On Jun 11, 7:13 am, Alan McKenney <alan_mckenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In legal discussions and (supposedly) legal
> documents one all too frequently runs into
* * *
>"legalese," that is, ridiculously convoluted
> writing, which we tend to assume lawyers have
> invented so we can't understand what we're
> signing (or responding to) and instead have to
> hire expensive lawyers to interpret it.
Nothing that sinister. Actually, many of the legal jargon words are terms of art with specific meanings that could not be fully expressed in lay terms without even more convoluted prose. And many of those terms go way back, to when they were in more common use, not just in a legal context, but have since gone out of fashion in ordinary speech; much the way English gentlemen used to wear gowns and lace collars and powdered wigs which are now seen on men nowhere but in an English courtroom. Or, frex, in Xian clerical vestments, or for that matter the frock coats and streimels (wide fur-trimmed hats) that some ultra-observant Hassidic Jews wear, all of which had a parallel sort of arrested fashion development hundreds of years ago.
The barons who got King John to sign the Magna Carta had a very good idea of the meaning of Feudal French and Latin terms like seisin, replevin, voir dire, every kind of fee from fee simple to fee tail to fee with cherries on top, and so forth. Likewise, a modern stock broker or securities analyst is at least as conversant with the apparent gobbledygook of things like options, puts, calls, short selling, long selling, deriviatives, LLCs, corporations, and so forth, not because he reads law books for fun, but because those are terms of art in his business that just happen to have specific legal meanings in that context.
Apart from the necessary jargon, though, I think you're complaining about convoluted sentence structure. Quoting from a MLM newsgroup post is a little bit hitting below the belt, since probably most of the posters here (I know for sure that includes me) don't agonize for hours over the exact wording and commit multiple revisions of their posts to get exactly the right wording before hitting "send". OTOH, that's exactly what lawyers typically do before filing a brief in court or submitting a contract for signature to the parties to a deal. So I wouldn't draw any conclusions about the way lawyers usually write, from the excerpt you quoted -- for all I know, that poster may write that way all the time, or he may just find it a fun kind of hobby to do so on MLM and stretch his vocabulary and syntax muscles.
To the extent convoluted legal phraseology survives, I still feel as I did in an earlier thread here on this subject: the main motivators are intertia, and caution.
Inertia says, why should I re-invent the wheel when I have a perfectly functional one that has been handed down to me for 2 hundred years or more? Even if it contains lots of "whereases" and "heretofores" and maybe even those funny "S"es that look like "F"s? Just change the names and dates, and go with it; it worked before, so it ought to work again; just dust it off and re-use it.
Then, caution segues the lawyer from that latter observation to the speculation of what might happen if he DOES change the language to tidy it up a bit and remove the lace trim: what if a court decides that he meant to change the substantial meaning of the clause, and not just pretty up its language in more modern garb? That can and does happen, and if it does, disaster can loom, even if things turn out OK for his interpretation in the end, because he and his client won't get to Happyland until lots of money and effort has been spent on litigation to establish exactly what the new phrasing meant. All the more reason to stick with the old language, if that snippet of operative language has already been the subject of a published case with a binding judicial opinion of what it means.
> 1. Does this sort of writing have a (legitimate)
> place or function in the legal world? I was under
> the impression that it did not, but I could
> be wrong.
Yes and no; see above. I would argue that caution is a very legitimate, even necessary concern; inertia a bit less so but still arguably OK because it saves time and money for the lawyers (even if not for the foax who have to interpret what they wrote), but that making up brand new florid language from whole cloth where no prior form is used for a model, is inexcusable.
> 2. Is this sort of writing being taught in law schools
> or passed on to law firm associates? Or is it just
> something that a few legal types pick up on their
> own?
Absolutely not. AFAIK any good law school and most of the best lawyers advocate plain-English usage where that can be done without sacrificing legal precision, since unnecessarily florid language actually detracts from such precision.
> I'm thinking of the US If the answer(s) depend upon
> the (U.S.) State, that would be interesting
> to know, too.
There is no USA state I know of that requires lawyers to write and speak, or dress, as if they were 16th century barons overseeing their estates or going to a ball. To the extent some still do, IMO it's either because they think it's fun, they're putting on airs, or they don't know any better. "Businesslike modern" is the preferred order of the day.
--
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
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
Jury nullification, part 3
On Jun 9, 8:26 am, Alan McKenney <alan_mckenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Anyway, you're answering the *political/practical* question as to how
> likely it would be that the juror would provide the evidence and the
> legal system would choose to do something.
>
> In my hypothetical, I was trying to raise a *legal* question: if
> there were sufficiently clear evidence that a juror had
> knowingly voted contrary to what he believed to be true --
> i.e., done "jury nullification", *could* (not *would*)
> a prosecutor do anything about it?
Theoretically, the errant juror could be prosecuted for perjury, for knowingly violating his oath as a juror that he had no intention of keeping, i.e. to follow the law as presented by the judge and to "truly judge" the facts of the case in returning a verdict. Instead, he knowingly returned a false verdict.
But IMO the original defendant still could not be re-tried after an acquittal. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy, combined with an actual acquittal and not a mere mistrial, doesn't leave any room for wiggle. As my earlier post stated, the defendant can be re-tried only on a different (non-included) charge, or in a different jurisdiction.
--
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
> Anyway, you're answering the *political/practical* question as to how
> likely it would be that the juror would provide the evidence and the
> legal system would choose to do something.
>
> In my hypothetical, I was trying to raise a *legal* question: if
> there were sufficiently clear evidence that a juror had
> knowingly voted contrary to what he believed to be true --
> i.e., done "jury nullification", *could* (not *would*)
> a prosecutor do anything about it?
Theoretically, the errant juror could be prosecuted for perjury, for knowingly violating his oath as a juror that he had no intention of keeping, i.e. to follow the law as presented by the judge and to "truly judge" the facts of the case in returning a verdict. Instead, he knowingly returned a false verdict.
But IMO the original defendant still could not be re-tried after an acquittal. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy, combined with an actual acquittal and not a mere mistrial, doesn't leave any room for wiggle. As my earlier post stated, the defendant can be re-tried only on a different (non-included) charge, or in a different jurisdiction.
--
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
Warranty deed - vacant land
On Jun 8, 8:27 am, jiangsuk...@gmail.com wrote:
> I just bought a vacant land. It was closed through a title company. I
> have received a new wanrranty deed and title insurance.
Sounds like you did everything right. A warranty deed -- as opposed to a mere quitclaim deed, which only gives up whatever claim the seller may have had to ownership in the property, whether or not that claim was valid -- includes a representation and promise (i.e. a warranty) by the seller that he indeed has good title to convey and is conveying all of it to you. The title insurance will cover your loss in the event an undisclosed defect in the chain of title turns up later. And doing the whole thing thru a title company is usually the best way to make sure all the necessary i's get dotted and the t's get crossed, and that the papers all get properly filed where they're supposed to be, in the land records office at the courthouse.
> My question is
> about the old warranty deeds that the previous owners had.
Going back, I presume, thru your entire chain of title to Colonial times, when the original European owner may have bought it from the Amerindian natives for 24 bucks worth of pretty shell beads (or may have just taken it without asking)? Or just back 100 years or so?
> - What happen to the old warranty deed?
The actual deed, the one that matters, is on file for public view at the land records office of your county. Whatever the seller had is just a copy of the official record. Yes, all of those deeds going all the way back to the original purchase by Miles Standish from Wampanoag, or the original land grant from King Charles or Louis or Ferdinand to Lord Baltimore or Comte Francoise or Don Conquistadore, should be in the land records, unless there was a fire in the courthouse or something that destroyed the older records. In either case, with a warranty deed and title insurance, the possibility of defects in your chain of title is not something you personally need to lose any sleep about. The copy of the deed you have, showing the transfer of the fee simple ownership interest in that particular piece of property from your sellers to you as buyer, is all you need to keep in your files.
> - Should I ask for the old wanrranty deed?
You can ask for a copy of it, sure. But mainly as a historical curiosity; all you really need is your own deed. The previous deed in the chain of title may not even be a warranty deed; maybe your seller acquired title through a quitclaim deed, or thru a foreclosure purchase, or by adverse possession, or some other means. However, your seller's warranty deed warrants to _you_ that, by whatever means he acquired it, he had good title to convey to you.
> - Will I need it when I sell the land in the future?
No. You really don't even need the copy you have of your own deed for that purpose -- if you lose or destroy your copy of the deed, that doesn't mean you lose title to the land -- although you should retain a copy of it because the information on it is useful for a variety of other purposes and you won't have to go to the courthouse and search for a copy of your deed all over again if e.g. you want to do a survey, establish your tax basis, or whatever. When you sell the land, your buyers will certainly want to go back to the original, official land records and get their own copy -- if for nothing else, to make sure it matches yours and that yours has not been altered from what is on the official record. But having your copy of the deed available is a courtesy that makes it easier for them to find the original when they do search.
Good luck with your new lot,
--
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 just bought a vacant land. It was closed through a title company. I
> have received a new wanrranty deed and title insurance.
Sounds like you did everything right. A warranty deed -- as opposed to a mere quitclaim deed, which only gives up whatever claim the seller may have had to ownership in the property, whether or not that claim was valid -- includes a representation and promise (i.e. a warranty) by the seller that he indeed has good title to convey and is conveying all of it to you. The title insurance will cover your loss in the event an undisclosed defect in the chain of title turns up later. And doing the whole thing thru a title company is usually the best way to make sure all the necessary i's get dotted and the t's get crossed, and that the papers all get properly filed where they're supposed to be, in the land records office at the courthouse.
> My question is
> about the old warranty deeds that the previous owners had.
Going back, I presume, thru your entire chain of title to Colonial times, when the original European owner may have bought it from the Amerindian natives for 24 bucks worth of pretty shell beads (or may have just taken it without asking)? Or just back 100 years or so?
> - What happen to the old warranty deed?
The actual deed, the one that matters, is on file for public view at the land records office of your county. Whatever the seller had is just a copy of the official record. Yes, all of those deeds going all the way back to the original purchase by Miles Standish from Wampanoag, or the original land grant from King Charles or Louis or Ferdinand to Lord Baltimore or Comte Francoise or Don Conquistadore, should be in the land records, unless there was a fire in the courthouse or something that destroyed the older records. In either case, with a warranty deed and title insurance, the possibility of defects in your chain of title is not something you personally need to lose any sleep about. The copy of the deed you have, showing the transfer of the fee simple ownership interest in that particular piece of property from your sellers to you as buyer, is all you need to keep in your files.
> - Should I ask for the old wanrranty deed?
You can ask for a copy of it, sure. But mainly as a historical curiosity; all you really need is your own deed. The previous deed in the chain of title may not even be a warranty deed; maybe your seller acquired title through a quitclaim deed, or thru a foreclosure purchase, or by adverse possession, or some other means. However, your seller's warranty deed warrants to _you_ that, by whatever means he acquired it, he had good title to convey to you.
> - Will I need it when I sell the land in the future?
No. You really don't even need the copy you have of your own deed for that purpose -- if you lose or destroy your copy of the deed, that doesn't mean you lose title to the land -- although you should retain a copy of it because the information on it is useful for a variety of other purposes and you won't have to go to the courthouse and search for a copy of your deed all over again if e.g. you want to do a survey, establish your tax basis, or whatever. When you sell the land, your buyers will certainly want to go back to the original, official land records and get their own copy -- if for nothing else, to make sure it matches yours and that yours has not been altered from what is on the official record. But having your copy of the deed available is a courtesy that makes it easier for them to find the original when they do search.
Good luck with your new lot,
--
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
Joint tenancy, rights of survivorship, and Will
On Jun 7, 9:17 am, positivecl...@gmail.com wrote:
> My father died and his wife is still alive.
Sorry to hear about your loss.
> His will states that "for
> purposes of property held jointly with a right of survivorship, I will
> be deemed to have survived my wife to the extent of one-half of the
> property."
You don't say what state's law purportedly applies to interpretation of this
Will, and you don't say where in the Will this language is found (what
context). My guess is, this is part of the "simultaneous death" clause in
Dad's Will, and only would have applied if he and your stepmom died at the
same time, or so close together that it would be hard to tell who died
first. In that event, half of their joint property would be distributed
according to the terms set by his Will, and half of it by the terms of her
Will.
Other than that, I've never seen such language before, and doubt it would be
given any legal effect. A Will is only effective to dispose of property
that was part of a decedent's probate Estate. But jointly held property,
with a right of survivorship, never becomes part of father's probate estate;
it automatically and immediately becomes the sole property of the surviving
joint owner, upon the death of the first joint owner. So your father's
Will could not have any effect to deprive your stepmom of the jointly held
property.
> Does this mean that, despite the fact that my Dad died before his
> wife, one-half of the property held jointly before his death (which
> normally would go 100% to his wife upon his death)
100%? Says who? Is that what his Will provides? Then why do you think a
different part of his Will says otherwise?
In most states the surviving widow has a "statutory share" which she may
elect, over the terms of the Will, if that would be more favorable to her
than what the Will provides. But AFAIK the statutory share is not 100% in
any USA state. OTOH, Dad's will can, and apparently did, consciously leave
his entire estate to his surviving wife. That's the only place the 100%
could come from.
Unless you're only talking about the jointly held property, and the effect
of the right of survivorship, which I discussed above. Yes, as you are
aware, she as surviving joint owner gets 100% of the joint property,
immediately and automatically. Nothing in Dad's Will can change that.
> is still his, and,
> therefore, distributable to me and my sister (as my Dad's will states
> for distribution of residual estate) upon the death of my Dad's wife,
> despite her will?
OK, are you saying Dad's will leaves the entire residual estate to you and
your sister, and leaves nothing to Stepmom? In that case, you may be
unpleasantly surprised to learn that not only does Stepmom get 100% of the
non-probated assets that she held jointly with Dad, but also can claim her
statutory share of the probate estate (in many states, 50% of the net estate
after expenses) so that you and your sis will each get 25% or less of the
residuary estate.
Quote us the entire Will and say where this occurred and you may get a more
specific answer from someone.
--
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
> My father died and his wife is still alive.
Sorry to hear about your loss.
> His will states that "for
> purposes of property held jointly with a right of survivorship, I will
> be deemed to have survived my wife to the extent of one-half of the
> property."
You don't say what state's law purportedly applies to interpretation of this
Will, and you don't say where in the Will this language is found (what
context). My guess is, this is part of the "simultaneous death" clause in
Dad's Will, and only would have applied if he and your stepmom died at the
same time, or so close together that it would be hard to tell who died
first. In that event, half of their joint property would be distributed
according to the terms set by his Will, and half of it by the terms of her
Will.
Other than that, I've never seen such language before, and doubt it would be
given any legal effect. A Will is only effective to dispose of property
that was part of a decedent's probate Estate. But jointly held property,
with a right of survivorship, never becomes part of father's probate estate;
it automatically and immediately becomes the sole property of the surviving
joint owner, upon the death of the first joint owner. So your father's
Will could not have any effect to deprive your stepmom of the jointly held
property.
> Does this mean that, despite the fact that my Dad died before his
> wife, one-half of the property held jointly before his death (which
> normally would go 100% to his wife upon his death)
100%? Says who? Is that what his Will provides? Then why do you think a
different part of his Will says otherwise?
In most states the surviving widow has a "statutory share" which she may
elect, over the terms of the Will, if that would be more favorable to her
than what the Will provides. But AFAIK the statutory share is not 100% in
any USA state. OTOH, Dad's will can, and apparently did, consciously leave
his entire estate to his surviving wife. That's the only place the 100%
could come from.
Unless you're only talking about the jointly held property, and the effect
of the right of survivorship, which I discussed above. Yes, as you are
aware, she as surviving joint owner gets 100% of the joint property,
immediately and automatically. Nothing in Dad's Will can change that.
> is still his, and,
> therefore, distributable to me and my sister (as my Dad's will states
> for distribution of residual estate) upon the death of my Dad's wife,
> despite her will?
OK, are you saying Dad's will leaves the entire residual estate to you and
your sister, and leaves nothing to Stepmom? In that case, you may be
unpleasantly surprised to learn that not only does Stepmom get 100% of the
non-probated assets that she held jointly with Dad, but also can claim her
statutory share of the probate estate (in many states, 50% of the net estate
after expenses) so that you and your sis will each get 25% or less of the
residuary estate.
Quote us the entire Will and say where this occurred and you may get a more
specific answer from someone.
--
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 nullification hypothetical
On Jun 4, 6:58 am, Alan McKenney <alan_mckenn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hypothetical:
>
> DA presents slam-dunk murder case. Jury votes to
> acquit. The next day, Juror A says in a nationally-televised
> interview, "We knew he was guilty as hell, but none of us
> was going to put a white man in jail just for killing a [insert
> racial epithet], so we all decided to vote not guilty."
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Could the defendent be retried (according to the same logic
> as when there is jury tampering)?
Jeopardy attaches once the jury is empaneled. If the acquittal was not due to any misconduct by defendant, he cannot be retried in the same jurisdiction on the same charge again, under the double jeopardy Constitutional prohibition. But he could be tried under e.g. a Federal crime of depriving a person of his civil rights, or under the laws of another state if the act he was accused of amounted to a separate crime in the other jurisdiction. If you kidnap someone in MD, rape her in DC and then murder her somewhere along the line and dump the body in VA, you could be tried and convicted in all three jurisdictions of separate crimes, for the same acts.
> 2. Is juror A in danger of any legal penalties?
Maybe, but I doubt it. You could say he violated his oath as a juror and then admitted it publicly. Of course even a "confession" doesn't "prove" anything. Juror A could just be "puffing" to boost his status among his bigoted friends and neighbors and we still don't know what really went on in the jury room. OR he could be insane.
The scenario is highly unlikely to unfold the way you state, since even in the dark days of the pre-civil rights era bigots generally hid their true feelings in a legal context, so no one really knows what could happen -- IMO it would be a matter of first impression (i.e. it never came up before). If you want to see what _really_ happened in such cases, read or watch one of the very good nonfiction books or documentaries that have come out lately about the Emmett Till case.
> 2b. Are the other jurors in danger of legal penalties?
Probably even less so. They didn't admit to anything and probably would deny what Juror A said, if they were forced to reveal what went on in the jury room.
> Assuming the answer to any of these is yes, would any
> corroborating evidence,
> beyond the TV interview, be needed?
Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is, it would never come up because nobody is going to be that stupid. If it gets to the point where someone sane _is_ going to say that, then the rule of law has already broken down anyway, and so no one is going to punish the bigots because they are only saying what society around them also believes and approves. Heaven forfend we should ever retrogress so far, but it's not unheard of for a society to degenerate that way. The day a Palestinian court tries and finds guilty an Arab defendant for murdering a Jew, I will believe peace is possible in the Holy Land. If such a case even got as far as a trial in the present day, I suspect a scenario much like the one you hypothesize might develop, in a society where even the kindergarten books say what a good thing it is to kill a Jew.
--
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
> Hypothetical:
>
> DA presents slam-dunk murder case. Jury votes to
> acquit. The next day, Juror A says in a nationally-televised
> interview, "We knew he was guilty as hell, but none of us
> was going to put a white man in jail just for killing a [insert
> racial epithet], so we all decided to vote not guilty."
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Could the defendent be retried (according to the same logic
> as when there is jury tampering)?
Jeopardy attaches once the jury is empaneled. If the acquittal was not due to any misconduct by defendant, he cannot be retried in the same jurisdiction on the same charge again, under the double jeopardy Constitutional prohibition. But he could be tried under e.g. a Federal crime of depriving a person of his civil rights, or under the laws of another state if the act he was accused of amounted to a separate crime in the other jurisdiction. If you kidnap someone in MD, rape her in DC and then murder her somewhere along the line and dump the body in VA, you could be tried and convicted in all three jurisdictions of separate crimes, for the same acts.
> 2. Is juror A in danger of any legal penalties?
Maybe, but I doubt it. You could say he violated his oath as a juror and then admitted it publicly. Of course even a "confession" doesn't "prove" anything. Juror A could just be "puffing" to boost his status among his bigoted friends and neighbors and we still don't know what really went on in the jury room. OR he could be insane.
The scenario is highly unlikely to unfold the way you state, since even in the dark days of the pre-civil rights era bigots generally hid their true feelings in a legal context, so no one really knows what could happen -- IMO it would be a matter of first impression (i.e. it never came up before). If you want to see what _really_ happened in such cases, read or watch one of the very good nonfiction books or documentaries that have come out lately about the Emmett Till case.
> 2b. Are the other jurors in danger of legal penalties?
Probably even less so. They didn't admit to anything and probably would deny what Juror A said, if they were forced to reveal what went on in the jury room.
> Assuming the answer to any of these is yes, would any
> corroborating evidence,
> beyond the TV interview, be needed?
Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is, it would never come up because nobody is going to be that stupid. If it gets to the point where someone sane _is_ going to say that, then the rule of law has already broken down anyway, and so no one is going to punish the bigots because they are only saying what society around them also believes and approves. Heaven forfend we should ever retrogress so far, but it's not unheard of for a society to degenerate that way. The day a Palestinian court tries and finds guilty an Arab defendant for murdering a Jew, I will believe peace is possible in the Holy Land. If such a case even got as far as a trial in the present day, I suspect a scenario much like the one you hypothesize might develop, in a society where even the kindergarten books say what a good thing it is to kill a Jew.
--
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
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Prior-bad-acts evidence, part 2
On Jun 3, 7:17 am, s...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> In article <2ggg435ao1s30hrp62vm36voiijuur3...@4ax.com>,
> Mike Jacobs <mjacobs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On May 13, 7:22 am, s...@panix.com (Seth) wrote:
> >> what would his prior acts have to do with
> >> her propensity to commit suicide?
[I answered: it doesn't. Rather, it shows he was more likely to have murdered her, but the prosecution can't put on such evidence unless defendant opens the door by an affirmative defense that such evidence could refute]
> The prosecution can't bring up the defendant's prior acts with other
> people.
Generally right, unless the defense somehow opens the door. There's lots of ways they could do that. either by blunder, or even as a conscious tactical decision that the defense lawyer feels, on balance, will be better for his client's side.
There are also in most states and in the Federal system, rules of evidence that allow prior bad acts to be admitted into evidence for a variety of other purposes, but not simply to bolster the natural prejudices of the jury that someone who has previously done such an act is likely to do it again. That is always an impermissible reason.
> If the defense suggests that maybe the dead woman committed suicide,
> the prosecution gets to bring up the defendant's prior acts.
As stated in the post you quoted above, this is rebuttal evidence, to refute the likelihood of the defense theory of suicide (by adding weight to the likelihood of the other possible cause of death that has been brought up in the case, murder). The prosecution cannot put on such evidence in its case in chief to infer guilt from prior guilt, but only in rebuttal of some other cause posited by the defense.
> If the defense suggests that maybe the dead woman was murdered by
> someone else, the prosecution gets to bring up the defendant's prior
> acts.
Not always, only if the previous acts form a pattern factually similar to or logically leading to the act in question, not just to say "if he did it before, he probably is the one who did it this time too." This is a very fact-specific inquiry and blanket rules don't apply.
> If the defense suggests that the defendant has an alibi, the
> prosecution gets to bring up the defendant's prior acts ("Whenever he
> was involved with a woman, he always spent Saturday night with her, so
> you shouldn't believe his claim that he was playing poker with four
> police officers and the Mayor.")
That has nothing to do with putting on evidence of his prior bad acts. That has to do with refuting his alibi by putting on evidence tending to show that he was actually somewhere else when the deed occurred, making it more likely that he might have been at the scene of the crime in question.
> So when doesn't the prosecution get to bring it up?
When all they offer it to prove is "if he did it before, he probably did it this time too."
--
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
Evicting a tenant
On Jun 4, 6:58 am, "Richard" <RichardS...@aaaYahoo.com> wrote:
> I own a two family house and reside in it. My tenants are married and their
> relationship has deteriorated and one spouse has moved out. The rent due on
> June 1 was not paid.
You don't say what state you live in, or even if it is in USA. That would help the denizens of MLM point you in a suggested direction, since state laws differ widely on the protections they give tenants, esp. a tenant in a one-unit rental where the landlord lives on the premises (often, such situations are more favorable to you, the owner, but not always). You also don't say whether these tenants have a written lease or were just paying you month-to-month. In the latter case it would be relatively easier to evict them at the end of any one-month prepaid lease term simply by not agreeing to renew their tenancy for another month (in a manner that complies with the law, see below).
You really should contact a local real estate attorney familiar with landlord-tenant law from the landlord's side. Attorneys who have experience representing residental lease brokers or property managers would be a good choice. You will probably have to pay market rates even for an initial consultation with one of these. The ones who staff free or low-cost legal clinics, OTOH, generally focus on helping poor tenants. If you do decide to take legal action, your impoverished tenants can most likely find one of those attorneys to defend them agressively, so you definitely will need an attorney on your side as well, if you want to have any realistic chance of success. And, in the long run, if you are going to stay in the landlord business, you ought to begin to establish a relationship with a "company attorney" who can advise you on all sorts of legal matters related to your leasing business. If you think you can't afford it, then keep in mind that the risk of abusive or nonpaying tenants is one of the costs of being in the landlord business and that your lawyer can help you manage and minimize those risks. Just think of it as another cost of doing business, for damage control.
Of course, no matter where you are, "there's no harm in asking" your tenants to pay up and/or to move out or both. The question is, what do you do after that, if they refuse to play nice.
But basically, if that fails, in just about every state you have 2 legal choices, which are not mutually exclusive: you can sue the tenants for back rent owed (it's a debt like any other), and you can ask the court to evict them.for nonpayment of rent and/or other reasons. Please DO NOT try to evict the tenants thru self-help (just putting their stuff on the street and changing the locks) without having an appropriate court order, if they refuse to cooperate with your initial request; you could get yourself in a heap of trouble and wind up owing THEM money for srongfully evicting them, if you did that. 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 own a two family house and reside in it. My tenants are married and their
> relationship has deteriorated and one spouse has moved out. The rent due on
> June 1 was not paid.
You don't say what state you live in, or even if it is in USA. That would help the denizens of MLM point you in a suggested direction, since state laws differ widely on the protections they give tenants, esp. a tenant in a one-unit rental where the landlord lives on the premises (often, such situations are more favorable to you, the owner, but not always). You also don't say whether these tenants have a written lease or were just paying you month-to-month. In the latter case it would be relatively easier to evict them at the end of any one-month prepaid lease term simply by not agreeing to renew their tenancy for another month (in a manner that complies with the law, see below).
You really should contact a local real estate attorney familiar with landlord-tenant law from the landlord's side. Attorneys who have experience representing residental lease brokers or property managers would be a good choice. You will probably have to pay market rates even for an initial consultation with one of these. The ones who staff free or low-cost legal clinics, OTOH, generally focus on helping poor tenants. If you do decide to take legal action, your impoverished tenants can most likely find one of those attorneys to defend them agressively, so you definitely will need an attorney on your side as well, if you want to have any realistic chance of success. And, in the long run, if you are going to stay in the landlord business, you ought to begin to establish a relationship with a "company attorney" who can advise you on all sorts of legal matters related to your leasing business. If you think you can't afford it, then keep in mind that the risk of abusive or nonpaying tenants is one of the costs of being in the landlord business and that your lawyer can help you manage and minimize those risks. Just think of it as another cost of doing business, for damage control.
Of course, no matter where you are, "there's no harm in asking" your tenants to pay up and/or to move out or both. The question is, what do you do after that, if they refuse to play nice.
But basically, if that fails, in just about every state you have 2 legal choices, which are not mutually exclusive: you can sue the tenants for back rent owed (it's a debt like any other), and you can ask the court to evict them.for nonpayment of rent and/or other reasons. Please DO NOT try to evict the tenants thru self-help (just putting their stuff on the street and changing the locks) without having an appropriate court order, if they refuse to cooperate with your initial request; you could get yourself in a heap of trouble and wind up owing THEM money for srongfully evicting them, if you did that. 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
Asset search to probate dead husband's estate
On Jun 6, 7:05 am, "Sam" <n...@none.com> wrote:
> My friend's husband passed away a few months ago and although she is quite
> sure about knowing of all his financial accounts, she wants to make sure
> there aren't ones she has missed. Is there any way to find out through a
> person's social security number what bank accounts, trading accounts,
> investment accounts, etc he had?
There's no one _easy_ way to do it. There's too many different places to look. Suppose she went to one of those online asset-checkers which, for a minimal fee, will return a report with a list of a person's assets. Suppose it uncovers one or two accounts your friend didn't know about. How can she then be sure that those are _all_ there are, or whether there may be other, even more significant assets not yet discovered? She can't.
Her best bet, if she is serious about this, is to hire a private investigator experienced in running assset checks. They have access to databases that are not open to the public, and they have the know-how to filter the info they receive and follow up on leads to get to the bottom of what very likely might be a nested network of shell corporations and straw man owners to show what he really owns. If friend's late husband was the kind of guy who had assets to hide, that's what such foax usually do.
She should be able to find one who will charge her only for a successful search (i.e. one that turns up assets she didn't tell him about at the outset) and I would recommend she negotiate a flat fate fee up front rather than pay a percentage of whatever he recovers or an hourly rate (both of which are better for the PI and worse for your friend).
Of course, I assume your friend has already taken steps to be appointed Personal Representative (executor or administrator) of her late husband's estate and thus has the legal power to marshal his assets wherever they may be found, for inclusion in his probate estate. She could hire the PI on behalf of the estate and then his bill would be an expense of the estate, not a personal debt for her alone That would (in effect) spread the cost among the residual beneficiaries, if she is not the sole beneficiary.
And as PR, she is legally the recipient of new incoming mail addressed to him and over the course of several months, she should be receiving statements, bills, etc. from any open accounts (deposit or credit) the decedent held. Of course, if she suspects he was leading a double life and had them sent to a different address, that's where she especially needs the PI.
If hubby was a computer user, she could have the PI go over his computer with forensic tools to find any data he had stored there about his assets, sometimes even if it had been erased. As a first step, of course, she could poke around in there herself, but the "did I find everything?" dilemma would still not go away without professional help.
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
> My friend's husband passed away a few months ago and although she is quite
> sure about knowing of all his financial accounts, she wants to make sure
> there aren't ones she has missed. Is there any way to find out through a
> person's social security number what bank accounts, trading accounts,
> investment accounts, etc he had?
There's no one _easy_ way to do it. There's too many different places to look. Suppose she went to one of those online asset-checkers which, for a minimal fee, will return a report with a list of a person's assets. Suppose it uncovers one or two accounts your friend didn't know about. How can she then be sure that those are _all_ there are, or whether there may be other, even more significant assets not yet discovered? She can't.
Her best bet, if she is serious about this, is to hire a private investigator experienced in running assset checks. They have access to databases that are not open to the public, and they have the know-how to filter the info they receive and follow up on leads to get to the bottom of what very likely might be a nested network of shell corporations and straw man owners to show what he really owns. If friend's late husband was the kind of guy who had assets to hide, that's what such foax usually do.
She should be able to find one who will charge her only for a successful search (i.e. one that turns up assets she didn't tell him about at the outset) and I would recommend she negotiate a flat fate fee up front rather than pay a percentage of whatever he recovers or an hourly rate (both of which are better for the PI and worse for your friend).
Of course, I assume your friend has already taken steps to be appointed Personal Representative (executor or administrator) of her late husband's estate and thus has the legal power to marshal his assets wherever they may be found, for inclusion in his probate estate. She could hire the PI on behalf of the estate and then his bill would be an expense of the estate, not a personal debt for her alone That would (in effect) spread the cost among the residual beneficiaries, if she is not the sole beneficiary.
And as PR, she is legally the recipient of new incoming mail addressed to him and over the course of several months, she should be receiving statements, bills, etc. from any open accounts (deposit or credit) the decedent held. Of course, if she suspects he was leading a double life and had them sent to a different address, that's where she especially needs the PI.
If hubby was a computer user, she could have the PI go over his computer with forensic tools to find any data he had stored there about his assets, sometimes even if it had been erased. As a first step, of course, she could poke around in there herself, but the "did I find everything?" dilemma would still not go away without professional help.
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
California murder mystery, part 2
On Jun 6, 7:05 am, "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> One approach would be for Chris to read a bunch of Perry Mason books.
> They were written by a California lawyer. While it's been a while, my
> guess is that the procedure hasn't changed a whole lot.
ROFL. Yeah, I love Perry Mason, but if OP wants a realistic rather than formulaic trial scenario he should look elsewhere. I mean, who else in the criminal defense field has won EVERY case he ever tried, by getting some idiot witness who wasn't even a suspect to blurt out on the witness stand that he or she was the one who dun it, thus forcing the judge to dismiss the case against the defendant, Perry's client? I don't think Perry ever got as far as a jury verdict in one of his cases.
And I would guess that CA criminal procedure _has_ changed a whole lot since the 1940's and 50's when Perry Mason books were being written. Perry never heard of Miranda, frex. The Supreme Court has been very active in constitutional rulings on criminal procedure and I also wouldn't be surprised if the CA written rules of procedure were recodified and amended sometime in the last 50 years.
OTOH, if OP wants to write a period noir, that's a different story.
--
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
> One approach would be for Chris to read a bunch of Perry Mason books.
> They were written by a California lawyer. While it's been a while, my
> guess is that the procedure hasn't changed a whole lot.
ROFL. Yeah, I love Perry Mason, but if OP wants a realistic rather than formulaic trial scenario he should look elsewhere. I mean, who else in the criminal defense field has won EVERY case he ever tried, by getting some idiot witness who wasn't even a suspect to blurt out on the witness stand that he or she was the one who dun it, thus forcing the judge to dismiss the case against the defendant, Perry's client? I don't think Perry ever got as far as a jury verdict in one of his cases.
And I would guess that CA criminal procedure _has_ changed a whole lot since the 1940's and 50's when Perry Mason books were being written. Perry never heard of Miranda, frex. The Supreme Court has been very active in constitutional rulings on criminal procedure and I also wouldn't be surprised if the CA written rules of procedure were recodified and amended sometime in the last 50 years.
OTOH, if OP wants to write a period noir, that's a different story.
--
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
Domestic spat leads to larceny / assault charges
On Jun 1, 7:12 am, Ryan <MD2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I was charged yesterday with larceny after taking my gf (then gf I
> should say) cable modem while she watched me doing it.
Her watching you do it doesn't make it any less a larceny. The grocer who watches a kid shoplift an apple from the box in front of his store is also a victim of larceny. It doesn't have to be done in secret.
>..my intention
> was only to piss her off as she was calling the police because I had
> come into her house uninvited (via taking down the door which she
> wouldn't open).
I don't even know where to _begin_ with analyzing that statement, so I won't. Except to say, if you are worried about the definition of larceny, that seems to be the least of your worries.
> everything I'm reading about common law def of
> larceny is that motive or intent IS significant in that there has to
> be the intent to either keep the item permanently OR by taking even
> temporarily depriving of income by the temporary loss.
I strongly suspect that by now, MA has encoded a statutory definition of larceny (or the generic crime of theft) and no longer relies on the common law definition, with all its loopholes.
> I live 4
> houses down from her and was simply walking it back to my house out of
> spite or what have you.
I think the "what have you" is what gets you, here.
> I was extremely intoxicated and far from
> thinking logically
That is not a legal excuse for your actions and may well be used as evidence of an exacerbated level of culpability.
>.I was also charged with assault (without battery)
> as she states she was in fear of physical harm tho I made no
> encroachment upon her person.
My goodness, both of us are using big words. But the judge will be more interested in whether what you did, seen as a whole, scared the bejabbers out of your ex. It sure would've if I were her.
> my original goal was that I wanted to
> see something on her computer (chat log) and she had locked me out (up
> until that day I had a key, but it had been taken just prior to this)
So we add breaking and entering an occupied dwelling to your list of charges. Her locking you out and refusing to open meant she didn't want you to enter. It was her house, not yours.
> and I was livid drunk, and literally pushed the door open,
I thought you said you had "taken down" the door, as in, taken it off its hinges. Did you bash it in, breaking it? Not very likely to put the occupant at ease as to your intentions.
> walked directly to the computer room
To read her chat logs that you had no right to read?
> heard her on the phone with the police
She was calling the cops because what you had already done was bad enough...
> panicked and figured taking the modem would somehow give me
> some maneuvering room or something (again, wasn't thinking
> rationally).
I won't disagree with you there.
> The bottom line is that I know that she knows that I
> wasn't taking the modem permanently, I was announcing I was taking it
> as I took it, etc.
As noted above, IMO this amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Fugeddabout whether or not you intended to deprive her permanently of possession of her chattel, step back and take a look at the totality of what you did, and for Pete's sake, start taking some anger management counseling AND alcohol abuse recovery steps now if you haven't already. If you do, it may go better for you at your criminal hearing. If you show up in court just as clueless about how really over the edge your conduct really was as your post so far makes you appear still to be, you will probably get the book thrown at you.
> Do I have a leg to stand on here?
Yes, get counseling and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Seriously, I mean it. Otherwise you will come across to the judge as an unrepentant jerk looking for nonexistent loopholes to excuse your outrageous behavior..
> I fully recognize that I behaved
> ridiculously yesterday
Good, that's a start. But "ridiculously" doesn't go far enough. Comedians act ridiculously, and people laugh. Al Qaida terrorists who fly planes into buildings act outrageously, unspeakably, but they are not ridiculous. Nobody laughs. Which do you think is closer to what you did, in the mind of your ex?
> but I have never ever laid a finger on another
> human being and had no intention of keeping the modem
Um, I think you still don't get it. You BROKE INTO HER HOUSE, and you did it WHILE SHE WAS THERE, and you were ANGRY AND DRUNK, and you SCARED THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of her. Who gives a crap whether you intended to keep the modem or just wanted to figuratively give the bitch a well deserved spanking by taking it? (Pardon my French but that's the way your attitude comes across).
> I feel like
> the officers were trying to beef up the charges to maximize the
> penalty.
Sir, the larceny of modem charge is NOT the worst of the charges you face. And frankly, your argument that you took it for "disciplinary reasons" does not assist your main case. The bottom line is, your conduct VIOLATED this gal's private space and her right to peace of mind and security in her own home, in just about every way possible (short of physical battering or rape, but the mental effect on her of what you did is similar). Until you recognize that, you will not be helping optimize your own outcome from this mess.
> There was also an ensuing 209A which I didn't refute
I don't know what that is so I snopped the rest of that paragraph. If it was some form of a peace order barring you from approaching her or her premises, it seems well justified. Be GLAD you didn't take that opportunity to push your "I just took the modem to mentally slap the ho around a bit" argument.
> anyhow any advice? I have a public defender who seems to be a good guy
Yes, my advice is, follow your lawyer's advice.
> but he never mentioned to me yesterday that I did indeed have a right
> to refute the necessity for the 209A
He probably was thinking the same thing I'm thinking. What were _you_ thinking? What would you have refuted it with? "Judge, I didn't mean to keep the modem, I just wanted to teach the cheating floozy a lesson?"
> and I'm not thrilled about that
> either.
Think about it for awhile, and you may change your tune. Meanwhile, get counseling. Good luck turning your life around, and I mean that too.
--
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 charged yesterday with larceny after taking my gf (then gf I
> should say) cable modem while she watched me doing it.
Her watching you do it doesn't make it any less a larceny. The grocer who watches a kid shoplift an apple from the box in front of his store is also a victim of larceny. It doesn't have to be done in secret.
>..my intention
> was only to piss her off as she was calling the police because I had
> come into her house uninvited (via taking down the door which she
> wouldn't open).
I don't even know where to _begin_ with analyzing that statement, so I won't. Except to say, if you are worried about the definition of larceny, that seems to be the least of your worries.
> everything I'm reading about common law def of
> larceny is that motive or intent IS significant in that there has to
> be the intent to either keep the item permanently OR by taking even
> temporarily depriving of income by the temporary loss.
I strongly suspect that by now, MA has encoded a statutory definition of larceny (or the generic crime of theft) and no longer relies on the common law definition, with all its loopholes.
> I live 4
> houses down from her and was simply walking it back to my house out of
> spite or what have you.
I think the "what have you" is what gets you, here.
> I was extremely intoxicated and far from
> thinking logically
That is not a legal excuse for your actions and may well be used as evidence of an exacerbated level of culpability.
>.I was also charged with assault (without battery)
> as she states she was in fear of physical harm tho I made no
> encroachment upon her person.
My goodness, both of us are using big words. But the judge will be more interested in whether what you did, seen as a whole, scared the bejabbers out of your ex. It sure would've if I were her.
> my original goal was that I wanted to
> see something on her computer (chat log) and she had locked me out (up
> until that day I had a key, but it had been taken just prior to this)
So we add breaking and entering an occupied dwelling to your list of charges. Her locking you out and refusing to open meant she didn't want you to enter. It was her house, not yours.
> and I was livid drunk, and literally pushed the door open,
I thought you said you had "taken down" the door, as in, taken it off its hinges. Did you bash it in, breaking it? Not very likely to put the occupant at ease as to your intentions.
> walked directly to the computer room
To read her chat logs that you had no right to read?
> heard her on the phone with the police
She was calling the cops because what you had already done was bad enough...
> panicked and figured taking the modem would somehow give me
> some maneuvering room or something (again, wasn't thinking
> rationally).
I won't disagree with you there.
> The bottom line is that I know that she knows that I
> wasn't taking the modem permanently, I was announcing I was taking it
> as I took it, etc.
As noted above, IMO this amounts to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Fugeddabout whether or not you intended to deprive her permanently of possession of her chattel, step back and take a look at the totality of what you did, and for Pete's sake, start taking some anger management counseling AND alcohol abuse recovery steps now if you haven't already. If you do, it may go better for you at your criminal hearing. If you show up in court just as clueless about how really over the edge your conduct really was as your post so far makes you appear still to be, you will probably get the book thrown at you.
> Do I have a leg to stand on here?
Yes, get counseling and throw yourself on the mercy of the court. Seriously, I mean it. Otherwise you will come across to the judge as an unrepentant jerk looking for nonexistent loopholes to excuse your outrageous behavior..
> I fully recognize that I behaved
> ridiculously yesterday
Good, that's a start. But "ridiculously" doesn't go far enough. Comedians act ridiculously, and people laugh. Al Qaida terrorists who fly planes into buildings act outrageously, unspeakably, but they are not ridiculous. Nobody laughs. Which do you think is closer to what you did, in the mind of your ex?
> but I have never ever laid a finger on another
> human being and had no intention of keeping the modem
Um, I think you still don't get it. You BROKE INTO HER HOUSE, and you did it WHILE SHE WAS THERE, and you were ANGRY AND DRUNK, and you SCARED THE LIVING DAYLIGHTS out of her. Who gives a crap whether you intended to keep the modem or just wanted to figuratively give the bitch a well deserved spanking by taking it? (Pardon my French but that's the way your attitude comes across).
> I feel like
> the officers were trying to beef up the charges to maximize the
> penalty.
Sir, the larceny of modem charge is NOT the worst of the charges you face. And frankly, your argument that you took it for "disciplinary reasons" does not assist your main case. The bottom line is, your conduct VIOLATED this gal's private space and her right to peace of mind and security in her own home, in just about every way possible (short of physical battering or rape, but the mental effect on her of what you did is similar). Until you recognize that, you will not be helping optimize your own outcome from this mess.
> There was also an ensuing 209A which I didn't refute
I don't know what that is so I snopped the rest of that paragraph. If it was some form of a peace order barring you from approaching her or her premises, it seems well justified. Be GLAD you didn't take that opportunity to push your "I just took the modem to mentally slap the ho around a bit" argument.
> anyhow any advice? I have a public defender who seems to be a good guy
Yes, my advice is, follow your lawyer's advice.
> but he never mentioned to me yesterday that I did indeed have a right
> to refute the necessity for the 209A
He probably was thinking the same thing I'm thinking. What were _you_ thinking? What would you have refuted it with? "Judge, I didn't mean to keep the modem, I just wanted to teach the cheating floozy a lesson?"
> and I'm not thrilled about that
> either.
Think about it for awhile, and you may change your tune. Meanwhile, get counseling. Good luck turning your life around, and I mean that too.
--
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)