lorraine Squicciarini comes up as a party in only one
> case. She was a defendant in an uncontested matter filed in 2000.
Bzzt. Lorraine is the _decedent_. She would not be a named party to her own wrongful death case; her heirs are the ones who filed suit. The NY Post article I cited gives the names of her daughters, one of whom is Barbara Squicciarini, and the name of Barbara's lawyer, David Schoen. But I didn't know about the NY Courts website until your post, above, mentioned it.
So, teamwork seems to do the trick. Using your hint, Stu, I went to the NY Courts website, selected their "Web Civil Supreme" option, and searched for cases involving Unilever as a defendant in Kings County (Brooklyn), NY. Zilch, nada. So, maybe they got sued under another name, as I suggested yesterday might have happened.
Then I tried the same jurisdiction searching for cases involving _any_ person named "Squicciarini" as a plaintiff. Bingo. There were only 11 of them listed, most by others who just happened to share the last name, but #9 on today's list (it may change day by day) was Civil Case Number 037453/2005, a suit by Barbara Squicciarini vs. Conopco, Inc. (which I guess is the parent company or successor of Unilever, the maker of AquaNet), in which she is represented by David I. Schoen, as indicated in the NY Post article.
Under "case status", the courts website lists the matter as "disposed", not "active", so the other poster who said the case is still active is apparently mistaken. Interestingly, Barbara Squicciarini is also listed as a plaintiff in 3 other suits filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court, in all of which she was represented by a different law firm, Monaco & Monaco LLP, all of them personal injury cases apparently involving injury to Barbara herself, two of those being car crashes, and one of those cases is still active, which may be the one the other poster was referring to.
In hopes of putting inquiring minds at rest, I clicked on the case number, which conveniently brought up a summary of status, indicating the date of disposition was 1/3/2007. A motion to dismiss that was filed on 1/3/2006 was denied by a short form order on 1/25/06. Since that was just a month after the case was filed (on 12/16/05), my guess is the judge just felt it was too early to dispose of the case since the pleadings apparently at least alleged a proper cause of action, and that factual discovery would be needed to flesh it out and see whether it needed to go to trial.
There is no other indication of the nature of the final disposition on 1/3/2007. Maybe someone more versed in reading the NY Courts website can help out here, but my guess is that means it was simply settled off the record in a confidential settlement between the parties and removed from the docket. That is not uncommon in a product liability suit that challenges the safety of the design or labeling of a company's entire line of products; the company often will want the present case to be settled to get it off the docket and cap their risk of large losses, but they do not want any public record of it so that it cannot encourage or be used a precedent by any other claimants. In this particular case, of course, I have no idea whether that is what occurred, it is just rank speculation. But if it is what happened, it's not surprising that there have been no further news reports about the outcome, since neither side would be making statements to the media in case of a confidential settlement.
I hope that is enough to satisfy everybody and kill this thread.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Right, New York Post, not New York Times. While I don't practice in
> NY so I'm not an expert on using this site, I went to the NY State
> court website, where they say they have "information about cases in
> Civil Supreme Court in all 62 counties of New York State."
>
> On that site Lorraine Squicciarini comes up as a party in only one
> case. She was a defendant in an uncontested matter filed in 2000.
Bzzt. Lorraine is the _decedent_. She would not be a named party to her own wrongful death case; her heirs are the ones who filed suit. The NY Post article I cited gives the names of her daughters, one of whom is Barbara Squicciarini, and the name of Barbara's lawyer, David Schoen. But I didn't know about the NY Courts website until your post, above, mentioned it.
So, teamwork seems to do the trick. Using your hint, Stu, I went to the NY Courts website, selected their "Web Civil Supreme" option, and searched for cases involving Unilever as a defendant in Kings County (Brooklyn), NY. Zilch, nada. So, maybe they got sued under another name, as I suggested yesterday might have happened.
Then I tried the same jurisdiction searching for cases involving _any_ person named "Squicciarini" as a plaintiff. Bingo. There were only 11 of them listed, most by others who just happened to share the last name, but #9 on today's list (it may change day by day) was Civil Case Number 037453/2005, a suit by Barbara Squicciarini vs. Conopco, Inc. (which I guess is the parent company or successor of Unilever, the maker of AquaNet), in which she is represented by David I. Schoen, as indicated in the NY Post article.
Under "case status", the courts website lists the matter as "disposed", not "active", so the other poster who said the case is still active is apparently mistaken. Interestingly, Barbara Squicciarini is also listed as a plaintiff in 3 other suits filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court, in all of which she was represented by a different law firm, Monaco & Monaco LLP, all of them personal injury cases apparently involving injury to Barbara herself, two of those being car crashes, and one of those cases is still active, which may be the one the other poster was referring to.
In hopes of putting inquiring minds at rest, I clicked on the case number, which conveniently brought up a summary of status, indicating the date of disposition was 1/3/2007. A motion to dismiss that was filed on 1/3/2006 was denied by a short form order on 1/25/06. Since that was just a month after the case was filed (on 12/16/05), my guess is the judge just felt it was too early to dispose of the case since the pleadings apparently at least alleged a proper cause of action, and that factual discovery would be needed to flesh it out and see whether it needed to go to trial.
There is no other indication of the nature of the final disposition on 1/3/2007. Maybe someone more versed in reading the NY Courts website can help out here, but my guess is that means it was simply settled off the record in a confidential settlement between the parties and removed from the docket. That is not uncommon in a product liability suit that challenges the safety of the design or labeling of a company's entire line of products; the company often will want the present case to be settled to get it off the docket and cap their risk of large losses, but they do not want any public record of it so that it cannot encourage or be used a precedent by any other claimants. In this particular case, of course, I have no idea whether that is what occurred, it is just rank speculation. But if it is what happened, it's not surprising that there have been no further news reports about the outcome, since neither side would be making statements to the media in case of a confidential settlement.
I hope that is enough to satisfy everybody and kill this thread.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
US suit for foreign car crash
On May 18, 7:32 am, yrr...@gmail.com wrote:
> I have a question I wonder if anyone could answer. If a U.S. citizen
> were involved in an auto accident in another country in rented car, is
> there any way that a party from the other country could make any kind
> of personal injury claim against the U.S. citizen once
> they are back in the U.S.?
Sure there is. You are always responsible for your own torts (wrongful or negligent acts), and can be sued for them where-ever you can be found even if the tort occurred someplace else.
When it's the other way around, if a foreign national injures someone in the US and then goes back home, the US victim has a harder time because of difficulty in getting personal service of process over the foreign defendant in that foreign country to haul him back into a US court for trial. However, this is because most victims prefer to sue in the US, whose legal system is far more generous to injury victims than most other countries' legal systems are. The US victim still has the option of gettting a lawyer in the responsible parties' country to sue them there, but usually won't do that because the potential return (smaller than in US) is not worth the cost and effort (relatively larger).
When the responsible party is a US citizen and goes back to the US after injuring someone overseas, however, the foreign victim has it much easier. They can deal with a local lawyer in their home country, who will contact and work with a lawyer in the US, to sue the at-fault driver in the US. The lawyers work on contingency fees, and the victim gets the benefit of the more plaintiff-friendly US courts and tort laws.
However, under many states' "choice of law" rules, the US court hearing the matter would apply the law of the place where the injury occurred to all substantive issues, including determination of liability, and the measure of damages. So the advantage isn't as great as it may seem initially.
The US driver's US insurance will not protect him from the consequences of being sued for an overseas accident; US policies generally apply to occurrences within their "territorial limits of coverage" typically defined as the US and Canada. So, if you're renting a car abroad, be sure the rental company provides LIABILITY insurance that will cover the risk of you injuring someone else while driving there, as well as collision coverage for damage to the rental car.
> I would think that there only option would
> be to seek damages
> from the rental car company. Is this correct?
Technically, no, it's not correct. But practically, the rental company (and its insurer) are usually the victim's first point of contact and, if they are cooperative and reach a settlement, that may be all that is necessary.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I have a question I wonder if anyone could answer. If a U.S. citizen
> were involved in an auto accident in another country in rented car, is
> there any way that a party from the other country could make any kind
> of personal injury claim against the U.S. citizen once
> they are back in the U.S.?
Sure there is. You are always responsible for your own torts (wrongful or negligent acts), and can be sued for them where-ever you can be found even if the tort occurred someplace else.
When it's the other way around, if a foreign national injures someone in the US and then goes back home, the US victim has a harder time because of difficulty in getting personal service of process over the foreign defendant in that foreign country to haul him back into a US court for trial. However, this is because most victims prefer to sue in the US, whose legal system is far more generous to injury victims than most other countries' legal systems are. The US victim still has the option of gettting a lawyer in the responsible parties' country to sue them there, but usually won't do that because the potential return (smaller than in US) is not worth the cost and effort (relatively larger).
When the responsible party is a US citizen and goes back to the US after injuring someone overseas, however, the foreign victim has it much easier. They can deal with a local lawyer in their home country, who will contact and work with a lawyer in the US, to sue the at-fault driver in the US. The lawyers work on contingency fees, and the victim gets the benefit of the more plaintiff-friendly US courts and tort laws.
However, under many states' "choice of law" rules, the US court hearing the matter would apply the law of the place where the injury occurred to all substantive issues, including determination of liability, and the measure of damages. So the advantage isn't as great as it may seem initially.
The US driver's US insurance will not protect him from the consequences of being sued for an overseas accident; US policies generally apply to occurrences within their "territorial limits of coverage" typically defined as the US and Canada. So, if you're renting a car abroad, be sure the rental company provides LIABILITY insurance that will cover the risk of you injuring someone else while driving there, as well as collision coverage for damage to the rental car.
> I would think that there only option would
> be to seek damages
> from the rental car company. Is this correct?
Technically, no, it's not correct. But practically, the rental company (and its insurer) are usually the victim's first point of contact and, if they are cooperative and reach a settlement, that may be all that is necessary.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Punctured hairspray can incinerates woman
On May 17, 7:29 am, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> Jeff Wisnia <jwis...@conversent.net> wrote:
> > In 2003 a New York woman named Lorraine Squicciarini burned to
> > death after foolishly disregarding the "Do not puncture or
> > incinerate" warning on a can of Aquanet hairspray. She attacked it
> > with a can opener and the can's contents, when suddenly released,
> > were ignited by a nearby gas stove.
>
> > In 2005 there were news reports that her daughters' were suing the
> > manufacturer, Unilever, in a Brooklyn court for the loss of their
> > mother, pain and suffering, etc.
>
> I could find no reported cases, and nothing in the New York Times
> archives.
Nothing like a challenge, Stu.
After Googling for webhits on the victim's name, I discover The New York Post apparently _did_ report on the suit, in their December 24, 2005 edition in a story by Nick DeVito and Don Singleton headlined, "Kin Sue In Hair Spray Fire Death."
According to the story, Ms. Sq. was applying her daily regimen of Aqua Net when the nozzle clogged. Don't ask me why, but again according to the story, which allegedly quotes the Complaint filed in the case, "With the can opener, [Ms. Sq.] opened a hole in the BOTTOM of the Aquanet can in an attempt to clear the nozzle." (emphasis added)
The NY Post article also quotes Ms. Sq.'s attorney, one David Schoen. A search of the NY State Bar Assn. Attorney Directory reveals there are 3 David Schoens registered as lawyers admitted to practice in NY; one has his own practice in Huntington, NY, another works for the Court system in Mineola, NY, and the third is in Montgomery, AL. Would a Brooklyn family go out to Huntington, in Suffolk County, Long Island to find a lawyer? Maybe the lady's adult kids live there. And maybe Stu didn't find a case reference because it would have been filed in the name of the decedent's children, who if they were married women (or these days, even if not) might have had a different last name from their Mom. The manufacturer, Unilever, may also not be the first named defendant; maybe they also sued the drugstore where Mom bought the can (as is often done, partly to bring in a local defendant and destroy diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants, in order to prevent the defendants from removing the case to Federal court where plaintiffs chose to sue in State court, to get a better jury pool or whatever).
Maybe someone can take that ball and run with it to find out more about the status of the case. I've done enough for one night.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Jeff Wisnia <jwis...@conversent.net> wrote:
> > In 2003 a New York woman named Lorraine Squicciarini burned to
> > death after foolishly disregarding the "Do not puncture or
> > incinerate" warning on a can of Aquanet hairspray. She attacked it
> > with a can opener and the can's contents, when suddenly released,
> > were ignited by a nearby gas stove.
>
> > In 2005 there were news reports that her daughters' were suing the
> > manufacturer, Unilever, in a Brooklyn court for the loss of their
> > mother, pain and suffering, etc.
>
> I could find no reported cases, and nothing in the New York Times
> archives.
Nothing like a challenge, Stu.
After Googling for webhits on the victim's name, I discover The New York Post apparently _did_ report on the suit, in their December 24, 2005 edition in a story by Nick DeVito and Don Singleton headlined, "Kin Sue In Hair Spray Fire Death."
According to the story, Ms. Sq. was applying her daily regimen of Aqua Net when the nozzle clogged. Don't ask me why, but again according to the story, which allegedly quotes the Complaint filed in the case, "With the can opener, [Ms. Sq.] opened a hole in the BOTTOM of the Aquanet can in an attempt to clear the nozzle." (emphasis added)
The NY Post article also quotes Ms. Sq.'s attorney, one David Schoen. A search of the NY State Bar Assn. Attorney Directory reveals there are 3 David Schoens registered as lawyers admitted to practice in NY; one has his own practice in Huntington, NY, another works for the Court system in Mineola, NY, and the third is in Montgomery, AL. Would a Brooklyn family go out to Huntington, in Suffolk County, Long Island to find a lawyer? Maybe the lady's adult kids live there. And maybe Stu didn't find a case reference because it would have been filed in the name of the decedent's children, who if they were married women (or these days, even if not) might have had a different last name from their Mom. The manufacturer, Unilever, may also not be the first named defendant; maybe they also sued the drugstore where Mom bought the can (as is often done, partly to bring in a local defendant and destroy diversity of citizenship between all plaintiffs and all defendants, in order to prevent the defendants from removing the case to Federal court where plaintiffs chose to sue in State court, to get a better jury pool or whatever).
Maybe someone can take that ball and run with it to find out more about the status of the case. I've done enough for one night.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Reporting an on-the-job car crash
On May 16, 7:44 am, "Edward C." <edwardclemen...@aol.com> wrote:
> I was concentrating on the traffic to my left when all the sudden I
> looked ahead of me and Ms. Right Turn was making a sudden left turn
> into my direct path.
Based on your (snipped) description of the facts, she had already made
a right turn then changed her mind and made a left U-turn that wound
up putting her car in front of you. She was not supposed to do
that. Based on your description, you did nothing negligent and her
illegal maneuver was totally unpredictable from where you sat.
> I braked as fast as I could but still ended up
> hitting the left back side of her car causing a minor dent.
Who hit whom is NOT the be-all and end-all of deciding which was the
at-fault party. If you had been cruising steadily on the main
boulevard and she had pulled out in front of you after running a stop
sign on a side street, wouldn't you say it was her fault, not yours,
even if you are the one who T-boned her car? The difference between
being hitter and hittee is just a split second, far less than normal
human reaction time (which is what the law would look to, in deciding
whether you could have seen and reacted to the situation any
differently and therefore maybe should have done something
differently).
> So now we both park on the side of the road and begin to politely
> exchange insurance information, contact information etc.
Good Idea #1.
> Ms. Right
> Turn gives me the vibe that she doesn't want the cops involved
Bad Idea #1.
> that we only have one witness who is sympathizing with her
Says who? Did you talk to the witness? What did the witness
actually say?
And what does "sympathize" mean? Heck, I "sympathize" with the lady
too -- and with you -- because you were both in an accident, and that
is a traumatic occurrence no nice person would wish on anybody. But
that has nothing to do with figuring out whose fault it was.
> acknowledging her mistake. Since my Company Vehicle is not damaged I
> stupidly decide to agree with her wishes
So you agreed with Bad Idea #1.
At least you now know it was stupid not to call the police.
> and offer to have the dent
> fixed at my expense as long as my employer does not learn of the
> accident.
Bad Idea #2.
Where did that come out of the blue? And what did that have to do
with not notifying the police? Esp. if you feel YOU did nothing
wrong, why would you go out on a limb like that with your own
pocketbook? Car repair is not cheap these days; what was the
estimate, at least a couple thousand dollars?
And why on earth would you try to hide this from your employer?
First of all, hiding ANYTHING from your employer that they have a
right to know is one of the top All Time Bad Ideas. If you're
worried about getting fired, hiding info from the boss is a strange
way to deal with that fear, since it is one of the most surefire ways
to GET fired, when the boss finds out about it.
Besides, hiding the fact of the accident would make any sense at all
only if you were afraid you would be fired for doing something
WRONG. Having an accident that is not your fault is one of the risks
of just being on the road and no reasonable employer would hold that
against you, if the facts were known. If they DO hold it against you,
they are jerks you didn't want to work for anyway. But AFAIK it would
not be illegal for them to fire you for that reason, or for no reason
at all, if you are an "at will" employee with no contract of continued
employment for a specific period of time.
If you had done the smart thing and called your employer right from
the scene, odds are (you're in Vegas, right, so betting is OK) he
would not have batted an eyelash about it, and would have told you NOT
to make any statements with regard to fault and NOT to make any
offers. You may in fact have made it MORE difficult for your employer
to sensibly deal with this situation now, by the inept promises you
made.
> Today I called an Auto Body Shop with questions about estimates, cost
> etc. The owner got curious and asked more questions which led me to
> telling him of my situation. To my surprise he was honest and
> concerned and told me I shouldn't have Ms. Right Turn's car fixed. He
> told me I should file a police report, tell my employer, and forget I
> ever offered to have the car fixed.
The guy did you a huge favor to make you start thinking about this,
but I can't vouch for the soundness of all the advice he gave you.
YES you should file a police report.
YES you should tell your employer -- tell them EVERYTHING, including
your (stupid but wussy-kindhearted) offer to pay for the damage, since
a clever lawyer for Ms. Right Turn could make that out to be a binding
promise that YOUR EMPLOYER could be responsible for (even if it turns
out the wreck was NOT your fault).
NO you should not "forget" you ever made such an offer, if by that he
means, lie about it when someone asks. If you've read this far, you
should know by now that hiding the facts from, much less lying about
them, is All Time Very Bad Idea #1. Adding more lies to the mistakes
you have already made, would only make it worse. If there IS a way
out of the situation that doesn't wind up costing your employer (or
its insurer) needless money and/or wind up costing you your job, the
only way to find out from now on is to be scrupulously honest with the
people who are on your side.
Keep in mind that, at least as far as proving fault in the crash goes,
your employer IS on your side. If you are found at fault, the
employer is legally responsible for the damages the lady incurred,
since you were driving on-the-job as their employee. Your employer
has insurance to pay for that, IF they are found to be at fault, but
both your employer and his insurer would like to have things turn out
that you would NOT be found at fault for the wreck, if that is
consistent with the facts.
> He told me that I would be accepting liability for the damage by
> having it fixed. Which could lead to further lawsuits if they were so
> inclined (and he thinks they are, because of who I work for.) they
> could make medical claims later, and even file lawsuit against the
> company I work for.
All of that could well be true.
> Thus defeating the purpose at my attempt for keeping my job.
However, continuing to hide the facts from your employer is NOT going
to make things any better, and could well make them a lot worse.
> Is he right? and if not what should I do?
Don't you want to know what you should do if he IS right? You didn't
ask that. Or maybe you've already made up your mind what to do in
that case, so I won't offer any suggestions.
Whatever you decide to do, good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I was concentrating on the traffic to my left when all the sudden I
> looked ahead of me and Ms. Right Turn was making a sudden left turn
> into my direct path.
Based on your (snipped) description of the facts, she had already made
a right turn then changed her mind and made a left U-turn that wound
up putting her car in front of you. She was not supposed to do
that. Based on your description, you did nothing negligent and her
illegal maneuver was totally unpredictable from where you sat.
> I braked as fast as I could but still ended up
> hitting the left back side of her car causing a minor dent.
Who hit whom is NOT the be-all and end-all of deciding which was the
at-fault party. If you had been cruising steadily on the main
boulevard and she had pulled out in front of you after running a stop
sign on a side street, wouldn't you say it was her fault, not yours,
even if you are the one who T-boned her car? The difference between
being hitter and hittee is just a split second, far less than normal
human reaction time (which is what the law would look to, in deciding
whether you could have seen and reacted to the situation any
differently and therefore maybe should have done something
differently).
> So now we both park on the side of the road and begin to politely
> exchange insurance information, contact information etc.
Good Idea #1.
> Ms. Right
> Turn gives me the vibe that she doesn't want the cops involved
Bad Idea #1.
> that we only have one witness who is sympathizing with her
Says who? Did you talk to the witness? What did the witness
actually say?
And what does "sympathize" mean? Heck, I "sympathize" with the lady
too -- and with you -- because you were both in an accident, and that
is a traumatic occurrence no nice person would wish on anybody. But
that has nothing to do with figuring out whose fault it was.
> acknowledging her mistake. Since my Company Vehicle is not damaged I
> stupidly decide to agree with her wishes
So you agreed with Bad Idea #1.
At least you now know it was stupid not to call the police.
> and offer to have the dent
> fixed at my expense as long as my employer does not learn of the
> accident.
Bad Idea #2.
Where did that come out of the blue? And what did that have to do
with not notifying the police? Esp. if you feel YOU did nothing
wrong, why would you go out on a limb like that with your own
pocketbook? Car repair is not cheap these days; what was the
estimate, at least a couple thousand dollars?
And why on earth would you try to hide this from your employer?
First of all, hiding ANYTHING from your employer that they have a
right to know is one of the top All Time Bad Ideas. If you're
worried about getting fired, hiding info from the boss is a strange
way to deal with that fear, since it is one of the most surefire ways
to GET fired, when the boss finds out about it.
Besides, hiding the fact of the accident would make any sense at all
only if you were afraid you would be fired for doing something
WRONG. Having an accident that is not your fault is one of the risks
of just being on the road and no reasonable employer would hold that
against you, if the facts were known. If they DO hold it against you,
they are jerks you didn't want to work for anyway. But AFAIK it would
not be illegal for them to fire you for that reason, or for no reason
at all, if you are an "at will" employee with no contract of continued
employment for a specific period of time.
If you had done the smart thing and called your employer right from
the scene, odds are (you're in Vegas, right, so betting is OK) he
would not have batted an eyelash about it, and would have told you NOT
to make any statements with regard to fault and NOT to make any
offers. You may in fact have made it MORE difficult for your employer
to sensibly deal with this situation now, by the inept promises you
made.
> Today I called an Auto Body Shop with questions about estimates, cost
> etc. The owner got curious and asked more questions which led me to
> telling him of my situation. To my surprise he was honest and
> concerned and told me I shouldn't have Ms. Right Turn's car fixed. He
> told me I should file a police report, tell my employer, and forget I
> ever offered to have the car fixed.
The guy did you a huge favor to make you start thinking about this,
but I can't vouch for the soundness of all the advice he gave you.
YES you should file a police report.
YES you should tell your employer -- tell them EVERYTHING, including
your (stupid but wussy-kindhearted) offer to pay for the damage, since
a clever lawyer for Ms. Right Turn could make that out to be a binding
promise that YOUR EMPLOYER could be responsible for (even if it turns
out the wreck was NOT your fault).
NO you should not "forget" you ever made such an offer, if by that he
means, lie about it when someone asks. If you've read this far, you
should know by now that hiding the facts from, much less lying about
them, is All Time Very Bad Idea #1. Adding more lies to the mistakes
you have already made, would only make it worse. If there IS a way
out of the situation that doesn't wind up costing your employer (or
its insurer) needless money and/or wind up costing you your job, the
only way to find out from now on is to be scrupulously honest with the
people who are on your side.
Keep in mind that, at least as far as proving fault in the crash goes,
your employer IS on your side. If you are found at fault, the
employer is legally responsible for the damages the lady incurred,
since you were driving on-the-job as their employee. Your employer
has insurance to pay for that, IF they are found to be at fault, but
both your employer and his insurer would like to have things turn out
that you would NOT be found at fault for the wreck, if that is
consistent with the facts.
> He told me that I would be accepting liability for the damage by
> having it fixed. Which could lead to further lawsuits if they were so
> inclined (and he thinks they are, because of who I work for.) they
> could make medical claims later, and even file lawsuit against the
> company I work for.
All of that could well be true.
> Thus defeating the purpose at my attempt for keeping my job.
However, continuing to hide the facts from your employer is NOT going
to make things any better, and could well make them a lot worse.
> Is he right? and if not what should I do?
Don't you want to know what you should do if he IS right? You didn't
ask that. Or maybe you've already made up your mind what to do in
that case, so I won't offer any suggestions.
Whatever you decide to do, good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Predatory lending, part 3
On May 16, 7:45 am, JoniA2 <strickfad...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On May 9, 7:48 am, JoniA2 <strickfad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > I have the title work ... I am on the mortgage and the deed for
> > > sure... and NOT on the Flagstar NOTE ....hubby surrendered all
> > > mortgages/property to the court.... ask me how he can surrender half
* * *
> they still have a lien on hubby's half...so I can live here for
> free... that is it???
I don't think anyone on MLM to date has told you that you can continue to live there for free. Try to listen to what people are actually telling you.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you were still paying on a loan with the house as collateral, you need to keep paying off that loan, or else the lender can foreclose, whether OR NOT you or hubby are in bankruptcy.
What several posters on MLM have asked you, and which you have not yet clearly answered, is whether your ambiguous statement in your original post, that you are on the deed and mortgage but NOT the "note", is all referring to the same transaction, or different transactions (e.g. if the Flagstar "note" was a second- or third-mortgage that Hubby took out without your knowledge or signature).
Let's be clear and cut to the chase:
The consensus seems to be that IF they are all the same deal, it doesn't matter whether you signed the actual NOTE or not, if you did in fact sign the MORTGAGE. One is as good as the other for keeping you on the hook to make the payments if you want to keep the house.
OTOH, _IF_ Hubby went out and got a second or third mortgage, and didn't tell you, and either didn't get your signature on the note OR forged your signature, then you MAY have a possible case of fraud, IF you were already a co-owner of the house BEFORE the transaction that is in question occurred.
> Looking into Fraud with FBI too...
Whatever that means. If you are as clear with them as you have been over the last 3 weeks of posting on MLM, they probably already put your case in their circular file. But I may have some suggestions, if you read on.
> May 14, 2007
> Ann Arbor News,
Did you actually send this to the newspaper? Did they print it? Just curious.
<snip>
> Here is my story,
<snip>
Try as I might, I did not find one word in your lengthy story, either before or after the "Here is my story" quote, about whether or not you, Joni, the OP, in fact have had _anything_ to do with the Flagstar loan or not, before the bad stuff started to happen. That does NOT just mean, whether or not you signed the "Note", but whether or not you had ANYTHING to do with it. In other words, WHOSE "deed", and "mortgage", was it, that has your name on it? If that was with someone other than Flagstar, you haven't made that clear to us yet.
Can you just answer that question, honestly, for yourself (not here, unless you choose)? If your answer is "Yes", then you are probably still on the hook for these loans, if you want to keep the house. If your answer is "No", then you MAY be able to do something about getting out from under the Flagstar loan and still keep the house, IF you follow these simple guidelines:
1. Calm down.
2. Get your facts straight. That means, leave out the emotion and the fluff and the stuff about the state of your marriage and spousal abuse, and just focus on the steps involved in this particular loan transaction that you seem to think was fraudulent.
3. Calm down again. Don't get excited.
4. When you find someone who is willing to listen to what you have to say, listen to what THEY have to say to you back, including any questions they ask. Note whether or not the things they say to you are stated categorically, or may have some conditions or qualifiers, and don't ignore those explorations of possibilities to turn an "IF" statement into an "IS" statement.
5. When (4) happens, answer any questions these people trying to help you may ask you. The reason they ask is, they don't know the answer yet.
6. Don't get upset if you don't understand what they are trying to say. Ask for clarification if you don't know what it is they want you to tell them.
7. Keep in mind that the law, especially bankruptcy law, is intended for your protection, not to oppress you. If it looks like you're about to be oppressed, you may be doing something wrong. If so, repeat steps (1) - (6) until you understand what is happening, have a firm grasp of the facts and the applicable law, and have a good idea of what you can do about it, then decide what to do among the possible and realistic options that are suggested to you.
8. If all else fails, as I suggested 3 weeks ago, you probably can still just walk away from this whole deal, hubby, house, lender, and all, and start your life over on a fresh page. Isn't that a comforting thought? No baggage.
9. Whatever happens, do not panic. Panic prevents thought. Lack of thought prevents useful action. Do not run around like a chicken with its head cut off.
10. Don't forget to take time to enjoy yourself too. Smell the flowers. It's May.
Signing off, and good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> > On May 9, 7:48 am, JoniA2 <strickfad...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > I have the title work ... I am on the mortgage and the deed for
> > > sure... and NOT on the Flagstar NOTE ....hubby surrendered all
> > > mortgages/property to the court.... ask me how he can surrender half
* * *
> they still have a lien on hubby's half...so I can live here for
> free... that is it???
I don't think anyone on MLM to date has told you that you can continue to live there for free. Try to listen to what people are actually telling you.
There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. If you were still paying on a loan with the house as collateral, you need to keep paying off that loan, or else the lender can foreclose, whether OR NOT you or hubby are in bankruptcy.
What several posters on MLM have asked you, and which you have not yet clearly answered, is whether your ambiguous statement in your original post, that you are on the deed and mortgage but NOT the "note", is all referring to the same transaction, or different transactions (e.g. if the Flagstar "note" was a second- or third-mortgage that Hubby took out without your knowledge or signature).
Let's be clear and cut to the chase:
The consensus seems to be that IF they are all the same deal, it doesn't matter whether you signed the actual NOTE or not, if you did in fact sign the MORTGAGE. One is as good as the other for keeping you on the hook to make the payments if you want to keep the house.
OTOH, _IF_ Hubby went out and got a second or third mortgage, and didn't tell you, and either didn't get your signature on the note OR forged your signature, then you MAY have a possible case of fraud, IF you were already a co-owner of the house BEFORE the transaction that is in question occurred.
> Looking into Fraud with FBI too...
Whatever that means. If you are as clear with them as you have been over the last 3 weeks of posting on MLM, they probably already put your case in their circular file. But I may have some suggestions, if you read on.
> May 14, 2007
> Ann Arbor News,
Did you actually send this to the newspaper? Did they print it? Just curious.
<snip>
> Here is my story,
<snip>
Try as I might, I did not find one word in your lengthy story, either before or after the "Here is my story" quote, about whether or not you, Joni, the OP, in fact have had _anything_ to do with the Flagstar loan or not, before the bad stuff started to happen. That does NOT just mean, whether or not you signed the "Note", but whether or not you had ANYTHING to do with it. In other words, WHOSE "deed", and "mortgage", was it, that has your name on it? If that was with someone other than Flagstar, you haven't made that clear to us yet.
Can you just answer that question, honestly, for yourself (not here, unless you choose)? If your answer is "Yes", then you are probably still on the hook for these loans, if you want to keep the house. If your answer is "No", then you MAY be able to do something about getting out from under the Flagstar loan and still keep the house, IF you follow these simple guidelines:
1. Calm down.
2. Get your facts straight. That means, leave out the emotion and the fluff and the stuff about the state of your marriage and spousal abuse, and just focus on the steps involved in this particular loan transaction that you seem to think was fraudulent.
3. Calm down again. Don't get excited.
4. When you find someone who is willing to listen to what you have to say, listen to what THEY have to say to you back, including any questions they ask. Note whether or not the things they say to you are stated categorically, or may have some conditions or qualifiers, and don't ignore those explorations of possibilities to turn an "IF" statement into an "IS" statement.
5. When (4) happens, answer any questions these people trying to help you may ask you. The reason they ask is, they don't know the answer yet.
6. Don't get upset if you don't understand what they are trying to say. Ask for clarification if you don't know what it is they want you to tell them.
7. Keep in mind that the law, especially bankruptcy law, is intended for your protection, not to oppress you. If it looks like you're about to be oppressed, you may be doing something wrong. If so, repeat steps (1) - (6) until you understand what is happening, have a firm grasp of the facts and the applicable law, and have a good idea of what you can do about it, then decide what to do among the possible and realistic options that are suggested to you.
8. If all else fails, as I suggested 3 weeks ago, you probably can still just walk away from this whole deal, hubby, house, lender, and all, and start your life over on a fresh page. Isn't that a comforting thought? No baggage.
9. Whatever happens, do not panic. Panic prevents thought. Lack of thought prevents useful action. Do not run around like a chicken with its head cut off.
10. Don't forget to take time to enjoy yourself too. Smell the flowers. It's May.
Signing off, and good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Power of Attorney for stock brokerage transactions
On May 14, 7:06 am, Jay <jay6...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A friend has given me a Power of Attorney to trade stocks in his
> brokerage account.
I can't imagine why any sensible person in your friend's shoes would do that, other than to give you power to SELL certain shares to convert them to cash if needed for liquidity while the Grantor of the POA was somehow incommunicado, or legally and mentally incapacitated. Otherwise, if the Grantor is anyplace on the globe that offers satellite telephone service, including the Amazon jungles or the peaks of the Himalayas, you can communicate directly with him and follow his instructions as to what to buy or sell, and avoid the problem of applying your own investment decisions to the situation altogether.
> The text seems to be very standard (format
> prescribed by the broker) and doesn't say anything about my liability
> except that I must abide by all rules and regulations of the concerned
> regulatory bodies.
> Question: Is there any personal liability for me - though not stated
> explicitly, is there something that is always "understood" to be
> implied in a Power of Attorney?
The laws of each USA state are different, but yes, AFAIK they all impose certain "default" powers and obligations on the holder of a POA, which can be added to or changed if explicitly agreed to by the parties. Check local law -- you don't say where you, or your friend, are.
> If I lose money, can my friend claim
> it from me
Maybe. But probably not, if you act in good faith, with reasonable due diligence, and exercising ordinary sound business judgment.
If you sell all of your friend's valuable stocks to buy shares in the Brooklyn Bridge, yes you could be held liable.
> or can the broker or exchange claim it from me?
Probably not. It's not their money, it's your friend's. The brokers are just going to the market and putting through the transactions you ask them to make. Unless I'm missing something obvious, why would the brokerage itself have a claim against _you_? OTOH, if they fail to follow your reasonable instructions and as a result you suffer a loss, you (or your friend) might have a claim against _them_. But you didn't ask that.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> A friend has given me a Power of Attorney to trade stocks in his
> brokerage account.
I can't imagine why any sensible person in your friend's shoes would do that, other than to give you power to SELL certain shares to convert them to cash if needed for liquidity while the Grantor of the POA was somehow incommunicado, or legally and mentally incapacitated. Otherwise, if the Grantor is anyplace on the globe that offers satellite telephone service, including the Amazon jungles or the peaks of the Himalayas, you can communicate directly with him and follow his instructions as to what to buy or sell, and avoid the problem of applying your own investment decisions to the situation altogether.
> The text seems to be very standard (format
> prescribed by the broker) and doesn't say anything about my liability
> except that I must abide by all rules and regulations of the concerned
> regulatory bodies.
> Question: Is there any personal liability for me - though not stated
> explicitly, is there something that is always "understood" to be
> implied in a Power of Attorney?
The laws of each USA state are different, but yes, AFAIK they all impose certain "default" powers and obligations on the holder of a POA, which can be added to or changed if explicitly agreed to by the parties. Check local law -- you don't say where you, or your friend, are.
> If I lose money, can my friend claim
> it from me
Maybe. But probably not, if you act in good faith, with reasonable due diligence, and exercising ordinary sound business judgment.
If you sell all of your friend's valuable stocks to buy shares in the Brooklyn Bridge, yes you could be held liable.
> or can the broker or exchange claim it from me?
Probably not. It's not their money, it's your friend's. The brokers are just going to the market and putting through the transactions you ask them to make. Unless I'm missing something obvious, why would the brokerage itself have a claim against _you_? OTOH, if they fail to follow your reasonable instructions and as a result you suffer a loss, you (or your friend) might have a claim against _them_. But you didn't ask that.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Sole beneficiary as executor, conflict of interest?
On May 14, 7:05 am, c...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I am looking at a copy of a deed for a building, granting ownership in
> a New Jersey property from the estate of a woman to her son. The deed
> is granted by the administrators of the estate to the son of the
> woman. What seems peculiar to me is that the administrators of the
> estate are the husband and son of this woman, and then the same son is
> the only beneficiary.
Sounds Kosher to me. In fact if the son was the sole beneficiary of the late woman's Will, he inherited all her property, so the ownership of the house was equitably his already (albeit, with legal title being held in the name of her Estate, by the Estate's Administrators, for his benefit). If the son/beneficiary wanted to keep the house after closing of probate, it would make sense to have legal title also put into his name by just such a deed.
OTOH if the son/beneficiary wanted to sell the house and convert its equity value to cash, while the Estate was still undergoing probate, he could do that too, in which case it would not even be necessary to switch over the legal title; he and his dad (the other Administrator) could simply sign the deed turning ownership of the property over to the unrelated third party buyer in their role as Administrators of the decedent's Estate. Either way seems OK, a matter of personal preference.
> I know very little about estate transfers but it seems like it would
> be a major conflict of interest to have an administrator who is also a
> beneficiary. Is this legal at all?
Why would it be a conflict of interest? Where's the conflict? Everything son does, whether as son or as administrator or as beneficiary, is presumably going to be in son's best interest. A conflict of interest situation can only arise where the person making the decisions has some possible motivation or incentive NOT to act in the beneficiary's best interest, such as where the decisionmaker has a competing financial stake in the outcome. Even there, it is quite common for a parent, in her Will, to name one of her adult children as her Administrator, even if she has several other adult children who will also be beneficiaries in addition to the one who has to do all the work. In your actual case, the decedent seems to have set things up so that in his role as co-Administrator, Son can keep Dad honest (if there was ever any doubt) and avoid even the possibility of a conflict of interest (if, for instance, the surviving parent had sole authority to make probate decisions and may have been inclined to act in ways the child sole beneficiary would not have approved).
But don't take my word for it. I'm not a NJ lawyer and not familiar with NJ law. If you are just a curious onlooker, the above should raise some points for discussion and let you draw your own conclusions. But if you are a professional doing a title search on which substantial rights and obligations worth a lot of money will depend, do your own legal research, not to put too fine a point on it. 8*)
Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I am looking at a copy of a deed for a building, granting ownership in
> a New Jersey property from the estate of a woman to her son. The deed
> is granted by the administrators of the estate to the son of the
> woman. What seems peculiar to me is that the administrators of the
> estate are the husband and son of this woman, and then the same son is
> the only beneficiary.
Sounds Kosher to me. In fact if the son was the sole beneficiary of the late woman's Will, he inherited all her property, so the ownership of the house was equitably his already (albeit, with legal title being held in the name of her Estate, by the Estate's Administrators, for his benefit). If the son/beneficiary wanted to keep the house after closing of probate, it would make sense to have legal title also put into his name by just such a deed.
OTOH if the son/beneficiary wanted to sell the house and convert its equity value to cash, while the Estate was still undergoing probate, he could do that too, in which case it would not even be necessary to switch over the legal title; he and his dad (the other Administrator) could simply sign the deed turning ownership of the property over to the unrelated third party buyer in their role as Administrators of the decedent's Estate. Either way seems OK, a matter of personal preference.
> I know very little about estate transfers but it seems like it would
> be a major conflict of interest to have an administrator who is also a
> beneficiary. Is this legal at all?
Why would it be a conflict of interest? Where's the conflict? Everything son does, whether as son or as administrator or as beneficiary, is presumably going to be in son's best interest. A conflict of interest situation can only arise where the person making the decisions has some possible motivation or incentive NOT to act in the beneficiary's best interest, such as where the decisionmaker has a competing financial stake in the outcome. Even there, it is quite common for a parent, in her Will, to name one of her adult children as her Administrator, even if she has several other adult children who will also be beneficiaries in addition to the one who has to do all the work. In your actual case, the decedent seems to have set things up so that in his role as co-Administrator, Son can keep Dad honest (if there was ever any doubt) and avoid even the possibility of a conflict of interest (if, for instance, the surviving parent had sole authority to make probate decisions and may have been inclined to act in ways the child sole beneficiary would not have approved).
But don't take my word for it. I'm not a NJ lawyer and not familiar with NJ law. If you are just a curious onlooker, the above should raise some points for discussion and let you draw your own conclusions. But if you are a professional doing a title search on which substantial rights and obligations worth a lot of money will depend, do your own legal research, not to put too fine a point on it. 8*)
Good luck,
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)