On Jun 1, 7:11 am, Chris <Electric.Skep...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This post is further to a previous post as a result of which a number
> of people advised that more detail was required before they could
> address my questions.
Chris, I am not a CA lawyer but I used to live there, if that helps. I also read a lot of detective novels and watch classic noir crime thrillers a lot. You may find answers to most of your questions on this plain-English, layperson-oriented site summarizing California criminal procedure, which I found by "Googling" the keywords "speedy trial right California" (or, go to one of the many other sites that pop up on doing a similar search):
http://research.lawyers.com/California/Criminal-Process-in-California.html
That site is run by Lexis/Nexis, one of the largest online legal research providers.
> I'm a writer, and a current project has a subplot in which a man is
> accused of murder. Not being legally trained, I am concerned that what
> I write is correct as far as the legal procedure goes. The following
> are the basic plot points concerning the accusation and its legal
> aspects:
>
> 1. A woman is found by her housekeeper, dead, in her California home.
> A single bullet wound is identified as the cause of death.
Of course, the cops' crime lab reps will show up at the scene and, depending on how the scene initially appears they may dust for fingerprints, check the doors and windows for forced entry, test for presence of any "protein samples" of various kinds (hair, skin flakes, semen) and, if present, try to retrieve bits for DNA testing; look for and retrieve any slugs or shell casings to be found (other than the one still in the victim), and will be given the embedded slug (properly marked and tagged as evidence with a chain of custody) by the coroner when it is retrieved in the autopsy. Then they will try to identify the caliber and try to match the rifling marks on the slug with those of the suspected murder weapon, if and when that is retrieved. And the detectives will try to reconstruct where everyone (perp and victim, and any others present) must have been located, and their relative closeness and posture, based on where and in what position the body was found, the angle of the entrance and exit wounds, the pattern of bloodstains and the presence or absence of any gunpowder residue on the body, walls, or furniture, etc. The autopsy will also rely on various forensic factors such as presence or absence of rigor mortis, gravitational pooling of blood in the body, the extent of decomposition, etc. to determine an approximate time of death (expressed in hours, or days, before the autopsy was performed).
Depennding on where the bullet hit her and its caliber and speed, they can also figure out whether she was killed instantly (e.g. blew her brains out) or merely bled to death over a period of time, with opportunity to dial 9-1-1 or such before she passed out (if the perp hadn't ripped the phones from the wall, or hidden her wireless...)
> 2. Later the same day, police interview the woman's husband.
I assume he was distraught and didn't call his lawyer at that time because he didn't feel he was a suspect and wanted to be cooperative to help them catch his wife's killer.
> 3. Three days later, police arrest the woman's husband, charging him
> with the murder.
You didn't say what the evidence was that connected him to the crime. I won't ask, but note that before the cops can arrest him, in a non-exigent situation as here, they need to have sufficient probable cause to convince a judge to issue a warrant for his arrest. Did hubby have an alibi? If so, did it not check out? Did he have a motive to kill wifey? Did they ever fight or argue violently before? Did he own a gun? Did it match the slug? Did he make possibly incriminating, although innocent, statements in his initial interview? Don't tell us here, but you will need a believable scenario that would make your reader say, "boy, it sure _seems_ like this guy is the one who dun it."
> He calls a lawyer who is with him as the police
> interrogate him.
If the lawyer is smart, he would instruct the husband not to say anything further, even in an effort to clear himself. His statements could provide missing pieces of the puzzle the cops need to e.g. place him near the scene, or show that he has knowledge of certain things, or certain skills or habits that could tie him to the already known evidence and fill in the gaps sufficiently to make a case against him even if he is innocent.
But if this was the "family lawyer" who did their wills or managed their real estate investments, he may not have been too sharp on his criminal defense skills. I don't know how that plays into your plot.
> 4. A few days later, the husband appears at the arraignment, where he
> is formally charged, and enters a plea of not guilty. Bail is granted
> and set at one million dollars.
That's pretty high; it means the family must be fairly wealthy. Not surprising, if they have a housekeeper and a lawyer already on retainer.
> 5. The husband's lawyer organises and pays the husband's bail.
I'm assuming you mean the lawyer, acting as his client's agent, accessed the client's own assets (or friends' or relatives') to do this. No lawyer in his right mind is going to put up his own money as bail for a client. If the client can't afford high bail, the lawyer will ask the court to take that into consideration and set a lower bail, or the client will just have to sit there in jail until trial.
> 6. The husband is released on bail and immediately begins to hunt for
> his wife's killer (the police aren't looking - they believe they have
> the killer (the husband)).
Right, you don't keep investigating if you think you've solved the crime already.
> 7. The husband finds the killer
I won't ask how -- that's probably where a lot of your original creative writing comes in.
> and his lawyer calls in a favour to
> have a police officer present but hidden at a confrontation with the
> killer.
Although the way you put this may serve your plot better, it makes a lot more sense to me that the husband would tell his lawyer what evidence he had found or learned re: identity of the real killer, and then his lawyer would take that information to the police and/or prosecutor above the table, in his role as an advocate for his client, hoping to get the charges dropped. There is no reason to "call in a favour" and have it done surreptitiously by a cop willing to bend the rules. Especially if the husband (and the cops) hope to be able to use the evidence they gather against the real killer at trial to convict him and not get that evidence thrown out as improperly obtained, they will have to scrupulously observe the rules, get proper warrants for taping the conversation, etc. before the confrontation takes place.
Why would the state want to do all this, instead of just going ahead with the sufficient evidence they had against the husband? Probably because once the lawyer tells them what _he_ knows about the real killer, they know the lawyer will bring that stuff up in making his defense case at trial, and will likely raise sufficient reasonable doubt to get the husband acquitted, at which point the cops will have lost the element of surprise they would need to get the last essential bit of evidence (a confession) from the real killer. The cops would cooperate so they don't blow the case.
> The idea is that the husband will get the killer to admit to
> the crime (which the killer will do because it's just his word against
> the husband's).
That does happen sometimes in real life and sounds like a good (if somewhat overused) plot device.
The killer will only do so if it appears to him that it is in the course of a natural conversation with the husband whom I presume is someone who already knows and has a relationship with the killer. If the husband of your victim walks up to you, and this is someone you never met before this incident, and he asks you "Did you kill my wife", would _you_ give him a truthful answer? Even if it's your-word-vs.- his-word as to admissible eviidence, wouldn't the killer be thinking about the risk that the vengeance-seeking hsuband would want to kill the killer as well as the lesser risk he was just wearing a wire for the cops?
> 8. The husband and killer meet, with the police officer concealed. The
> killer admits to the crime, and the police officer leaps up and
> arrests him.
If the cop is close enough to hear what is said, he is too close for his own safety IMO; and besides, resort to that plot element seems to overlook the invention of conveniently small electronic recording devices in about the mid-20th century. It's much more likely IMO that the cops would rig the husband with a wire for his conversation with the killer. But if you still want to make this an unoifficial, under-the-table conspiracy between the husband and the crooked cop, I suppose it would work. Especially if the family lawyer is a not-too-sharp criminal defense guy so that it doesn't occur to him to do this the "right" way.
The only reason I can think of _not_ to jump thru all the right hoops is if hubby/lawyer fear there is some corruption in the police department or the prosecutor's office that would "tip off" the real killer and thereby endanger the "good guys", forcing the "good guys" to bypass officialdom and do this on their own. I mean, we all hear about how the average Joe gets little effort from the cops to investigate a routine mugging, but when a millionairess gets murdered in her own home, the cops generally do a pretty good job of trying to find out who really did it.
> 9. With the killer in custody and his confession on record (as heard
> by the police officer) the police further investigate and confirm that
> the killer really did it.
One would think the cops would investigate further _first_ to confirm whatever evidence it was against hte real killer that the husband's lawyer brought to them, and _then_ try to obtain a confession to cap it off. But I suppose they wouldn't, if you are relying on the underground efforts of the husband and his lawyer's cop buddy to dig this up.
> 10. The District Attorney's office drops all charges against the
> husband.
A happy Hollywood ending. Boffo.
> I have a number of questions about the scenario:
>
> - Are there any glaring errors in the scenario?
Not really, but see above.
> - How long would typically elapse between steps (3) and (4) (ie., the
> arrest and the arraignment)?
The above-cited website indicates a bail hearing generally occurs within 72 hours after arrest in CA, if not sooner.
> - To whom is bail actually paid (as in step (5))?
To the Clerk of Court's cashier's office. If approved by the Court, bail can also be in the form of putting up collateral (e.g. the deed to the house), not just cash. A rich defendant is more likely to do that than to get a paid bail bond since the collateral is returned intact if the defendant keeps his promise to show up for trial under which he is released from pretrial detention, whereas the bail bondsman typically charges a nonrefundable cash fee of 10% or so of the actual bail amount, and then puts up his bond to the court as the collateral to guarantee the defendant's appearance.
> - Until bail is paid (as in step (5)) where would someone charged with
> murder be held? A local police station? An actual jail?
Generally in the lockup at the local police, or in a county jail. State and federal prisons are only for those already convicted and serving a sentence.
> - How long would the husband have to find the killer - that is, how
> long (typically) between his release on bail (on the day of the
> arraignment) and the trial?
The Lexis websdite says CA has a 60-day speedy trial rule, but that can be waived by defendant, which would make the time longer.
> - Is the idea of the husband and his lawyer getting a police officer
> to hide and watch a confession realistic? How else could they
> accomplish the same end (of getting the police to realise that
> somebody else was the killer)?
See my embedded comments above after item 8.
> - When (as in step (10)) the District Attorney's office decides to
> drop the charges after the suspect is arraigned, how is this notified
> to the defendant? Would the DA's office phone his lawyer?
Most likely.
> Or contact
> the defendant himself?
That would be unethical, if he has a lawyer.
> Or would there be a court hearing of some sort
> to dispose of the charges?
Not necessary. If the prosecution decides they don't want to prosecute, that is within their discretion. You may be mixing this up with cases where a _complaining_witness_ (victim) decides she doesn't want to prosecute, but the state wants to go forward anyway. Then, the defense would typically ask for a show cause hearing to dispose of the case on grounds of insufficient evidence to continue to trial, over the prosecution's opposition.
> Many thanks to anyone who can help with any of the above questions :)
Sure, this was fun. Good luck with the book.
--
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
Statute of Limitations calculation
On May 30, 3:19 pm, Johnny <J0hn_2...@rock.com> wrote:
> Regarding an unpaid debt and the statute of limitations. The question
> is; if the statute of limitations is one year (just for this
> discussion) and the last payment was made on January 1st 2006 does the
> statute of limitations expire on the anniversary date, Jan 1 2007 or
> does it expire at midnight December 31, 2006? It seems to me that if
> it expires on Jan 1 2007, that would be one year and a day rather than
> the stated one year.
State laws vary on this. Trying to rely just on logical reasoning in situations like this is a mistake. Actually, both interpretations are reasonable, and to some degree the choice between them is arbitrary, which is OK as long as each state has a clear and consistent rule announced in advance.
Many states' rules for calculating time provide that the day of an event is not included in the calculation so, if a rule requires something be done within 30 days after some other event, and the first event happened on, say, May 1, the second event would be due to be completed by May 31, the 31st day. If something has to be done within 365 days after an initial occurrence, the last day to do it is 365 days _later_ than that, i.e. if the day of the event is day 1, the 366th day (in a leap year, the 367th day, if the time interval is stated in years rather than in days. Watch out for that one if it's actually stated in days: foax sometimes get "180 days"/"6 months" mixed up, or "30 days"/"one month", to their profound regret.
--
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
> Regarding an unpaid debt and the statute of limitations. The question
> is; if the statute of limitations is one year (just for this
> discussion) and the last payment was made on January 1st 2006 does the
> statute of limitations expire on the anniversary date, Jan 1 2007 or
> does it expire at midnight December 31, 2006? It seems to me that if
> it expires on Jan 1 2007, that would be one year and a day rather than
> the stated one year.
State laws vary on this. Trying to rely just on logical reasoning in situations like this is a mistake. Actually, both interpretations are reasonable, and to some degree the choice between them is arbitrary, which is OK as long as each state has a clear and consistent rule announced in advance.
Many states' rules for calculating time provide that the day of an event is not included in the calculation so, if a rule requires something be done within 30 days after some other event, and the first event happened on, say, May 1, the second event would be due to be completed by May 31, the 31st day. If something has to be done within 365 days after an initial occurrence, the last day to do it is 365 days _later_ than that, i.e. if the day of the event is day 1, the 366th day (in a leap year, the 367th day, if the time interval is stated in years rather than in days. Watch out for that one if it's actually stated in days: foax sometimes get "180 days"/"6 months" mixed up, or "30 days"/"one month", to their profound regret.
--
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
Jury disqualification mistrial
On May 29, 7:06 am, s...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In article <uu2g53dl47tatvaopkdncadf5f86a3g...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >no choice but to dismiss you, but they will be stuck with a short
> >jury panel (if the parties agree to go ahead anyway) or the judge may
> >have to declare a mistrial and start over again with voir dire of a
> >whole new prospective jury panel. If it's a criminal trial, that may
> >require a dismissal of the charges, if the jury you sit on has
> >already started to hear the evidence, due to the constitutional
> >prohibition on "double jeopardy".
>
> I don't understand that one.
>
> First, juries tend to have alternates, in case some juror can't
> continue.
Sure, Seth's right about that. And I left out that element to avoid a longer, more complicated discussion than was necessary to address OP's main point. But since you raise the issue, what if one of the _other_ jurors gets sick, or is stuck in traffic or in a car wreck on the way to court the next day, or has also hidden some reason why he should not have been chosen in the first place, or unable to serve for some other reason? That, of course, is why the judge usually chooses some alternates, but if OP hides his disability (assuming it is one, for purposes of this discussion, and that it would in fact have been grounds to disqualify him for cause) then he will have reduced the depth of that "safety cushion" and may, eventually, be _one_ of the causes (along with all the other jurors who copped out) of winding up with a short jury. AFAIK there is no hard and fast rule about the number of alternates, and a judge will typically follow his or her instincts about how long a trial is likely to take, and how difficult a retrial would be, in deciding how many alternates to pick.
But that still doesn't make it OK for OP to hide his disability. Why wouldn't it also be OK for 12 or 14 other people on that jury to do the same thing? Kant's categorical imperative mandates that you think of the consequences that would happen if everyone were to take whatever action is being considered, in order to determine whether one has a moral right to do that thing. Put another way, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Saying that it's OK for OP to do that as long as there are still enough alternates and "no harm, no foul", is carving a special exception contrary to that principle. You wouldn't expect a baseball team to be happy if half of its relief pitchers were redshirted, as long as everyone in the starting rotation is still OK? Depth is important, and the longer the trial goes on, the bigger will have been the waste of everyone's time (including the remaining jurors) if juror after juror drops out (it does happen) and OP's hidden grounds for disqualification winds up costing a mistrial, even if retrial is permitted. IMO the net effect on reducing the depth of the available jury panel is the same, whether OP was originally selected as a main juror or as an alternate.
> Second, I don't believe that a mistrial caused by lack of jury causes
> a double jeopardy issue preventing a new trial. That would give much
> too great an incentive for a defendant to have a couple of jurors
> eliminated after the trial starts.
Um, no, that wouldn't happen, because if misconduct by the defense is the cause of the mistrial, double jeopardy does not prevent a mistrial. Keep in mind I was just raising possibilities, things that "may" happen -- realistic guesses IMO, but not foregone conclusions that "must" happen. A mistrial may or may not occur in a particular case, and if it does double jeopardy may or may not prevent a mistrial, but all of these are risks that OP's misconduct (if he were to hide his disability) would make worse.
To summarize the law on double jeopardy in event of a mistrial, I think the following brief quote from a Georgetown Law Journal article by Johnson et al., June 1988, is helpful:
"Attachment of Jeopardy. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second prosecution only if jeopardy attached in the original proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, attachment occurs when the defendant faces the risk of a determination of guilt.1453 Consequently, jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn,1454 and in a bench trial when the judge begins to hear evidence.1455 Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause allows the government to appeal pretrial dismissals of indictments because jeopardy has not yet attached.1456 In most civil actions, jeopardy attaches when the government collects the penalty.1457
"Retrial Following Mistrial. The Double Jeopardy Clause allows retrial following a mistrial when, "taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for ... [declaring a mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated." 1458 The Court has declined to articulate a precise definition of "manifest necessity."1459 The circuits, however, have interpreted this standard to allow retrial if the mistrial is based on the trial judge's finding that the jury is deadlocked,1460 biased, or unduly influenced.1461 Courts have also found manifest necessity when the behavior of the defendant1462 or her counsel1463 triggered the mistrial."
(Footnotes omitted). See:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199806/ai_n8790670
So, does that help clarify what I was talking about?
--
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
> In article <uu2g53dl47tatvaopkdncadf5f86a3g...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >no choice but to dismiss you, but they will be stuck with a short
> >jury panel (if the parties agree to go ahead anyway) or the judge may
> >have to declare a mistrial and start over again with voir dire of a
> >whole new prospective jury panel. If it's a criminal trial, that may
> >require a dismissal of the charges, if the jury you sit on has
> >already started to hear the evidence, due to the constitutional
> >prohibition on "double jeopardy".
>
> I don't understand that one.
>
> First, juries tend to have alternates, in case some juror can't
> continue.
Sure, Seth's right about that. And I left out that element to avoid a longer, more complicated discussion than was necessary to address OP's main point. But since you raise the issue, what if one of the _other_ jurors gets sick, or is stuck in traffic or in a car wreck on the way to court the next day, or has also hidden some reason why he should not have been chosen in the first place, or unable to serve for some other reason? That, of course, is why the judge usually chooses some alternates, but if OP hides his disability (assuming it is one, for purposes of this discussion, and that it would in fact have been grounds to disqualify him for cause) then he will have reduced the depth of that "safety cushion" and may, eventually, be _one_ of the causes (along with all the other jurors who copped out) of winding up with a short jury. AFAIK there is no hard and fast rule about the number of alternates, and a judge will typically follow his or her instincts about how long a trial is likely to take, and how difficult a retrial would be, in deciding how many alternates to pick.
But that still doesn't make it OK for OP to hide his disability. Why wouldn't it also be OK for 12 or 14 other people on that jury to do the same thing? Kant's categorical imperative mandates that you think of the consequences that would happen if everyone were to take whatever action is being considered, in order to determine whether one has a moral right to do that thing. Put another way, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Saying that it's OK for OP to do that as long as there are still enough alternates and "no harm, no foul", is carving a special exception contrary to that principle. You wouldn't expect a baseball team to be happy if half of its relief pitchers were redshirted, as long as everyone in the starting rotation is still OK? Depth is important, and the longer the trial goes on, the bigger will have been the waste of everyone's time (including the remaining jurors) if juror after juror drops out (it does happen) and OP's hidden grounds for disqualification winds up costing a mistrial, even if retrial is permitted. IMO the net effect on reducing the depth of the available jury panel is the same, whether OP was originally selected as a main juror or as an alternate.
> Second, I don't believe that a mistrial caused by lack of jury causes
> a double jeopardy issue preventing a new trial. That would give much
> too great an incentive for a defendant to have a couple of jurors
> eliminated after the trial starts.
Um, no, that wouldn't happen, because if misconduct by the defense is the cause of the mistrial, double jeopardy does not prevent a mistrial. Keep in mind I was just raising possibilities, things that "may" happen -- realistic guesses IMO, but not foregone conclusions that "must" happen. A mistrial may or may not occur in a particular case, and if it does double jeopardy may or may not prevent a mistrial, but all of these are risks that OP's misconduct (if he were to hide his disability) would make worse.
To summarize the law on double jeopardy in event of a mistrial, I think the following brief quote from a Georgetown Law Journal article by Johnson et al., June 1988, is helpful:
"Attachment of Jeopardy. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars a second prosecution only if jeopardy attached in the original proceeding. In a criminal proceeding, attachment occurs when the defendant faces the risk of a determination of guilt.1453 Consequently, jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is empaneled and sworn,1454 and in a bench trial when the judge begins to hear evidence.1455 Thus, the Double Jeopardy Clause allows the government to appeal pretrial dismissals of indictments because jeopardy has not yet attached.1456 In most civil actions, jeopardy attaches when the government collects the penalty.1457
"Retrial Following Mistrial. The Double Jeopardy Clause allows retrial following a mistrial when, "taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for ... [declaring a mistrial], or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated." 1458 The Court has declined to articulate a precise definition of "manifest necessity."1459 The circuits, however, have interpreted this standard to allow retrial if the mistrial is based on the trial judge's finding that the jury is deadlocked,1460 biased, or unduly influenced.1461 Courts have also found manifest necessity when the behavior of the defendant1462 or her counsel1463 triggered the mistrial."
(Footnotes omitted). See:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3805/is_199806/ai_n8790670
So, does that help clarify what I was talking about?
--
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
Interpreting where a no-parking sign applies
On May 25, 9:05 am, Michael <mkog...@rcn.com> wrote:
> I live in USA, Massachusetts.
> Which law(s) describe(s) where a road sign is effective?
>
> Until recently I assumed that the sign is valid from where the sign is
> placed until next intersection.
> Today I was told by a cop who ticketed me that the "No parking" sign
> is valid as long as it may be seen (I'e I cannot park if I see the
> sign ahead of me, even if there are none behind me). Is it bunch of
> baloney?
Doesn't make sense to me, the way you stated it, so I assume something is missing from your story. What if you had eagle vision? You couldn't park anywhere in town that was within a straight line view of the sign. Or if you had poor, nearsighted vision, you could park right up to a couple of feet away from the sign. And a sign without arrows, facing in the direction of oncoming traffic so it can be seen, generally applies to traffic moving in that direction from the point where the sign is planted, onwards; it doesn't apply _before_ you reach the sign.
That is true of speed limits, stop signs, etc. as well as "no parking" signs. Of course, to comply with a speed limit sign that reduces the limit from the previous section of road, you will have to begin slowing down to the new limit _before_ you reach the sign, otherwise you WILL be going over the limit _after_ you reach the sign. Many, but not all, jurisdictions require a helpful "reduced speed ahead" sign to warn you of an upcoming lower limit so you can begin slowing down in advance.
I dunno about your neighborhood, but everywhere I have lived, the "no parking" signs either (1) face oncoming traffic, so that they apply to an entire lot or street _ahead_ of the sign (e.g. a "no parking without permit" sign at the entrance to a parking lot reserved for those with the proper stickers, or a cul-de-sac reserved for residents) or, (2) for streetside parallel parking, the signs face 90 degrees to the direction of traffic and have ARROWS on them, indicating their effective direction, whether forward in your direction of travel, back the way you came from, or both ways (with a double-headed arrow). If it's one of those kind, maybe that's what the cop meant, i.e. if the sign says "no parking" anywhere to the east of that sign (indicated by an arrow on the sign, not in words), then you can't park anywhere east of that sign, on that side of the road, until you get to the sign that says "no parking west of this sign" which indicates the end of the no-parking zone, even if you can't see the sign at the far east end when you enter from the west. Or if the sign said "no parking" with a double-headed arrow, that means "no parking" as far as you can see in each direction, at least until you come to a single-arrow sign that marks one end or another of the no-parking zone, thus:
NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING
--------> <---------> <--------
If you were parked anywhere near the middle sign, that is in fact one correct interpretation of what you quote the cop as saying. Maybe you could clarify what you meant, what the cop actually said, and what the signs actually show.. By all means, if you do decide to contest this ticket in court, you will want to bring photos of the actual signs to show the judge, if they don't do what you think the cop meant they do and if they reasonably led you to think that it was OK to park where you parked.
--
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 live in USA, Massachusetts.
> Which law(s) describe(s) where a road sign is effective?
>
> Until recently I assumed that the sign is valid from where the sign is
> placed until next intersection.
> Today I was told by a cop who ticketed me that the "No parking" sign
> is valid as long as it may be seen (I'e I cannot park if I see the
> sign ahead of me, even if there are none behind me). Is it bunch of
> baloney?
Doesn't make sense to me, the way you stated it, so I assume something is missing from your story. What if you had eagle vision? You couldn't park anywhere in town that was within a straight line view of the sign. Or if you had poor, nearsighted vision, you could park right up to a couple of feet away from the sign. And a sign without arrows, facing in the direction of oncoming traffic so it can be seen, generally applies to traffic moving in that direction from the point where the sign is planted, onwards; it doesn't apply _before_ you reach the sign.
That is true of speed limits, stop signs, etc. as well as "no parking" signs. Of course, to comply with a speed limit sign that reduces the limit from the previous section of road, you will have to begin slowing down to the new limit _before_ you reach the sign, otherwise you WILL be going over the limit _after_ you reach the sign. Many, but not all, jurisdictions require a helpful "reduced speed ahead" sign to warn you of an upcoming lower limit so you can begin slowing down in advance.
I dunno about your neighborhood, but everywhere I have lived, the "no parking" signs either (1) face oncoming traffic, so that they apply to an entire lot or street _ahead_ of the sign (e.g. a "no parking without permit" sign at the entrance to a parking lot reserved for those with the proper stickers, or a cul-de-sac reserved for residents) or, (2) for streetside parallel parking, the signs face 90 degrees to the direction of traffic and have ARROWS on them, indicating their effective direction, whether forward in your direction of travel, back the way you came from, or both ways (with a double-headed arrow). If it's one of those kind, maybe that's what the cop meant, i.e. if the sign says "no parking" anywhere to the east of that sign (indicated by an arrow on the sign, not in words), then you can't park anywhere east of that sign, on that side of the road, until you get to the sign that says "no parking west of this sign" which indicates the end of the no-parking zone, even if you can't see the sign at the far east end when you enter from the west. Or if the sign said "no parking" with a double-headed arrow, that means "no parking" as far as you can see in each direction, at least until you come to a single-arrow sign that marks one end or another of the no-parking zone, thus:
NO PARKING NO PARKING NO PARKING
--------> <---------> <--------
If you were parked anywhere near the middle sign, that is in fact one correct interpretation of what you quote the cop as saying. Maybe you could clarify what you meant, what the cop actually said, and what the signs actually show.. By all means, if you do decide to contest this ticket in court, you will want to bring photos of the actual signs to show the judge, if they don't do what you think the cop meant they do and if they reasonably led you to think that it was OK to park where you parked.
--
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
Notary seal
On May 25, 9:04 am, Tony Sivori <TonySiv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I bought a house this month. The bank's closing attorney, who is also a
> notary, failed to apply his seal to my signature on the deed. He did sign
> on the appropriate line, and he filled in the line showing the expiration
> date of his commission.
* * *
> Should I ask them to refile the deed so the copy at the courthouse has the
> proper seal on my signature?
Not enough information. For one, you don't say what state you're in (other than a state of confusion and anxiety). If the deed is valid without the seal on buyer's signature under your state's laws, it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that the _seller's_ signature, turning over title to you, be properly authenticated by whatever means your state requires, and you admit that was done.
For another thing, there are different kinds of "seals." Often it is just the letter "S", sometimes between two slashes like this: "/S/", printed at the end of the line for your signature, thus:
_________________________________/S/
John Doe, Buyer
Or, if the notary used a rubber stamp containing his name, notary number and jurisdiction, and date of expiration, that is a legal "seal" just as much as the kind made by a raised-paper press,. which I assume is the kind the seller's notary used. I imagine if you found a notary old-fashioned enough to want to use red sealing wax, sticking his seal ring into the hot wax to make an impression, that would do the trick too. Or a Chinese-style chop (wooden stamp) in red ink, or an ancient Egyptian cartouche (roller or button seal, often worn as a necklace) used to make an impression of the bearer's name in hieroglyphic characters; i.e. whatever it is that the particular notary uses to indicate "his seal."
But if in doubt, and not satisfied with the bank's explanations, you certainly have the right to ask the bank's lawyer to do it over again for you and re-file the document. Just make sure that won't have some other adverse consequences for you, since it will change the filing date of the deed. 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 bought a house this month. The bank's closing attorney, who is also a
> notary, failed to apply his seal to my signature on the deed. He did sign
> on the appropriate line, and he filled in the line showing the expiration
> date of his commission.
* * *
> Should I ask them to refile the deed so the copy at the courthouse has the
> proper seal on my signature?
Not enough information. For one, you don't say what state you're in (other than a state of confusion and anxiety). If the deed is valid without the seal on buyer's signature under your state's laws, it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that the _seller's_ signature, turning over title to you, be properly authenticated by whatever means your state requires, and you admit that was done.
For another thing, there are different kinds of "seals." Often it is just the letter "S", sometimes between two slashes like this: "/S/", printed at the end of the line for your signature, thus:
_________________________________/S/
John Doe, Buyer
Or, if the notary used a rubber stamp containing his name, notary number and jurisdiction, and date of expiration, that is a legal "seal" just as much as the kind made by a raised-paper press,. which I assume is the kind the seller's notary used. I imagine if you found a notary old-fashioned enough to want to use red sealing wax, sticking his seal ring into the hot wax to make an impression, that would do the trick too. Or a Chinese-style chop (wooden stamp) in red ink, or an ancient Egyptian cartouche (roller or button seal, often worn as a necklace) used to make an impression of the bearer's name in hieroglyphic characters; i.e. whatever it is that the particular notary uses to indicate "his seal."
But if in doubt, and not satisfied with the bank's explanations, you certainly have the right to ask the bank's lawyer to do it over again for you and re-file the document. Just make sure that won't have some other adverse consequences for you, since it will change the filing date of the deed. 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
Being called for jury duty - medical excuse?
On May 25, 9:04 am, Brian <z...@cbgb.net> wrote:
> I have been summoned for jury duty (Clark County, NV) , and I'm not
> sure how to handle it. I feel a moral compulsion and a genuine desire
> to serve, but I also feel morally obligated to be honest with myself
> that I'm not really cut out for it. I think the bottom line is that I
> wouldn't want someone like me in the jury box if I were on trial.
Then you need to tell that to the judge and the lawyers, when you (individually, or as part of the entire prospective jury pool) are questioned under oath during the selection process for a particular case, at the beginning of the case.
I'm assuming you don't know how that process works or you wouldn't be so anxious about this. Getting called for jury duty just means you have to show up and sign in on the appointed day, and sit there with all the other prospective jurors until you get called to hear a particular case. If you don't get called, you have fulfilled your civic duty by just sitting there being available (bring a novel or something, it can get boring). In some jurisdictions, all they require is that you be available by telephone to be "on call" in case you are needed, and you don't even have to go down to the courthouse and sit in the stuffy room decorated in frog-puke green and ancient naugahyde.
If you DO in fact get called to show up at the courtroom for a particular case, you still haven't been selected to sit on an actual jury yet; you have to go thru a process called "voir dire", a fancy Legal French word for "telling the truth." The judge and, sometimes, the lawyers for the parties will question the prospective jurors under oath, either individually or by asking questions to the whole group and requiring you to raise your hand if the answer is "yes", to find out if you have any reasons, biases or prejudices that might make you a less-than-desirable candidate to sit on that particular jury. Note, that doesn't mean you're a bad person, or "prejudiced" in the sense of being a bigot; it just recognizes that everyone has a place they're coming from when they consider an issue, and e.g. someone who works for an insurance company may not be the best, most neutral person to have on a jury where an insurance company is one of the parties.
And one of the questions they almost always ask of the prospective jurors during voir dire is, "Do you have any medical or other condition that might make it difficult for you to sit thru a X-day trial, listen to all the evidence and render a verdict?" E.g. a hearing problem, sight problem, sudden sleep syndrome, need for frequent bathroom breaks, whatever. It is up to the juror who may have such a condition to raise his hand when asked, go up to the bench where he can reveal his situation privately to the judge and the lawyers for the parties (they're usually smart enough to make the initial questions broad and general and non-embarrassing, so as not to make someone have to blurt out in front of 50 of their friends and neighbors that e.g. they need Depends, which would tend to keep people from revealing the kind of information the judge and lawyers need to know). At that point, if your situation genuinely interferes with your ability to act as a juror, the judge will probably excuse you "for cause" and you are then free to go, having served your duty by showing up and being questioned.
Even if you are not dismissed "for cause", both of the lawyers will now know of your situation, and it is very likely one or the other of them will strike your name from the jury panel using one of their "peremptory" strikes, since they probably don't want someone who can't pay attention to what their witnesses are saying either. So the chances are very slim that you will actually be selected to sit on a jury and hear a case. Assuming, of course, you honestly reveal your situation at the appropriate time, when asked during voir dire. It does NOT help to pipe up and tell everyone, after you have been seated on a jury and the other, non-selected panelists have all been dismissed, "Oh, by the way, I have a medical condition that prevents me from paying attention to the evidence." At that point, you have created a major dilemma for the parties and the judge; they will have no choice but to dismiss you, but they will be stuck with a short jury panel (if the parties agree to go ahead anyway) or the judge may have to declare a mistrial and start over again with voir dire of a whole new prospective jury panel. If it's a criminal trial, that may require a dismissal of the charges, if the jury you sit on has already started to hear the evidence, due to the constitutional prohibition on "double jeopardy".
> This isn't a situation where I want to find an excuse to weasel my
> way out of jury duty. I just don't know if I have any business performing
> it.
Then you would be derelict in your duty if you didn't mention it at the appropriate time. The judge can't decide to let you go ahead and be on a jury, or to dismiss you, unless he has all the facts and you answer his questions honestly.
> So, if I find myself in a jury box, and the judge asks me if I feel I
> can do a good job of being a juror, or whatever all is asked in juror
> selection, I just don't know what to say. I don't want to
> inadvertently lie and say yes when answer is realistically no.
Why on earth is this even a problem for you? Unless your dithering is a symptom of your condition?
It's simple: "just say no" if asked that question. Actually, they'll probably phrase the question so that anything other than the default answer requires an affirmative, not a negative response, so you will have to "just say yes" to the question, "Does anyone think they might have any reason why they would NOT be able to do a good job of being a juror?" Of course, you'll be asked to explain your answer in more detail, in a private bench conference, and then the judge can decide whether your situation is something that would require your dismissal for cause.
What I can tell you is, I surely wouldn't want someone who obsesses over whether he might "inadvertently lie" about something so basic, sitting on _my_ jury.
> But also I don't want to come off as someone who is trying to cook
> up an excuse.
You won't. Especially if you obsess like this over the questions when you are at the bench, my guess is they will be just as anxious to get you off their jury as you will be to avoid doing the wrong thing. If there's one thing both sides want a jury to be, it's to be decisive, able to come to a decision. It doesn't serve anyone's case if the jury is deadlocked and frozen by anxiety and the judge has to declare a mistrial and start all over again.
> It has been 30 years at least since I have been tested for
> anything. I have a few records of very sketchy teacher evaluations and
> documentation showing how often I was assigned to EH classrooms. But
> nothing really all that tangible and certainly nothing up to date.
You don't need to bring any documentation with you. Your testimony under oath during voir dire is enough to "prove" whatever condition it is you want the court to know about. 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 have been summoned for jury duty (Clark County, NV) , and I'm not
> sure how to handle it. I feel a moral compulsion and a genuine desire
> to serve, but I also feel morally obligated to be honest with myself
> that I'm not really cut out for it. I think the bottom line is that I
> wouldn't want someone like me in the jury box if I were on trial.
Then you need to tell that to the judge and the lawyers, when you (individually, or as part of the entire prospective jury pool) are questioned under oath during the selection process for a particular case, at the beginning of the case.
I'm assuming you don't know how that process works or you wouldn't be so anxious about this. Getting called for jury duty just means you have to show up and sign in on the appointed day, and sit there with all the other prospective jurors until you get called to hear a particular case. If you don't get called, you have fulfilled your civic duty by just sitting there being available (bring a novel or something, it can get boring). In some jurisdictions, all they require is that you be available by telephone to be "on call" in case you are needed, and you don't even have to go down to the courthouse and sit in the stuffy room decorated in frog-puke green and ancient naugahyde.
If you DO in fact get called to show up at the courtroom for a particular case, you still haven't been selected to sit on an actual jury yet; you have to go thru a process called "voir dire", a fancy Legal French word for "telling the truth." The judge and, sometimes, the lawyers for the parties will question the prospective jurors under oath, either individually or by asking questions to the whole group and requiring you to raise your hand if the answer is "yes", to find out if you have any reasons, biases or prejudices that might make you a less-than-desirable candidate to sit on that particular jury. Note, that doesn't mean you're a bad person, or "prejudiced" in the sense of being a bigot; it just recognizes that everyone has a place they're coming from when they consider an issue, and e.g. someone who works for an insurance company may not be the best, most neutral person to have on a jury where an insurance company is one of the parties.
And one of the questions they almost always ask of the prospective jurors during voir dire is, "Do you have any medical or other condition that might make it difficult for you to sit thru a X-day trial, listen to all the evidence and render a verdict?" E.g. a hearing problem, sight problem, sudden sleep syndrome, need for frequent bathroom breaks, whatever. It is up to the juror who may have such a condition to raise his hand when asked, go up to the bench where he can reveal his situation privately to the judge and the lawyers for the parties (they're usually smart enough to make the initial questions broad and general and non-embarrassing, so as not to make someone have to blurt out in front of 50 of their friends and neighbors that e.g. they need Depends, which would tend to keep people from revealing the kind of information the judge and lawyers need to know). At that point, if your situation genuinely interferes with your ability to act as a juror, the judge will probably excuse you "for cause" and you are then free to go, having served your duty by showing up and being questioned.
Even if you are not dismissed "for cause", both of the lawyers will now know of your situation, and it is very likely one or the other of them will strike your name from the jury panel using one of their "peremptory" strikes, since they probably don't want someone who can't pay attention to what their witnesses are saying either. So the chances are very slim that you will actually be selected to sit on a jury and hear a case. Assuming, of course, you honestly reveal your situation at the appropriate time, when asked during voir dire. It does NOT help to pipe up and tell everyone, after you have been seated on a jury and the other, non-selected panelists have all been dismissed, "Oh, by the way, I have a medical condition that prevents me from paying attention to the evidence." At that point, you have created a major dilemma for the parties and the judge; they will have no choice but to dismiss you, but they will be stuck with a short jury panel (if the parties agree to go ahead anyway) or the judge may have to declare a mistrial and start over again with voir dire of a whole new prospective jury panel. If it's a criminal trial, that may require a dismissal of the charges, if the jury you sit on has already started to hear the evidence, due to the constitutional prohibition on "double jeopardy".
> This isn't a situation where I want to find an excuse to weasel my
> way out of jury duty. I just don't know if I have any business performing
> it.
Then you would be derelict in your duty if you didn't mention it at the appropriate time. The judge can't decide to let you go ahead and be on a jury, or to dismiss you, unless he has all the facts and you answer his questions honestly.
> So, if I find myself in a jury box, and the judge asks me if I feel I
> can do a good job of being a juror, or whatever all is asked in juror
> selection, I just don't know what to say. I don't want to
> inadvertently lie and say yes when answer is realistically no.
Why on earth is this even a problem for you? Unless your dithering is a symptom of your condition?
It's simple: "just say no" if asked that question. Actually, they'll probably phrase the question so that anything other than the default answer requires an affirmative, not a negative response, so you will have to "just say yes" to the question, "Does anyone think they might have any reason why they would NOT be able to do a good job of being a juror?" Of course, you'll be asked to explain your answer in more detail, in a private bench conference, and then the judge can decide whether your situation is something that would require your dismissal for cause.
What I can tell you is, I surely wouldn't want someone who obsesses over whether he might "inadvertently lie" about something so basic, sitting on _my_ jury.
> But also I don't want to come off as someone who is trying to cook
> up an excuse.
You won't. Especially if you obsess like this over the questions when you are at the bench, my guess is they will be just as anxious to get you off their jury as you will be to avoid doing the wrong thing. If there's one thing both sides want a jury to be, it's to be decisive, able to come to a decision. It doesn't serve anyone's case if the jury is deadlocked and frozen by anxiety and the judge has to declare a mistrial and start all over again.
> It has been 30 years at least since I have been tested for
> anything. I have a few records of very sketchy teacher evaluations and
> documentation showing how often I was assigned to EH classrooms. But
> nothing really all that tangible and certainly nothing up to date.
You don't need to bring any documentation with you. Your testimony under oath during voir dire is enough to "prove" whatever condition it is you want the court to know about. 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
Myspace extortion scheme, part 3
On May 24, 8:44 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
> > 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.
<snip>
> > What age are these people -- HS teens, college
> > age, or older twentysomethings?
>
> I HOPE the local gal is not a HS teen! :)
Some HS teens are over 18. Or maybe OP's daughter is underage and is being victimized by an older gal, or by an over-18 classmate. Maybe the "adult entertainment business" being advertised doesn't exist, and is just a cruel joke by the perp to embarrass OP's daughter.
Just because something is not what everybody expects and/or is something widely deplored doesn't mean it's out of the realm of possibility. Hello, we're talking about a potential CRIMINAL ACT here, where the perp may already be so far over that line as to be committing extortion, and is using an image against the owner's will and without a model release. So I doubt the perp is sitting back carefully weighing all the legal consequences; it sounds to me exactly like the kind of thing a headstrong teen would do.
I was trying to go over the kinds of questions OP and daughter may be asked by cops or prosecutors, or which they may want to bring out to highlight the seriousness of the incident. Certainly if I were a prosecutor _I_ would sit up and take more notice if the perp, OR the victim, or both, were underage. And I'm not so naive as to think there aren't some entrepreneurial teens out there actually running these kinds of businesses, or at least creating risque websites, esp. where OP didn't specify what he meant by "adult entertainment business." It is possible the website operator could be limiting her site to things that are perfectly legal for underage girls to do, even though OP's daughter would find it embarrassing or defamatory to be associated with them. Bottom line is, the reason we ask questions is we don't know and the answer may help flesh things out and paint a fuller picture of the situation that could change its entire tone for an investigator.
--
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
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
> > 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.
<snip>
> > What age are these people -- HS teens, college
> > age, or older twentysomethings?
>
> I HOPE the local gal is not a HS teen! :)
Some HS teens are over 18. Or maybe OP's daughter is underage and is being victimized by an older gal, or by an over-18 classmate. Maybe the "adult entertainment business" being advertised doesn't exist, and is just a cruel joke by the perp to embarrass OP's daughter.
Just because something is not what everybody expects and/or is something widely deplored doesn't mean it's out of the realm of possibility. Hello, we're talking about a potential CRIMINAL ACT here, where the perp may already be so far over that line as to be committing extortion, and is using an image against the owner's will and without a model release. So I doubt the perp is sitting back carefully weighing all the legal consequences; it sounds to me exactly like the kind of thing a headstrong teen would do.
I was trying to go over the kinds of questions OP and daughter may be asked by cops or prosecutors, or which they may want to bring out to highlight the seriousness of the incident. Certainly if I were a prosecutor _I_ would sit up and take more notice if the perp, OR the victim, or both, were underage. And I'm not so naive as to think there aren't some entrepreneurial teens out there actually running these kinds of businesses, or at least creating risque websites, esp. where OP didn't specify what he meant by "adult entertainment business." It is possible the website operator could be limiting her site to things that are perfectly legal for underage girls to do, even though OP's daughter would find it embarrassing or defamatory to be associated with them. Bottom line is, the reason we ask questions is we don't know and the answer may help flesh things out and paint a fuller picture of the situation that could change its entire tone for an investigator.
--
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
Myspace extortion scheme, part 2
On May 24, 8:44 am, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > bizee <bizeesh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>This offender wants $50.00 from my daughter to remove the photo.
>
> > This is extortion, contact the FBI.
>
> How is that extortion? Under federal law, 18 USC §1951(b)(2), "The
> term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his
> consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force,
> violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
Wouldn't it come under the "fear" prong of the statute? Obviously, OP's daughter doesn't want her picture on the website, and the site owner has no right to put it there. Or perhaps under the "color of official right" prong if what the perp is saying is, in effect, that she has a legal right to use the photograph and will only forego exercising that right if she is paid money.
Isn't it enough that OP's daughter is afraid the offending picture will be seen by others, maybe by particular people whom she does not want to be given the (false) idea that she has anything whatsoever to do with this porn business, even in a legitimate capacity?
One may say, "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player," but the truth of that fact is unlikely to overcome the popular perception of that particular musician if the place where he tickles the keys is in a whorehouse.
The form of extortion known colloquially as "blackmail" relies on exactly such potential revelation of embarrassing material, whether true or false, to induce the victim to pay up to get the perp to shut up. It's a strongarm tactic no matter how you look at it IMO.
--
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
> m...@privacy.net wrote:
> > bizee <bizeesh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>This offender wants $50.00 from my daughter to remove the photo.
>
> > This is extortion, contact the FBI.
>
> How is that extortion? Under federal law, 18 USC §1951(b)(2), "The
> term "extortion" means the obtaining of property from another, with his
> consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force,
> violence, or fear, or under color of official right."
Wouldn't it come under the "fear" prong of the statute? Obviously, OP's daughter doesn't want her picture on the website, and the site owner has no right to put it there. Or perhaps under the "color of official right" prong if what the perp is saying is, in effect, that she has a legal right to use the photograph and will only forego exercising that right if she is paid money.
Isn't it enough that OP's daughter is afraid the offending picture will be seen by others, maybe by particular people whom she does not want to be given the (false) idea that she has anything whatsoever to do with this porn business, even in a legitimate capacity?
One may say, "Don't shoot me, I'm only the piano player," but the truth of that fact is unlikely to overcome the popular perception of that particular musician if the place where he tickles the keys is in a whorehouse.
The form of extortion known colloquially as "blackmail" relies on exactly such potential revelation of embarrassing material, whether true or false, to induce the victim to pay up to get the perp to shut up. It's a strongarm tactic no matter how you look at it IMO.
--
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
Wal-Mart return policy lawsuit
On May 21, 8:24 am, john.ex...@gmail.com wrote:
> all I want
> from them is to accept an item back. I've gone just a few days past
> the return period and the item is in an otherwise perfect condition,
> no defects, no wear & tear, good as new.
No one else seems to have picked up yet on your language here, which got my attention as being different from saying it IS new, still in the shrinkwrap or unopened box with all labels and tags still on it, or whatever.
"Perfect condition, no defects, no wear & tear, good as new" is an appropriate description of a USED product. Did you in fact take this product out of its box, take off its labels or tags, try it out to see if it works or fits? If it's clothing, did you wear it once and then try to give it back? If it's something mechanical or electronic or e.g. a CD or CD-ROM or DVD, did you turn it on, make something with it, listen to it or watch it, make your own recording of it?
And how do you know there's nothing wrong with it, "no defects", if you _haven't_ done those things? Which makes me concerned about your choice of this combination of words, and I conclude it is in fact a USED product.
The store's return policy probably allows you to return something, within a short period, if you have NOT opened or used it, but simply changed your mind. If you have opened it and found it defective, or not containing the object you ordered and thought you paid for, you can return it after that date; but you can't do so after that date if you simply changed your mind about buying it. If you just don't want it, try selling it on Ebay or Craigslist or the like; there's lots of stuff on there for sale described as "perfect condition, no defects, no wear & tear, good as new."
> Would that be an acceptable
> practice to bump up the claim amount over the stated $1500 so that
> they would have to hire an attorney? Would that even make sense (if
> legal)?
I agree with other posters who have indicated this path is fraught with danger for you. You could wind up being sanctioned by the court, required to pay Wal-Mart's attorney fees, maybe even be proscuted for extortion, and have to hire an attorney yourself to get you out of the mess you could create by doing that. How much did you say this widget cost in the first place? Is the risk worth it to you?
--
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
> all I want
> from them is to accept an item back. I've gone just a few days past
> the return period and the item is in an otherwise perfect condition,
> no defects, no wear & tear, good as new.
No one else seems to have picked up yet on your language here, which got my attention as being different from saying it IS new, still in the shrinkwrap or unopened box with all labels and tags still on it, or whatever.
"Perfect condition, no defects, no wear & tear, good as new" is an appropriate description of a USED product. Did you in fact take this product out of its box, take off its labels or tags, try it out to see if it works or fits? If it's clothing, did you wear it once and then try to give it back? If it's something mechanical or electronic or e.g. a CD or CD-ROM or DVD, did you turn it on, make something with it, listen to it or watch it, make your own recording of it?
And how do you know there's nothing wrong with it, "no defects", if you _haven't_ done those things? Which makes me concerned about your choice of this combination of words, and I conclude it is in fact a USED product.
The store's return policy probably allows you to return something, within a short period, if you have NOT opened or used it, but simply changed your mind. If you have opened it and found it defective, or not containing the object you ordered and thought you paid for, you can return it after that date; but you can't do so after that date if you simply changed your mind about buying it. If you just don't want it, try selling it on Ebay or Craigslist or the like; there's lots of stuff on there for sale described as "perfect condition, no defects, no wear & tear, good as new."
> Would that be an acceptable
> practice to bump up the claim amount over the stated $1500 so that
> they would have to hire an attorney? Would that even make sense (if
> legal)?
I agree with other posters who have indicated this path is fraught with danger for you. You could wind up being sanctioned by the court, required to pay Wal-Mart's attorney fees, maybe even be proscuted for extortion, and have to hire an attorney yourself to get you out of the mess you could create by doing that. How much did you say this widget cost in the first place? Is the risk worth it to you?
--
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
Insurance rate hike post-crash in MA
On May 22, 8:29 am, mswlogo <geomi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Need advice for my wifes court hearing.
I am not a MA lawyer, I am not familiar with the concept of a "Merit hike hearing" which I'm guessing has to do with legal regulation of MA insurance rate increases after a crash, and I'm not here to offer anything approaching advice, just to comment. Hopefully you might pick up on something which will keep your wife from saying something that might hurt her rather than help her at the hearing. It's up to her to determine which testimony of hers may fall in each of those categories. Or she could consult a local MA lawyer and get real advice, as well as representation at the hearing, to keep her from saying anything harmful to her out of her sheer ignorance of the legal requirements.
> She was in a small pile up (3rd out of 4) caused by the front two
> hitting hard.
I assume you mean it was initially caused by car #2 hitting car #1 hard. I'm presuming car #1 didn't hit anything but simply slowed down or came to a stop, as he was supposed to do, to _avoid_ hitting anything. Unless car #1 lost control and slammed into a guardrail, or cut in front of everybody else at a relatively high speed then crammed on his brakes, he is the only innocent victim in this scenario. Everyone else involved was following too closely and going too fast for conditions.
> She was hit in rear but no damage small damage
> ($1000.00) to the front.
Which is probably enough damage to her own car to put her over the threshold permitting the insurer to ask for a rate increase, or you wouldn't be in this situation. Here in MD, the insurers generally raise your rates if you have an at-fault wreck where they have to pay out more than $500 (on top of your deductible).
> It was in heavy traffic, bad weather and dark.
All of which means she should have been going even slower than usual and leaving more room than usual between her car and the car in front of her.
> She just wants to ask the Merit hike be waived.
As mentioned, I'm not familiar with that procedure and can't comment one way or the other on what facts she would legally have to show at the hearing to be entitled to have the rate hike be waived. Have you read the pertinent statute or regulation to see what factors the court will look at to determine whether the insurer's request for a rate hike is initially justified, and what your wife has to prove, at a minimum, for the court to be authorized to accept her evidence and waive the hike (even if it were initially permitted)?
In other words, what are the elements of her prima facie case (the bare minimum that has to be proven to allow the court to rule in her favor)? Of course, if she actually wants to WIN, she will almost certainly have to put on other evidence that will tip the scales in her favor and that will go far _beyond_ putting on a mere prima facie case, since she (as complainant) probably has the burden of proof in this case to persuade the judge she is right, and if the scales of justice are evenly balanced, the insurer will win and be allowed to raise her rates.
How are we supposed to help you analyze the situation if we don't know what those factors are, and how they weigh in the balance? Tip #1 is, she should be very familiar with the legal requirements for what has to be proven, before she goes in and just says whatever sounds good. Because doing that may hurt more than it helps, or just be irrelevant, if the rest of your post is any indication of what she planned to say.
> She has perfect driving record for 32 years and does not tailgate.
Her past record is almost surely not an issue one way or the other. What she did in this particular accident is probably all that matters.
> But she could have avoided it if she hung back further but nobody does
> in these heavy traffic situations and she just kept the same distance
> everyone else did.
Lotsa luck, if she goes into court and says that. "Because everyone else is doing it" is not a legal excuse. All that means is, _everyone_ was driving too fast for conditions and following too closely for conditions. And yes, most people get away with it, but she was one of the unlucky ones who actually got damaged as a result and therefore got called to account for her decisions.
The "she could have avoided it" bon mot is the real killer. I can just see the judge checking off "no dice" on his notepad the instant she says that. Nothing like conceding the essential fact of the other side's case.
And even if a court accepts the "everyone did it" argument as a potentially valid one (unlikely), the insurer probably would dispute that what she did is exactly what "everyone else did". The guy behind her was following far enough back, and going slow enough (maybe because he was looking farther ahead in time, and saw trouble brewing with the 1st and 2nd cars in line) that even though his car made contact with your wife's, no damage resulted to hsi front end or her car's rear. The guy behind _him_, and everyone else in line behind that, was in fact going slow enough and following far enough behind so that they didn't impact the pile-up at all. Otherwise, we'd be looking at a domino effect extending all the way to the state line (where, presumably, everyone has to at least stop and pick up a MA toll ticket). Out of the dozens, maybe hundreds of cars on the turnpike and approaching that exit on that night in those conditions, your wife and 2 others were the only ones who hit something, and she and 1 other were the only ones who caused any damage, to themselves or others. That is a far cry from "everybody" losing control of their vehicle and not being able to stop in time.
> It was on an exit ramp at slow speed (10mph). Mass Pike.
10 mph was obviously too fast for conditions. Was it icy? Foggy? What exactly did you mean by "bad weather"?
> 2nd car driver was a new driver on unfamiliar roads in a borrowed car.
Irrelevant what the 2nd car did. Your wife is the one who ran into him, and if she was letting him set the pace which was too fast for conditions, she was abdicating her own responsibility to drive her _own_ car within its own, and her own, safe capabilities under all the circumstances. That amounts to the argument, "Well, he jumped off the bridge, so I thought it was safe to do so."
> She drives it daily for past 5 years.
Irrelevant, or possibly harmful, since it means she should have been well aware if there were any peculiarities to this particular exit (decreasing radius curve, incorrectly banked, shorter than usual distance to the tollbooth, etc.) and thus she cannot claim surprise or lack of proper warnings if in fact one of those roadway factors had anything to do with it.
> It really was not her fault even though she could have avoided it.
That is an oxymoron. IF she could have avoided it by driving reasonably, then it WAS her fault to collide with someone. She is innocent of fault only if nothing she could have reasonably done would have avoided the crash.
And that's not an all-or-nothing determination, AFAIK. MA applies the rule of "comparative" negligence under which both, or all parties may turn out to be in some degree responsible for causing a crash. She's not completely at fault, and your evidence does tend to show that, but she's not completely free from fault either.
> Looking for tips on what to say or not say.
Tell the truth. But don't blurt out anything stupid you don't have to say. If in doubt how to do both of those, get a lawyer. 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
> Need advice for my wifes court hearing.
I am not a MA lawyer, I am not familiar with the concept of a "Merit hike hearing" which I'm guessing has to do with legal regulation of MA insurance rate increases after a crash, and I'm not here to offer anything approaching advice, just to comment. Hopefully you might pick up on something which will keep your wife from saying something that might hurt her rather than help her at the hearing. It's up to her to determine which testimony of hers may fall in each of those categories. Or she could consult a local MA lawyer and get real advice, as well as representation at the hearing, to keep her from saying anything harmful to her out of her sheer ignorance of the legal requirements.
> She was in a small pile up (3rd out of 4) caused by the front two
> hitting hard.
I assume you mean it was initially caused by car #2 hitting car #1 hard. I'm presuming car #1 didn't hit anything but simply slowed down or came to a stop, as he was supposed to do, to _avoid_ hitting anything. Unless car #1 lost control and slammed into a guardrail, or cut in front of everybody else at a relatively high speed then crammed on his brakes, he is the only innocent victim in this scenario. Everyone else involved was following too closely and going too fast for conditions.
> She was hit in rear but no damage small damage
> ($1000.00) to the front.
Which is probably enough damage to her own car to put her over the threshold permitting the insurer to ask for a rate increase, or you wouldn't be in this situation. Here in MD, the insurers generally raise your rates if you have an at-fault wreck where they have to pay out more than $500 (on top of your deductible).
> It was in heavy traffic, bad weather and dark.
All of which means she should have been going even slower than usual and leaving more room than usual between her car and the car in front of her.
> She just wants to ask the Merit hike be waived.
As mentioned, I'm not familiar with that procedure and can't comment one way or the other on what facts she would legally have to show at the hearing to be entitled to have the rate hike be waived. Have you read the pertinent statute or regulation to see what factors the court will look at to determine whether the insurer's request for a rate hike is initially justified, and what your wife has to prove, at a minimum, for the court to be authorized to accept her evidence and waive the hike (even if it were initially permitted)?
In other words, what are the elements of her prima facie case (the bare minimum that has to be proven to allow the court to rule in her favor)? Of course, if she actually wants to WIN, she will almost certainly have to put on other evidence that will tip the scales in her favor and that will go far _beyond_ putting on a mere prima facie case, since she (as complainant) probably has the burden of proof in this case to persuade the judge she is right, and if the scales of justice are evenly balanced, the insurer will win and be allowed to raise her rates.
How are we supposed to help you analyze the situation if we don't know what those factors are, and how they weigh in the balance? Tip #1 is, she should be very familiar with the legal requirements for what has to be proven, before she goes in and just says whatever sounds good. Because doing that may hurt more than it helps, or just be irrelevant, if the rest of your post is any indication of what she planned to say.
> She has perfect driving record for 32 years and does not tailgate.
Her past record is almost surely not an issue one way or the other. What she did in this particular accident is probably all that matters.
> But she could have avoided it if she hung back further but nobody does
> in these heavy traffic situations and she just kept the same distance
> everyone else did.
Lotsa luck, if she goes into court and says that. "Because everyone else is doing it" is not a legal excuse. All that means is, _everyone_ was driving too fast for conditions and following too closely for conditions. And yes, most people get away with it, but she was one of the unlucky ones who actually got damaged as a result and therefore got called to account for her decisions.
The "she could have avoided it" bon mot is the real killer. I can just see the judge checking off "no dice" on his notepad the instant she says that. Nothing like conceding the essential fact of the other side's case.
And even if a court accepts the "everyone did it" argument as a potentially valid one (unlikely), the insurer probably would dispute that what she did is exactly what "everyone else did". The guy behind her was following far enough back, and going slow enough (maybe because he was looking farther ahead in time, and saw trouble brewing with the 1st and 2nd cars in line) that even though his car made contact with your wife's, no damage resulted to hsi front end or her car's rear. The guy behind _him_, and everyone else in line behind that, was in fact going slow enough and following far enough behind so that they didn't impact the pile-up at all. Otherwise, we'd be looking at a domino effect extending all the way to the state line (where, presumably, everyone has to at least stop and pick up a MA toll ticket). Out of the dozens, maybe hundreds of cars on the turnpike and approaching that exit on that night in those conditions, your wife and 2 others were the only ones who hit something, and she and 1 other were the only ones who caused any damage, to themselves or others. That is a far cry from "everybody" losing control of their vehicle and not being able to stop in time.
> It was on an exit ramp at slow speed (10mph). Mass Pike.
10 mph was obviously too fast for conditions. Was it icy? Foggy? What exactly did you mean by "bad weather"?
> 2nd car driver was a new driver on unfamiliar roads in a borrowed car.
Irrelevant what the 2nd car did. Your wife is the one who ran into him, and if she was letting him set the pace which was too fast for conditions, she was abdicating her own responsibility to drive her _own_ car within its own, and her own, safe capabilities under all the circumstances. That amounts to the argument, "Well, he jumped off the bridge, so I thought it was safe to do so."
> She drives it daily for past 5 years.
Irrelevant, or possibly harmful, since it means she should have been well aware if there were any peculiarities to this particular exit (decreasing radius curve, incorrectly banked, shorter than usual distance to the tollbooth, etc.) and thus she cannot claim surprise or lack of proper warnings if in fact one of those roadway factors had anything to do with it.
> It really was not her fault even though she could have avoided it.
That is an oxymoron. IF she could have avoided it by driving reasonably, then it WAS her fault to collide with someone. She is innocent of fault only if nothing she could have reasonably done would have avoided the crash.
And that's not an all-or-nothing determination, AFAIK. MA applies the rule of "comparative" negligence under which both, or all parties may turn out to be in some degree responsible for causing a crash. She's not completely at fault, and your evidence does tend to show that, but she's not completely free from fault either.
> Looking for tips on what to say or not say.
Tell the truth. But don't blurt out anything stupid you don't have to say. If in doubt how to do both of those, get a lawyer. 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)