On Sep 21, 6:33 am, prucker <pjr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Personal property tax debt suit has been filed in District Court,
> Dallas County, Texas against my brother in law who is deceased.
Was he served with process, before he died? Had he already filed an answer to the complaint, either pro se (representing himself) or by his legal counsel? Or was he already dead when the suit was filed?
> I understand I should file a "Suggestion of death" with the court
Why do you feel "I should" do this? IMO you have no obligation unless you're the lawyer representing your BIL in a pending suit in which he's already been served. But I don't know TX law and YMMV.
In general, the only reason a "suggestion of death" needs to be filed is that a suit by, or against, a dead person is a legal nullity. A lawyer whose client dies while suit is pending, no longer has a client on whose behalf he can legally do anything further in the suit, unless and until the proper substitute party is brought in -- usually, that is the personal representative (sometimes called "executor" or "administrator") of the decedent's estate. The "suggestion" is a formal filing that puts everyone concerned on legal notice that a party (over whom the court has already acquired jurisdiction) has died and that the PR therefore needs to be substituted.
Once a person has been served with process and is participating in the suit by counsel, legal ethics require the lawyer for the opposing side to have no further direct contact with him, but only thru his lawyer. So the lawyer for the tax authority has no easy way of knowing your BIL died _after_ he was served, unless BIL's lawyer tells him, by filing such a paper. As you state below, this filing is a formal notice that starts the clock ticking for the plaintiff to amend his suit to name the personal representative of BIL's estate (they probably do not need to individually sue all his "heirs" as you state) as the nominal defendant.
Service of process on the defendant is the necessary first step for the court to acquire personal jurisdiction over him and this is a requirement of 5th and 14th amendment "due process": you know, the part that says no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. If BIL has not yet been served, no one on your side of the case needs to do _anything_ IMO unless there is some peculiar (and possibly unconstitutional) quirk of TX law I don't know about.
> and the suit will have to be changed within 90 days to be against his
> heirs or it will be dismissed.
Why do you feel that is _your_ problem to solve? If plaintiff is unable to serve your BIL (perhaps because he's dead) they will have to figure this out on their own. You have no duty to help them sue BIL's estate.
> BTW, there is no estate.
By definition, there's _always_ an estate. What I think you may mean is, "BIL's estate is worthless" or "his estate has no assets", or "we the heirs are not planning to submit the estate to probate". If someone is being sued on a matter that survives his death (I don't know if a TX personal property tax claim is such) most USA states have a procedure whereby the plaintiff may open a probate estate for the decedent solely for purposes of having a party they can sue, even over the objections and without the cooperation of the natural heirs. And such a suit may be able to seize assets of the decedent that would not otherwise have to pass thru probate.
> His business
> equipment is worthless, but available to be seized.
See, you recognize he _does_ have an estate, even if you the heirs were not planning to do anything about it.
> I mailed certified
> letters and death certificates to the legal firm who filed the suit
> and to the District Court clerk.
IMO you had no duty to do that, but it's not like you were giving away state secrets -- the plaintiff firm could have looked him up in the state or county vital records if they were wondering why they were unable to serve him, and they would eventually figure it out on their own.
> The clerk didn't know if this was
> sufficient to be the "Suggestion of death" filing - she did put my
> letter and the death certificate in the casefile.
It may or may not be what TX procedure requires the lawyer of a person who dies after being served to do, but again, IMO unless you are BIL's lawyer, you are simply being a volunteer with no legal obligation when you are doing these things. The legal term "officious intermeddler" was invented to describe this type of getting legally involved in matters where you are not required to do so because they are really no official business of yours.
> I called the lawfirm
> and had to leave a voicemail. Do I have to go to the Court, by Monday
> (the date my brother in law was directed to appear)
OK, finally you imply that BIL may in fact have been served, but you give no hint whether or not this happened before he died. If the process papers came after he died, I'm guessing they were handed to someone else in BIL's household, as many states' service of process rules permit? Or were they sent to BIL's address by certified mail and someone of his relatives signed for the receipt?
In either event, though, I'm guessing that no actual appearance in person on the appointed date is required even of a live defendant; that is just the deadline by which a written answer needs to be filed with the court clerk. But TX law on this may be weird and YMMV.
And even more, why do YOU feel you need to be the one to appear in court, or file any papers? You can't appear in court on behalf of someone else unless you are a member of the bar. So, even if all the stuff you've been doing was necessary (as I'm not sure it was) YOU WILL DEFINITELY need to hire a lawyer for BIL's estate if you intend to take it to the next step, i.e. filing a written answer, and entering an appearance on behalf of BIL's estate.
> to file something
> else that is the "suggestion of death". I'm trying to help out my
> sister in law and her kids. Thanks for your help.
The best thing you can do to help them now is to hire a lawyer to do this because, frankly, what you are doing sounds awfully lot like practicing law without a license.
This lawyer you consult may be able to give you simple, quick, cheap advice that no further procedure is necessary, and that there is no further liability exposure to the heirs; that's certainly worth paying for half an hour of his time, or he may even tell you that for free in an initial consultation (be sure to ask first).
Or, he may tell you that it is necessary to open an estate, appoint a PR, and have a lawyer enter an appearance and fight the suit, if you and your fellow heirs want any hope of not winding up in the poorhouse yourself because otherwise the tax authorities will seize your house, etc.
I really don't know which will be the case here based on your sketchy post, but once you give a local lawyer all the facts he can tell you which, and can be of great help either way. So, you need to consult a local lawyer versed in TX tax law and familiar with local procedure and follow his advice. If you don't, and if you continue to try this equivalent of a do-it-yourself appendectomy, don't say I didn't warn you. 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
Monday, August 20, 2012
Church schism dispute, part 2
On Sep 17, 8:07 am, Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> When I was a kid, I belonged to a particularly sectarian Lutheran
> congregation. The church's constitution (and presumably its articles
> of incorporation, at least by reference) contained a statement that
> in the event of a schism all assets would be allocated to the part of
> the congregation that still followed the true faith as set out in
> various documents such as the Augsburg Confession.
>
> Even at the time, I remember thinking that it would be a real hair
> ball to litigate that claim.
>
> In fact there never was such a schism, but if there were, what would
> a court do?
I'm a bit rusty on this; 25 years ago, I wrote my law review case study on an antitrust dispute between the National Conference of Catholic Bishops - who reserved to themselves the right to put an imprimatur ("seal of approval") on all Catholic prayerbooks published in the USA - and a renegade publisher who came out with a competing, "unofficial" breviary (a prayerbook for priests) that was taking away sales from the "approved" publishers before the bishops ordered a boycott of the unapproved texts. The upshot was, the court ruled it was OK to impose antitrust liability on NCCB for organizing the boycott even though the bishops claimed the boycott was doctrinally based because their imprimatur was necessary to assure that Catholic prayerbooks did not contain any heretical material.* The court relied on the same principle as applied to allow the law to ban polygamy, etc. The court doesn't care whether or not a marriage, or a book, is orthodox or heterodox in the eyes of the church. All it cares about is that the secular law be obeyed, and for a monopoly business to boycott an upstart competitor is just as illegal as having multiple wives regardless of the reasons why either the bishops, or the polygamists, believed their religion told them they had to do this.
Anyway, in your situation, if the factions couldn't agree, the court would indeed have to decide who gets to keep the property, but it wouldn't do so by deciding doctrinal issues regardless of what the church bylaws said. It would rather ignore those doctrinal issues and decide the case on secular principles. Most likely, the majority faction would get to keep the property, regardless of whether they were the ones closer to Martin Luther's original principles.
You may have heard about a schism recently in the Episcopal church where the majority factions of a number of local congregations here in the Mid-Atlantic, including the eponymous Falls Church in Falls Church, VA (one of several where Geo. Washington used to worship), broke away from the American episcopal leadership (whatever it is called) and affiliated themselves with a Nigerian Anglican archbishop whom they felt was truer to the traditional church than the pro-gay, pro-female ordination Americans. The breakaway faction got to keep the church buildings because they were bigger. The minorities, who wanted to remain loyal to the American Episcopal movement, went and started their own, smaller congregations.
> Someone would have to decide which of the two daughter corporations
> owned the land and buildings and bank accounts, and if not a court
> then who?
One would hope that, if both sides consider doctrinal issues to be important, they would agree to submit to private arbitration by a body learned in church law. Frex, orthodox Jews having disputes with each other will go to a Bet Din ("house of judgment", the term for any panel of 3 observant rabbis who agree to arbitrate a dispute among Jews) who will decide the issues according to halacha (religious law based on the Bible and Talmud). The secular courts won't get involved in deciding Talmudic issues, but the parties' contractual agreement to submit to the Bet Din is secularly binding and the courts will enforce the result reached by the Bet Din if one party breaches the settlement. Similary, Roman Catholics can submit to a Canon Law court run by the church hierarchy, and Moslems can go to a Shari'a court. I'm not sure what the equivalent would be for Lutherans -- maybe the synod that had (up to the point of the schism) been recognized by the congregation itself as its governing or coordinating body vis a vis other Lutheran congregations.
Otherwise, the court will probably just award the property to the majority faction as the continuation of the original congregation.
> I don't see how a court could duck this because deciding
> who owns disputed property is done by courts in our society.
Right. They wouldn't duck it, but they wouldn't get involved in resolving doctrinal issues to decide the case.
> I can
> imagine both sides would have to call expert testimony to show why
> they were following the Confession and other documents and therefore
> deserved the assets.
Actually they could do that if they submitted to a (private and religiously based) canonical court or panel. That is the appropriate place for such doctrinal disputes to be hashed out. The secular courts would be happy to decide who gets the property but in doing so they would simply ignore any doctrinal reasons for why one or the other group should be preferred and will rely only on secular principles as applied to the facts -- probably meaning, simple majority wins.
* Personally, when I wrote my law review article, I took the side of the bishops, arguing it made no sense to apply secular antitrust boycott law to a situation where the bishops were deciding what their loyal followers could and couldn't read or buy if they wished to remain within the faith and not be heretical. IMO that was the whole point of a church body _having_ control over doctrine, the right to preach to their congregations against involvement in _religious_ activities or products that would endanger their faith. To me, bishops telling their flocks not to buy a particular prayerbook whose only market was members of their particular faith and which the bishops had determined was not an orthodox expression of that faith, was fundamentally different from preachers urging their congregations (and others) to boycott other, purely secular and legal, broadly marketed activities or products they viewed as sinful (or as eating into their profits). But that's not what the court held; the court that decided the NCCB case seems to have essentially concluded that the bishops' purported doctrinal reason for boycotting the non-imprimatured book was a pretext, and that their only real reason was to shut down a business competitor, which is secularly illegal.
--
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
> When I was a kid, I belonged to a particularly sectarian Lutheran
> congregation. The church's constitution (and presumably its articles
> of incorporation, at least by reference) contained a statement that
> in the event of a schism all assets would be allocated to the part of
> the congregation that still followed the true faith as set out in
> various documents such as the Augsburg Confession.
>
> Even at the time, I remember thinking that it would be a real hair
> ball to litigate that claim.
>
> In fact there never was such a schism, but if there were, what would
> a court do?
I'm a bit rusty on this; 25 years ago, I wrote my law review case study on an antitrust dispute between the National Conference of Catholic Bishops - who reserved to themselves the right to put an imprimatur ("seal of approval") on all Catholic prayerbooks published in the USA - and a renegade publisher who came out with a competing, "unofficial" breviary (a prayerbook for priests) that was taking away sales from the "approved" publishers before the bishops ordered a boycott of the unapproved texts. The upshot was, the court ruled it was OK to impose antitrust liability on NCCB for organizing the boycott even though the bishops claimed the boycott was doctrinally based because their imprimatur was necessary to assure that Catholic prayerbooks did not contain any heretical material.* The court relied on the same principle as applied to allow the law to ban polygamy, etc. The court doesn't care whether or not a marriage, or a book, is orthodox or heterodox in the eyes of the church. All it cares about is that the secular law be obeyed, and for a monopoly business to boycott an upstart competitor is just as illegal as having multiple wives regardless of the reasons why either the bishops, or the polygamists, believed their religion told them they had to do this.
Anyway, in your situation, if the factions couldn't agree, the court would indeed have to decide who gets to keep the property, but it wouldn't do so by deciding doctrinal issues regardless of what the church bylaws said. It would rather ignore those doctrinal issues and decide the case on secular principles. Most likely, the majority faction would get to keep the property, regardless of whether they were the ones closer to Martin Luther's original principles.
You may have heard about a schism recently in the Episcopal church where the majority factions of a number of local congregations here in the Mid-Atlantic, including the eponymous Falls Church in Falls Church, VA (one of several where Geo. Washington used to worship), broke away from the American episcopal leadership (whatever it is called) and affiliated themselves with a Nigerian Anglican archbishop whom they felt was truer to the traditional church than the pro-gay, pro-female ordination Americans. The breakaway faction got to keep the church buildings because they were bigger. The minorities, who wanted to remain loyal to the American Episcopal movement, went and started their own, smaller congregations.
> Someone would have to decide which of the two daughter corporations
> owned the land and buildings and bank accounts, and if not a court
> then who?
One would hope that, if both sides consider doctrinal issues to be important, they would agree to submit to private arbitration by a body learned in church law. Frex, orthodox Jews having disputes with each other will go to a Bet Din ("house of judgment", the term for any panel of 3 observant rabbis who agree to arbitrate a dispute among Jews) who will decide the issues according to halacha (religious law based on the Bible and Talmud). The secular courts won't get involved in deciding Talmudic issues, but the parties' contractual agreement to submit to the Bet Din is secularly binding and the courts will enforce the result reached by the Bet Din if one party breaches the settlement. Similary, Roman Catholics can submit to a Canon Law court run by the church hierarchy, and Moslems can go to a Shari'a court. I'm not sure what the equivalent would be for Lutherans -- maybe the synod that had (up to the point of the schism) been recognized by the congregation itself as its governing or coordinating body vis a vis other Lutheran congregations.
Otherwise, the court will probably just award the property to the majority faction as the continuation of the original congregation.
> I don't see how a court could duck this because deciding
> who owns disputed property is done by courts in our society.
Right. They wouldn't duck it, but they wouldn't get involved in resolving doctrinal issues to decide the case.
> I can
> imagine both sides would have to call expert testimony to show why
> they were following the Confession and other documents and therefore
> deserved the assets.
Actually they could do that if they submitted to a (private and religiously based) canonical court or panel. That is the appropriate place for such doctrinal disputes to be hashed out. The secular courts would be happy to decide who gets the property but in doing so they would simply ignore any doctrinal reasons for why one or the other group should be preferred and will rely only on secular principles as applied to the facts -- probably meaning, simple majority wins.
* Personally, when I wrote my law review article, I took the side of the bishops, arguing it made no sense to apply secular antitrust boycott law to a situation where the bishops were deciding what their loyal followers could and couldn't read or buy if they wished to remain within the faith and not be heretical. IMO that was the whole point of a church body _having_ control over doctrine, the right to preach to their congregations against involvement in _religious_ activities or products that would endanger their faith. To me, bishops telling their flocks not to buy a particular prayerbook whose only market was members of their particular faith and which the bishops had determined was not an orthodox expression of that faith, was fundamentally different from preachers urging their congregations (and others) to boycott other, purely secular and legal, broadly marketed activities or products they viewed as sinful (or as eating into their profits). But that's not what the court held; the court that decided the NCCB case seems to have essentially concluded that the bishops' purported doctrinal reason for boycotting the non-imprimatured book was a pretext, and that their only real reason was to shut down a business competitor, which is secularly illegal.
--
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
Church schism dispute
On Sep 15, 7:55 am, "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:27 am, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > So long as this is a different matter than he previously handled for the
> > church, then the attorney is not "switching sides" and it is OK.
>
> The OP said the attorney first represented the church and now
> represents the minister. I'm having trouble understanding how that is
> "switching sides". Sounds like the same side.
It's not quite that simple. First of all, matters dealing with internal church doctrine and ritual are usually things the secular law in USA will have nothing to say about whatsoever,* due to the 1st amendment prohibition on excessive government entanglement with religion. From that point of view, the legal system cannot get involved in a congregation's decision to fire or hire a minister whose main job is to preach church doctrine and carry out the ritual practices of the church.
* Unless that doctrine and practice calls for actions that would seriously breach other, secular laws whether or not done for religious purposes. Followers of a religion that preaches human sacrifice can be prevented from performing ritual murder and/or prosecuted criminally if they do so, and ditto for a religion that preaches polygamy or drug use (with the exception of certain Native American cults, for different reasons).
The law _may_ be invoked by one or the other party, if the dispute involves matters that impact on the secular rights and liabilities of the disputants, such as title to church property even when 2 different groups in the congregation each claim to be the true embodiment of the church as it existed before the schism, and characterizes the other group as the heretical one trying to break away. The court has to decide which group gets to keep the building, if there is property owned by the congregation. But they don't decide which one is the bearer of the "true faith" or whether a minister's preaching is doctrinally orthodox or heterodox.
Assuming, for sake of argument, that OP was talking about a situation where the law _could_ get involved, and where 2 opposing factions of the congregation each claimed the right to church property, it is conceivable that the lawyer who had previously represented the entire congregation may be placed in a possible conflict of interest situation if, after the split, he is called upon to represent one faction against another. The better part of valor for the lawyer would usually be to have no part of representing either side, since he has "insider information" that might be used against the interests of a group that could claim to be the true successor of his former client; let each side in the dispute get a new lawyer. But there are also plenty of imaginable scenarios where he is perfectly justified in continuing to represent one faction or the other, if he chooses. Moreover, if his original representation was considered to be of the minister, not of the congregation, and if he desires to continue representing the minister even after part or all of the congregation turns against the minister, there is no conflict at all; his client remains that same individual person.
In general, putting aside the religious aspects of the situation, it is quite common for there to be confusion over who is the client, where a lawyer deals mainly with certain corporate bigwigs but where his actual client is the corporation. This conundrum arises more often these days under various pieces of legislation that basically require a corporate lawyer to blow the whistle on insider wrongdoing when he finds out about it, a la Enron. Plenty of continuing-legal-education providers are making big bucks offering seminars on the ins and outs and minutiae of these requirements, so I couldn't begin to explain it all here, but that's likely not what's going on in OP's case.
Bottom line is, if OP belongs to the opposite faction from the one which the minister and the lawyer currently are sticking with, then OP's faction needs to get their own lawyer, who, among other things, will be happy to advise them on whether there is any legal grounds to ask a court to force the original lawyer to cease representing the minister and withdraw from the dispute. And without knowing all the facts it is impossible for us here to tell whether he would have to do so or not.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> On Sep 14, 4:27 am, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > So long as this is a different matter than he previously handled for the
> > church, then the attorney is not "switching sides" and it is OK.
>
> The OP said the attorney first represented the church and now
> represents the minister. I'm having trouble understanding how that is
> "switching sides". Sounds like the same side.
It's not quite that simple. First of all, matters dealing with internal church doctrine and ritual are usually things the secular law in USA will have nothing to say about whatsoever,* due to the 1st amendment prohibition on excessive government entanglement with religion. From that point of view, the legal system cannot get involved in a congregation's decision to fire or hire a minister whose main job is to preach church doctrine and carry out the ritual practices of the church.
* Unless that doctrine and practice calls for actions that would seriously breach other, secular laws whether or not done for religious purposes. Followers of a religion that preaches human sacrifice can be prevented from performing ritual murder and/or prosecuted criminally if they do so, and ditto for a religion that preaches polygamy or drug use (with the exception of certain Native American cults, for different reasons).
The law _may_ be invoked by one or the other party, if the dispute involves matters that impact on the secular rights and liabilities of the disputants, such as title to church property even when 2 different groups in the congregation each claim to be the true embodiment of the church as it existed before the schism, and characterizes the other group as the heretical one trying to break away. The court has to decide which group gets to keep the building, if there is property owned by the congregation. But they don't decide which one is the bearer of the "true faith" or whether a minister's preaching is doctrinally orthodox or heterodox.
Assuming, for sake of argument, that OP was talking about a situation where the law _could_ get involved, and where 2 opposing factions of the congregation each claimed the right to church property, it is conceivable that the lawyer who had previously represented the entire congregation may be placed in a possible conflict of interest situation if, after the split, he is called upon to represent one faction against another. The better part of valor for the lawyer would usually be to have no part of representing either side, since he has "insider information" that might be used against the interests of a group that could claim to be the true successor of his former client; let each side in the dispute get a new lawyer. But there are also plenty of imaginable scenarios where he is perfectly justified in continuing to represent one faction or the other, if he chooses. Moreover, if his original representation was considered to be of the minister, not of the congregation, and if he desires to continue representing the minister even after part or all of the congregation turns against the minister, there is no conflict at all; his client remains that same individual person.
In general, putting aside the religious aspects of the situation, it is quite common for there to be confusion over who is the client, where a lawyer deals mainly with certain corporate bigwigs but where his actual client is the corporation. This conundrum arises more often these days under various pieces of legislation that basically require a corporate lawyer to blow the whistle on insider wrongdoing when he finds out about it, a la Enron. Plenty of continuing-legal-education providers are making big bucks offering seminars on the ins and outs and minutiae of these requirements, so I couldn't begin to explain it all here, but that's likely not what's going on in OP's case.
Bottom line is, if OP belongs to the opposite faction from the one which the minister and the lawyer currently are sticking with, then OP's faction needs to get their own lawyer, who, among other things, will be happy to advise them on whether there is any legal grounds to ask a court to force the original lawyer to cease representing the minister and withdraw from the dispute. And without knowing all the facts it is impossible for us here to tell whether he would have to do so or not.
--
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
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Corporate protection from liability?
On Sep 11, 7:07 am, ymg200 <ymg...@excite.com> wrote:
> I want to start a website which goal would be civil rights advocacy.
> The website will be providing information/news and analysis.
If you step over the line from providing information into providing legal advice you may open a big can of worms. Legal advice for _you_ on how not to do that would be a real good idea.
> I want to
> register the company for this purpose and I need an advice how to
> structure the company (LLC/SMLLC, as a general partner/limited partner
> etc.) so that I have protection from personal liability.
I'm afraid you are a victim of an urban myth. No form of corporate structure is going to shield the person who actually does the work from personal liability for any harm he may tortiously cause to others. Plenty of doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers, frex, are set up as an LLC or PC and still can get sued individually for malpractice if they are the individuals who screwed up and harmed a client/patient.
The only thing a corporate structure protects you from individually in your role as a shareholder and/or officer of the corporation, is personal liability for the contracted debts of the corporation. And if your creditors require you to sign a personal guarantee of corporate debts, as they are likely to do for a one-person startup business, you don't even have that protection.
So, you may want to consult a lawyer to see if it makes sense for you to have any corporate structure at all, given your plans.
> Where I can get such an advice? What kind of lawyer should be able to
> give me an advice how to structure a company so that it suits my
> goals?
One who has experience advising clients in setting up businesses, including nonprofits (if that's what you have in mind). The best way you can find one who fits your needs is to ask friends who have also started businesses, and/or start calling lawyers in your area, and ask to see who does that kind of work and who they would recommend. When you consistently find one name cropping up whose ability is respected by his peers and clients, that's who you should call for an appointment. 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 want to start a website which goal would be civil rights advocacy.
> The website will be providing information/news and analysis.
If you step over the line from providing information into providing legal advice you may open a big can of worms. Legal advice for _you_ on how not to do that would be a real good idea.
> I want to
> register the company for this purpose and I need an advice how to
> structure the company (LLC/SMLLC, as a general partner/limited partner
> etc.) so that I have protection from personal liability.
I'm afraid you are a victim of an urban myth. No form of corporate structure is going to shield the person who actually does the work from personal liability for any harm he may tortiously cause to others. Plenty of doctors, lawyers, architects and engineers, frex, are set up as an LLC or PC and still can get sued individually for malpractice if they are the individuals who screwed up and harmed a client/patient.
The only thing a corporate structure protects you from individually in your role as a shareholder and/or officer of the corporation, is personal liability for the contracted debts of the corporation. And if your creditors require you to sign a personal guarantee of corporate debts, as they are likely to do for a one-person startup business, you don't even have that protection.
So, you may want to consult a lawyer to see if it makes sense for you to have any corporate structure at all, given your plans.
> Where I can get such an advice? What kind of lawyer should be able to
> give me an advice how to structure a company so that it suits my
> goals?
One who has experience advising clients in setting up businesses, including nonprofits (if that's what you have in mind). The best way you can find one who fits your needs is to ask friends who have also started businesses, and/or start calling lawyers in your area, and ask to see who does that kind of work and who they would recommend. When you consistently find one name cropping up whose ability is respected by his peers and clients, that's who you should call for an appointment. 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
Operative effect of statutory headings?
On Sep 11, 7:07 am, hifi...@gmail.com wrote:
> To cut to the chase, below is the bylaw in my Massachusetts town. The
> title excludes single and two-family structures from this particular
> law. Is the title legally part of the law, or just considered
> informational. Could text of the law, which does not mention the
> exclusion, be applied to such structures?
Impossible to tell just from this one snippet.
Are there other sections of the code specifically dealing with nonconforming single and two-family structures?
Is there a section of the code that provides definitions and/or that specifically states whether the titles are considered part of the text or merely informative?
And most importantly, what is your factual situation and the result you want to achieve? The approach of the law often differs depending on which side of it you are on, with regard to things such as legal presumptions, burden of proof and persuasion. That's what is usually meant by aphorisms such as "possession is nine points of the law."
So, are you trying to prevent someone with a single family home in your neighborhood from making an addition? Are you a homeowner who wants to make an addition yourself? How is it that you _want_ the law to apply, or not apply? Knowing _all_ the relevant facts, and _all_ the pertinent law, i.e. how your factual situation fits into the entire statutory scheme, will help you figure out how to get from point A to point B. If you can't do that on your own, you may want to consult and hire a lawyer.
--
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
> To cut to the chase, below is the bylaw in my Massachusetts town. The
> title excludes single and two-family structures from this particular
> law. Is the title legally part of the law, or just considered
> informational. Could text of the law, which does not mention the
> exclusion, be applied to such structures?
Impossible to tell just from this one snippet.
Are there other sections of the code specifically dealing with nonconforming single and two-family structures?
Is there a section of the code that provides definitions and/or that specifically states whether the titles are considered part of the text or merely informative?
And most importantly, what is your factual situation and the result you want to achieve? The approach of the law often differs depending on which side of it you are on, with regard to things such as legal presumptions, burden of proof and persuasion. That's what is usually meant by aphorisms such as "possession is nine points of the law."
So, are you trying to prevent someone with a single family home in your neighborhood from making an addition? Are you a homeowner who wants to make an addition yourself? How is it that you _want_ the law to apply, or not apply? Knowing _all_ the relevant facts, and _all_ the pertinent law, i.e. how your factual situation fits into the entire statutory scheme, will help you figure out how to get from point A to point B. If you can't do that on your own, you may want to consult and hire a lawyer.
--
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
Legislative factfinding vs. creative new scams
On Sep 11, 7:07 am, Stan <stanle...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Another interesting point on this. A TV news reporter caught the
> employees of a Manhattan parking garage is a residential area parking
> customer cars onto the street as soon as the street cleaner passed,
> and moving them only if someone who wanted to park on the street paid
> them $10 (they were parked as far apart as possible while allowing no
> more room at the curb). I wonder how many laws were violated, and
> how hard it would be to prosecute.
My guess is, there wasn't any specific law against it at the time, and classic Yankee ingenuity took advantage of an opportunity to make a buck using a little "presence" in the neighborhood to protect their turf. Which is why the TV did a report on this abuse; if people already knew about it and politicians (or their constituents) were already outraged enough to have passed a law against it, it wouldn't be news anymore.
One of the main reasons new laws keep needing to be passed is, people keep thinking up new ways to screw their neighbor that aren't against the law, yet. Legislative factfinding (e.g. Congressional investigations) are geared not toward uncovering crime, but toward uncovering shady activity that ought to be a crime, so that the legislature can pass a law against it.
--
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
> Another interesting point on this. A TV news reporter caught the
> employees of a Manhattan parking garage is a residential area parking
> customer cars onto the street as soon as the street cleaner passed,
> and moving them only if someone who wanted to park on the street paid
> them $10 (they were parked as far apart as possible while allowing no
> more room at the curb). I wonder how many laws were violated, and
> how hard it would be to prosecute.
My guess is, there wasn't any specific law against it at the time, and classic Yankee ingenuity took advantage of an opportunity to make a buck using a little "presence" in the neighborhood to protect their turf. Which is why the TV did a report on this abuse; if people already knew about it and politicians (or their constituents) were already outraged enough to have passed a law against it, it wouldn't be news anymore.
One of the main reasons new laws keep needing to be passed is, people keep thinking up new ways to screw their neighbor that aren't against the law, yet. Legislative factfinding (e.g. Congressional investigations) are geared not toward uncovering crime, but toward uncovering shady activity that ought to be a crime, so that the legislature can pass a law against it.
--
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
High - low settlement agreements
On Sep 11, 7:07 am, jcyeo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Assume that the claimant has offered to settle for $5 million and the
> respondent has offered to settle for $2 million. Therefore they
> cannot reach a settlement and they proceed to trial.
* * *
> They agree that if the claimant wins, the respondent will not have to
> pay more than $5 million, regardless of what the jury awards. Also,
> If the jury awards the claimant less than $2 million, the respondent
> will pay the claimant $2 million. Only if the award is greater than
> $2 million or less than $5 million will the resondent pay the
> claimant the exact amount of the award.
Around here we call that simply a "high-low" agreement. Of course, the terms of any such agreement need to be kept secret from the fact-finder to avoid biasing the results.
You didn't ask, but it is far more common for such cases to be submitted to private arbitration once this much of an accord is reached rather than a full blown jury trial. Going to trial typically is a lot more expensive than arbitration in terms of expert fees for live testimony (multiple doctors, economists, life care planners, vocational rehab counselors, accident reconstructionists, engineering/product defect experts, and so on), fancy demonstrative exhibits, focus groups, etc. not to mention the huge savings in time in presenting such a major case that might take weeks to fully try. The arbitrator is not bound by the formal rules of evidence so most such info can be presented at arbitration in the form of written reports rather than live testimony from experts, which the arbitrator can consider either before or after the actual hearing, and only the claimant (and occasionally other fact witnesses to the extent of his damages) usually needs to actually testify.
It is usually only when a defendant (or its insurer) wants to insist on the chance of getting a complete defense verdict ($0 to the plaintiff) that they insist on a formal jury trial (or force the plaintiff to do so by coming nowhere near the plaintiff's lowest settlement figure in making their offer). As you recognize, in a trial the risk is much greater for both sides.
--
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
> Assume that the claimant has offered to settle for $5 million and the
> respondent has offered to settle for $2 million. Therefore they
> cannot reach a settlement and they proceed to trial.
* * *
> They agree that if the claimant wins, the respondent will not have to
> pay more than $5 million, regardless of what the jury awards. Also,
> If the jury awards the claimant less than $2 million, the respondent
> will pay the claimant $2 million. Only if the award is greater than
> $2 million or less than $5 million will the resondent pay the
> claimant the exact amount of the award.
Around here we call that simply a "high-low" agreement. Of course, the terms of any such agreement need to be kept secret from the fact-finder to avoid biasing the results.
You didn't ask, but it is far more common for such cases to be submitted to private arbitration once this much of an accord is reached rather than a full blown jury trial. Going to trial typically is a lot more expensive than arbitration in terms of expert fees for live testimony (multiple doctors, economists, life care planners, vocational rehab counselors, accident reconstructionists, engineering/product defect experts, and so on), fancy demonstrative exhibits, focus groups, etc. not to mention the huge savings in time in presenting such a major case that might take weeks to fully try. The arbitrator is not bound by the formal rules of evidence so most such info can be presented at arbitration in the form of written reports rather than live testimony from experts, which the arbitrator can consider either before or after the actual hearing, and only the claimant (and occasionally other fact witnesses to the extent of his damages) usually needs to actually testify.
It is usually only when a defendant (or its insurer) wants to insist on the chance of getting a complete defense verdict ($0 to the plaintiff) that they insist on a formal jury trial (or force the plaintiff to do so by coming nowhere near the plaintiff's lowest settlement figure in making their offer). As you recognize, in a trial the risk is much greater for both sides.
--
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
Well easement: relatives dispute cost of repairs
On Sep 6, 7:24 am, JH...@excite.com wrote:
[cheapskate nephew reneged on verbal agreement to split cost of pump repairs for shared water from drilled well for which OP owns an easement on OP's brother's adjacent land]
> I want to teach him a life lesson and shut off the water.No pay-No
> play!!!!
If you decide to do that, do it in a calm, reasonable way as an adult. That would be the proper life lesson to teach. Don't, under any circumstances, do the sort of things that angry people do when they say they are "teaching someone a lesson" or you will live to regret it deeply. Don't turn this into a huffy "I'm going to take my ball and go home if we don't do it my way" playground tiff.
> If I do this it opens up a 18 year old argument from my wifes
> brother( that I am really sick of hearing) that the water sits on his
> land.
His land, yes, but your easement. You own all the rights to the well. Why is that difficult for everyone to understand?
> Because this was done 100% legal there is nothing he can do
> about it.
Wrong. There's plenty he can do about it. He's your neighbor, he's your brother, he knows which of your buttons he can push, and he can make your life miserable. Do you want that? Even if the legal system won't get involved, life is much happier if relatives can all play fair. What you do is work out the differences, perhaps by using pressure of the legal system to get them to agree in writing to an amendment to the easement (if you want that), but not just by shutting off his water without fair warning.
> Is my thinking correct? Any other advice on how to resolve this issue?
You need to recognize that part of the problem is your history of basing your water-sharing on a purely oral agreement. If you want to teach nephew that words and commitments are enforceable and mean something, you should have put it in writing at the beginning. It's not too late to do so now as a condition to his continued use of your well water.
IMO you need to get your lawyer involved in this again, have him write a letter to the nephew demanding payment, stating the reasons, and have him advise you on whether it is a good idea or not (from the point of view of your best interests) to try to get nephew to sign a written agreement and/or to amend the easement to add the nephew (along with a legal obligation to share the cost).
Intrafamily disputes are always tricky, so try your best to be the "adult" here, stay calm and be reasonable while not backing down on your rights. There is a big important difference between being a calm, immovable rock, properly assertive of your rights, and being an improperly aggressive jerk. 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
[cheapskate nephew reneged on verbal agreement to split cost of pump repairs for shared water from drilled well for which OP owns an easement on OP's brother's adjacent land]
> I want to teach him a life lesson and shut off the water.No pay-No
> play!!!!
If you decide to do that, do it in a calm, reasonable way as an adult. That would be the proper life lesson to teach. Don't, under any circumstances, do the sort of things that angry people do when they say they are "teaching someone a lesson" or you will live to regret it deeply. Don't turn this into a huffy "I'm going to take my ball and go home if we don't do it my way" playground tiff.
> If I do this it opens up a 18 year old argument from my wifes
> brother( that I am really sick of hearing) that the water sits on his
> land.
His land, yes, but your easement. You own all the rights to the well. Why is that difficult for everyone to understand?
> Because this was done 100% legal there is nothing he can do
> about it.
Wrong. There's plenty he can do about it. He's your neighbor, he's your brother, he knows which of your buttons he can push, and he can make your life miserable. Do you want that? Even if the legal system won't get involved, life is much happier if relatives can all play fair. What you do is work out the differences, perhaps by using pressure of the legal system to get them to agree in writing to an amendment to the easement (if you want that), but not just by shutting off his water without fair warning.
> Is my thinking correct? Any other advice on how to resolve this issue?
You need to recognize that part of the problem is your history of basing your water-sharing on a purely oral agreement. If you want to teach nephew that words and commitments are enforceable and mean something, you should have put it in writing at the beginning. It's not too late to do so now as a condition to his continued use of your well water.
IMO you need to get your lawyer involved in this again, have him write a letter to the nephew demanding payment, stating the reasons, and have him advise you on whether it is a good idea or not (from the point of view of your best interests) to try to get nephew to sign a written agreement and/or to amend the easement to add the nephew (along with a legal obligation to share the cost).
Intrafamily disputes are always tricky, so try your best to be the "adult" here, stay calm and be reasonable while not backing down on your rights. There is a big important difference between being a calm, immovable rock, properly assertive of your rights, and being an improperly aggressive jerk. 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
Wrongful death claims
On Sep 6, 7:24 am, Willie Wills <WillieWills010...@cox.net> wrote:
> Saw a news article about the police being sued by the parents of a
> suspect who died in their custody. Apparently someone else was also suing.
>
> Is there anything that keeps the girlfriend, then the mistress, then the
> brother, cousin, friend, neighbor etc from realistically suing the cops?
> Would the judge require everyone to combine the suit, or how does that
> really work?
Each state has its own statutory law regarding "wrongful death" suits. The requirements vary. Such suits were not allowed at common law, but AFAIK every state of USA now allows some kind of civil suit by relatives of a person who was wrongfully killed.
In MD, for example, only a single suit may be brought, and all of the relatives listed in the statute as having a part of the claim must be joined in the suit, whether they want to or not (those who are not actively participating are called "use plaintiffs" since the suit is brought by the active plaintiffs "for their own use, and for the use of" the others).
Assuming the suit goes to trial, the jury verdict will determine how much each of the relatives actually gets. Some may get nothing. The law specifies the basis on which each kind of relative can claim damages, either for loss of financial support they would have received from the decedent if he had lived, or for their "loss of consortium" (for a surviving spouse) or "loss of solatium" (for parents, children, brothers and sisters) for the care, affection etc. they would have received from the decedent.
In addition to the wrongful death claim, the estate of the decedent also has by statute in most states, a so called "survival" claim for the tortious injuries, pain and suffering the decedent suffered while he was still alive, whether or not those injuries were the same ones that caused his death. The survival claim is brought by the executor (personal representative) of the estate. If the survival suit results in financial recovery, the funds go into the estate and are distributed along with the rest of the decedent's assets, according to the decedent's will, or if he has no will, per the intestacy laws.
--
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
> Saw a news article about the police being sued by the parents of a
> suspect who died in their custody. Apparently someone else was also suing.
>
> Is there anything that keeps the girlfriend, then the mistress, then the
> brother, cousin, friend, neighbor etc from realistically suing the cops?
> Would the judge require everyone to combine the suit, or how does that
> really work?
Each state has its own statutory law regarding "wrongful death" suits. The requirements vary. Such suits were not allowed at common law, but AFAIK every state of USA now allows some kind of civil suit by relatives of a person who was wrongfully killed.
In MD, for example, only a single suit may be brought, and all of the relatives listed in the statute as having a part of the claim must be joined in the suit, whether they want to or not (those who are not actively participating are called "use plaintiffs" since the suit is brought by the active plaintiffs "for their own use, and for the use of" the others).
Assuming the suit goes to trial, the jury verdict will determine how much each of the relatives actually gets. Some may get nothing. The law specifies the basis on which each kind of relative can claim damages, either for loss of financial support they would have received from the decedent if he had lived, or for their "loss of consortium" (for a surviving spouse) or "loss of solatium" (for parents, children, brothers and sisters) for the care, affection etc. they would have received from the decedent.
In addition to the wrongful death claim, the estate of the decedent also has by statute in most states, a so called "survival" claim for the tortious injuries, pain and suffering the decedent suffered while he was still alive, whether or not those injuries were the same ones that caused his death. The survival claim is brought by the executor (personal representative) of the estate. If the survival suit results in financial recovery, the funds go into the estate and are distributed along with the rest of the decedent's assets, according to the decedent's will, or if he has no will, per the intestacy laws.
--
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
Privacy and secrecy laws, national security breach?
On Sep 2, 7:09 am, Arthur Rubin <ronniru...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> Suppose that, through legitimate access to classified information, you
> know that a crime is being committed, or
* * *
> a serious breach of National Security or the probable injury
> to millions of people, as in "Silkwood".) To whom could one report it
> without violating the law?
Well, there's lots of different laws out there dealing with privacy, secrecy, and espionage in corporate, personal, and government contexts. Your hypo sounds like it would involve all 3 levels and one would have to carefully consider each of the various laws that may impinge on one's highly particular facts; your hypo is too general to give a specific answer. So it's really hard to tell whether, e.g. your protagonist could report his suspicions to a fellow government agent with an equal or higher security clearance, without thereby violating corporate trade secret protections. Conversely, he may not be allowed to report it to corporate higher-ups who would preserve trade secrecy if he may thereby be in violation of his government security clearance. You didn't make this easy, did you?
OTOH sometimes one may feel morally compelled to just cut the Gordian knot and blab, without regard to the formalities of the law. That is, of course, illegal and he is likely to be prosecuted and/or sued. One should do so only if one feels strongly that one must answer to a higher moral authority and is willing to accept the possible consequences. Not that I am advocating that, mind you, but it is one possible way your protagonist may resolve his dilemma. Think of Danial Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, if you want an actual historical example of how this kind of thing played out. But note with caution that depending on the current state of affairs in actual enforcement of the various secrecy laws, YMMV considerably.
--
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
> Suppose that, through legitimate access to classified information, you
> know that a crime is being committed, or
* * *
> a serious breach of National Security or the probable injury
> to millions of people, as in "Silkwood".) To whom could one report it
> without violating the law?
Well, there's lots of different laws out there dealing with privacy, secrecy, and espionage in corporate, personal, and government contexts. Your hypo sounds like it would involve all 3 levels and one would have to carefully consider each of the various laws that may impinge on one's highly particular facts; your hypo is too general to give a specific answer. So it's really hard to tell whether, e.g. your protagonist could report his suspicions to a fellow government agent with an equal or higher security clearance, without thereby violating corporate trade secret protections. Conversely, he may not be allowed to report it to corporate higher-ups who would preserve trade secrecy if he may thereby be in violation of his government security clearance. You didn't make this easy, did you?
OTOH sometimes one may feel morally compelled to just cut the Gordian knot and blab, without regard to the formalities of the law. That is, of course, illegal and he is likely to be prosecuted and/or sued. One should do so only if one feels strongly that one must answer to a higher moral authority and is willing to accept the possible consequences. Not that I am advocating that, mind you, but it is one possible way your protagonist may resolve his dilemma. Think of Danial Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, if you want an actual historical example of how this kind of thing played out. But note with caution that depending on the current state of affairs in actual enforcement of the various secrecy laws, YMMV considerably.
--
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)