On Sep 21, 6:34 am, "johnmoli...@yahoo.com" <johnmoli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I got a copy of the town ordinance and it reads "Failure to diplay a
> current registration or license plate on vehicle issued by the Florida
> Dept. of Motor Vehicles".
several of the followup posts have focused on "display a current registration" as if it required the actual registration _card_ (the dot-matrix-printer-generated carbon-paper thingie that has owner's name and address on it) to be visibly displayed where it can be seen from the outside of the vehicle. It never even occurred to me that's what it might have meant, and I've never heard of any state having such a requirement, now or even back as far as the 1950's. What most states _do_ require is that a current registration _sticker_ be placed on the metal license tag, every year or 2 or 3, to show the expiration date of the tags (in the old days, in some states they _did_ give you new metal tags each year). It's perfectly reasonable for a local or state law to require that vehicles parked on a public street display both license plates, and current registration _stickers_ affixed to those plates (I understand from another poster that NJ uses inspection stickers on the windshield or bumper instead, but it's the same idea). What I, and several others felt was not reasonable was to limit use of the street only to those displaying in-state tags and completely denying it to those with out-of-state tags.
One other poster mentioned the restricted-parking neighborhood in Baltimore, near the stadium and the inner harbor, that was gentrified in the 1970's as part of urban redevelopment and is now a quite nice place to live close to downtown. IIRC even there in places, and in many other localities I've seen that restrict parking except for neighborhood residents, they _do_ allow anyone to park there for a limited time (say, 1 or 2 hours), after which you would have to move your car, or pull it into a private driveway or garage (if you're visiting someone in the neighborhood). They do this to prevent a huge influx of daily commuters looking for cheap or free parking within walking distance of their downtown offices who would take every available space and leave nothing for residents, while still allowing the occasional visitor who actually has business in the neighborhood. And there, the qualification to park more than 2 hr. is having a "local resident" sticker issued by the authorities (often with a "zone" number in case your city has multiple such local parking zones) affixed to the vehicle, and signs on the street say something like "no parking except zone 4 residents with permit" or "2 hr parking 8am - 6pm except with zone 5 permit".
--
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
Contract statute of limitations, part 2
On Sep 26, 7:22 am, Mike <prabb...@shamrocksgf.com> wrote:
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
> > if you have already allowed the earlier statute to expire before
> > you found out about this distinction, you have nothing to lose by
> > filing suit anyway, and arguing for the interpretation that helps
> > you. Again, win or lose, the outcome of this discussion would have
> > no practical influence on _your_ behavior.
>
> Well, I believe he WOULD lose the filing fees and possibly some other
> expenses if he files and the SOL has already passed. Now that amount
> might be very small (if he's filing in small-claims court, he'd be out
> maybe $100 or so, max) but it's still something.
This is fascinating. I'm looking at the situation the way IMO any lawyer representing a client would, and it seems you're looking at it from the client's (or pro se litigant's) POV. What a difference.
First, let's be clear that I'm not advocating OP file suit in any court on a claim he knows is invalid. That would be improper.
But we're talking about a situation where there may be a basis to argue for an interpretation of the law that allows OP's written invoice to meet the legal requirement for a written "contract" (assuming that's what the CA law says and he isn't inaccurately paraphrasing in a way that is misleading us MLM respondents -- but all we have to go in is the scenario he provides). In such case, where the application of the law to the facts could go either way, my point as a lawyer representing a client would be, I dam well better file that claim ASAP after I find out about the 2 different SOLs, because any delay could possibly mean it is _my_ malpractice insurance that will wind up paying for the client's loss, rather than the defendant debtor. If in fact it turns out that the suit was timely, great. If it turns out it wasn't timely, then at least I did everything possible, and the reason it got booted out of court is that the client didn't bring me the case to file until it was already too late to file under the appropriate SOL as finally determined by the court. We're talking about the lawyer investing the small claims filing fee (which I'm guessing is a lot _less_ than $100; that's why it's "small claims", otherwise anybody with a debt that size would be effectively barred from getting justice. Here in MD the small claims filing fee is $5) which, even if he never gets it back from the client, surely saves an awfully big headache down the road when the disgruntled client says (perhaps rightfully) "it's _your_ fault we lost this one because you blew the SOL."
But even if it's $100, and even if OP intends to do this pro se, ISTM that investing that $100 in a filing fee so he can make his legal arguments and (possibly) salvage a claim worth maybe thousands, instead of just giving up and walking away from that claim, is usually a worthwhile risk that may pay off. If not, so long as he had a good faith argument that the longer SOL should apply, at least he tried.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> Mike Jacobs wrote:
> > if you have already allowed the earlier statute to expire before
> > you found out about this distinction, you have nothing to lose by
> > filing suit anyway, and arguing for the interpretation that helps
> > you. Again, win or lose, the outcome of this discussion would have
> > no practical influence on _your_ behavior.
>
> Well, I believe he WOULD lose the filing fees and possibly some other
> expenses if he files and the SOL has already passed. Now that amount
> might be very small (if he's filing in small-claims court, he'd be out
> maybe $100 or so, max) but it's still something.
This is fascinating. I'm looking at the situation the way IMO any lawyer representing a client would, and it seems you're looking at it from the client's (or pro se litigant's) POV. What a difference.
First, let's be clear that I'm not advocating OP file suit in any court on a claim he knows is invalid. That would be improper.
But we're talking about a situation where there may be a basis to argue for an interpretation of the law that allows OP's written invoice to meet the legal requirement for a written "contract" (assuming that's what the CA law says and he isn't inaccurately paraphrasing in a way that is misleading us MLM respondents -- but all we have to go in is the scenario he provides). In such case, where the application of the law to the facts could go either way, my point as a lawyer representing a client would be, I dam well better file that claim ASAP after I find out about the 2 different SOLs, because any delay could possibly mean it is _my_ malpractice insurance that will wind up paying for the client's loss, rather than the defendant debtor. If in fact it turns out that the suit was timely, great. If it turns out it wasn't timely, then at least I did everything possible, and the reason it got booted out of court is that the client didn't bring me the case to file until it was already too late to file under the appropriate SOL as finally determined by the court. We're talking about the lawyer investing the small claims filing fee (which I'm guessing is a lot _less_ than $100; that's why it's "small claims", otherwise anybody with a debt that size would be effectively barred from getting justice. Here in MD the small claims filing fee is $5) which, even if he never gets it back from the client, surely saves an awfully big headache down the road when the disgruntled client says (perhaps rightfully) "it's _your_ fault we lost this one because you blew the SOL."
But even if it's $100, and even if OP intends to do this pro se, ISTM that investing that $100 in a filing fee so he can make his legal arguments and (possibly) salvage a claim worth maybe thousands, instead of just giving up and walking away from that claim, is usually a worthwhile risk that may pay off. If not, so long as he had a good faith argument that the longer SOL should apply, at least he tried.
--
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
Airspace regulation
On Sep 25, 7:46 am, bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> I'm posing this as a hypothetical, set in the U.S., but the elements are
> based on *REAL* events which occurred in W. Germany more than a
> quarter-century ago.
In the USA, federal law relegates control over the common airspace to the FAA.
> Background:
> 'Property rights' "in fee simple", exclusive of any rights retained (e.g.,
> 'water', or 'mineral') by prior owners, extend downward in wedge towards
> the center of the earth. And, similarly, upwards 'to the limits of space',
> if not further.
One's ownership rights in property do not, in a society regulated by laws, convert into unfettered use of that property for any purpose whatsoever, despite the beliefs of some anti-stateists (anti-federalists?). Since, as I'm sure Robert knows, the concept of private ownership of property is one that is created and supported by law and by the enforcement power of the State to protect those rights -- without that enforcement, such rights would be meaningless as against squatters, nomads, trespassers and other assorted "unrightful" users -- the State (formally, the Sovereign) holds ultimate title to all property within the realm, as is shown by the ultimate escheat of property "back" to the State any time the line of succession of private ownership fails.
So, "fee simple" ownership rights, while representing the most "independent" and "permanent" bundle of rights available to a private party, still carry with them the limitation of requiring compliance with the dictates of the State, for the common good. That's why e.g. zoning regulation is a constitutionally permitted limitation on an owner's use of his property, as is the FAA regulation of the height of buildings in and near airways (regular and published paths of aerial navigation). In USA, you can't build a skyscraper adjacent to the end of an airport runway or a tower that extends into the approach path. There are specific standards that must be complied with. In fact, I recall recently reading about a developer in Calif. (San Diego area, I think) who was required to _remove_ (at considerable expense to himself) the top story of an office or condo building he had erected in the flight path of a nearby airport in defiance of height regulations.
> Yet, there is a legally recognized right of 'transit' through the
> "unobstructed airspace" above the property.
Absolutely. Set by international treaties and incorporated into USA law, similar to the ancient law of "navigable waters" permitting transit by boat for purposes of commerce.
> Such 'right of transit' is inferior to any actual use the property owner
> might make of that space. i.e., if he builds a structure into that
> space, anyone that had been flying through it, _regardless_ of regularly,
> frequently, or for how long, must now detour around that 'obstacle'.
That's not true everywhere in USA; the airspace "controlled" by the FAA (as set by law and marked on aerial charts) extends from ground level to infinity within a circle of varying size around "controlled" airports (those with FAA air traffic control towers present) as well as various extensions, wedges, etc. needed to provide clear approach paths to its runways, as well as large areas of space between airports: the "airways" marked by ground based radio beacons (or emulated by GPS receivers) extend for 5 miles or more to either side of the direct line between beacons and, in densely occupied areas, overlap so much that virtually all airspace beyond 1200 feet above ground level is "controlled". There is actually little "uncontrolled" airspace left in USA, mostly in the sparsely settled Western interior (such as where Steve Fossett was planning to make his speed record run and got lost without a flight plan). Maybe in so called "uncontrolled" airspace, outside of the recognized airways, owners can erect such towers, but even there, the law requires such things as warning beacons (the flashing red lights you see on top of towers and tall buildings) to protect nearby aerial navigation. And (although technology has not yet seen such a development) one should note that _all_ airspace in USA above approximately 20,000 feet (I don't remember the exact number without looking it up) -- where jet airliners spend most of their time except while taking off and landing -- is "controlled" airspace.
Then there is "restricted" and "prohibited" airspace, into which civil flyers are forbidden to intrude, usually because military operations go on there or other security concerns (such as over the Presidential retreat at Camp David) lead to a ban on civilian overflights.
One should also keep in mind that even in uncontrolled airspace, FAA regulations require civil aircraft to avoid "buzzing" people on the ground, among other minimum safe altitude requirements: see (from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov):
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
> Oh, for those interested, the European situation involved U.S. military
> jets, flying low over private land, despite requests to do otherwise;
Well, of course, the military don't have to comply with civil air regulations, although as a matter of good neighborly relations and safety, they generally do. Especially when USA forces are guests in a foreign land, they should. Those who don't, give USA an unneeded black eye
> leading to acquisition and _use_ of a 12th century catapult, employing
> _cherry_pies_ as A.A. rounds. Note: jet engines apparently have a _very_
> adverse reaction to 'eating' cherry pies. :)) This matter was ultimately
> resolved without legal system intervention.
ROTFL.. If the (German) government wanted to be strict about it, I suppose the cataperps here could have been prosecuted for intentionally harming an aircraft in flight, a serious offense since it is one likely to lead to serious injury or loss of life. However I can see the flip side of the coin being the bad publicity the USA military would like to avoid, to keep as much local goodwill as they still had, and to correct their own overbearing behavior toward the locals, and that could easily be what led to the alternate result you report acually happened.
I am reminded of another anecdote I read years ago -- perhaps in Air & Space Smithsonian magazine -- about a sheep farmer in Arizona whose flocks were continually being harassed by low-flying jet fighters, causing ewes to miscarry and general havoc among the poor sheep. These extremely low-level overflights continued despite his protestations to the base commander until one day, the shepherd took aim with his varmint rifle at a fighter coming toward his flock on a nap-of-the-earth speed run. I don't remember whether he actually pulled the trigger, but I do remember the sight of a gun barrel facing his windshield certainly got the pilot's attention. Of course, the pilot felt he was safe from small-arms fire while flying his supersonic jet, forgetting that when he is coming directly toward someone at nearly ground level, his frontal view presents a nice, clear, steady target with no need to "lead" the shot to compensate for relative motion. I believe the sheep overflights stopped shortly after that incident.
--
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'm posing this as a hypothetical, set in the U.S., but the elements are
> based on *REAL* events which occurred in W. Germany more than a
> quarter-century ago.
In the USA, federal law relegates control over the common airspace to the FAA.
> Background:
> 'Property rights' "in fee simple", exclusive of any rights retained (e.g.,
> 'water', or 'mineral') by prior owners, extend downward in wedge towards
> the center of the earth. And, similarly, upwards 'to the limits of space',
> if not further.
One's ownership rights in property do not, in a society regulated by laws, convert into unfettered use of that property for any purpose whatsoever, despite the beliefs of some anti-stateists (anti-federalists?). Since, as I'm sure Robert knows, the concept of private ownership of property is one that is created and supported by law and by the enforcement power of the State to protect those rights -- without that enforcement, such rights would be meaningless as against squatters, nomads, trespassers and other assorted "unrightful" users -- the State (formally, the Sovereign) holds ultimate title to all property within the realm, as is shown by the ultimate escheat of property "back" to the State any time the line of succession of private ownership fails.
So, "fee simple" ownership rights, while representing the most "independent" and "permanent" bundle of rights available to a private party, still carry with them the limitation of requiring compliance with the dictates of the State, for the common good. That's why e.g. zoning regulation is a constitutionally permitted limitation on an owner's use of his property, as is the FAA regulation of the height of buildings in and near airways (regular and published paths of aerial navigation). In USA, you can't build a skyscraper adjacent to the end of an airport runway or a tower that extends into the approach path. There are specific standards that must be complied with. In fact, I recall recently reading about a developer in Calif. (San Diego area, I think) who was required to _remove_ (at considerable expense to himself) the top story of an office or condo building he had erected in the flight path of a nearby airport in defiance of height regulations.
> Yet, there is a legally recognized right of 'transit' through the
> "unobstructed airspace" above the property.
Absolutely. Set by international treaties and incorporated into USA law, similar to the ancient law of "navigable waters" permitting transit by boat for purposes of commerce.
> Such 'right of transit' is inferior to any actual use the property owner
> might make of that space. i.e., if he builds a structure into that
> space, anyone that had been flying through it, _regardless_ of regularly,
> frequently, or for how long, must now detour around that 'obstacle'.
That's not true everywhere in USA; the airspace "controlled" by the FAA (as set by law and marked on aerial charts) extends from ground level to infinity within a circle of varying size around "controlled" airports (those with FAA air traffic control towers present) as well as various extensions, wedges, etc. needed to provide clear approach paths to its runways, as well as large areas of space between airports: the "airways" marked by ground based radio beacons (or emulated by GPS receivers) extend for 5 miles or more to either side of the direct line between beacons and, in densely occupied areas, overlap so much that virtually all airspace beyond 1200 feet above ground level is "controlled". There is actually little "uncontrolled" airspace left in USA, mostly in the sparsely settled Western interior (such as where Steve Fossett was planning to make his speed record run and got lost without a flight plan). Maybe in so called "uncontrolled" airspace, outside of the recognized airways, owners can erect such towers, but even there, the law requires such things as warning beacons (the flashing red lights you see on top of towers and tall buildings) to protect nearby aerial navigation. And (although technology has not yet seen such a development) one should note that _all_ airspace in USA above approximately 20,000 feet (I don't remember the exact number without looking it up) -- where jet airliners spend most of their time except while taking off and landing -- is "controlled" airspace.
Then there is "restricted" and "prohibited" airspace, into which civil flyers are forbidden to intrude, usually because military operations go on there or other security concerns (such as over the Presidential retreat at Camp David) lead to a ban on civilian overflights.
One should also keep in mind that even in uncontrolled airspace, FAA regulations require civil aircraft to avoid "buzzing" people on the ground, among other minimum safe altitude requirements: see (from http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov):
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters. Helicopters may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section if the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface. In addition, each person operating a helicopter shall comply with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the Administrator.
> Oh, for those interested, the European situation involved U.S. military
> jets, flying low over private land, despite requests to do otherwise;
Well, of course, the military don't have to comply with civil air regulations, although as a matter of good neighborly relations and safety, they generally do. Especially when USA forces are guests in a foreign land, they should. Those who don't, give USA an unneeded black eye
> leading to acquisition and _use_ of a 12th century catapult, employing
> _cherry_pies_ as A.A. rounds. Note: jet engines apparently have a _very_
> adverse reaction to 'eating' cherry pies. :)) This matter was ultimately
> resolved without legal system intervention.
ROTFL.. If the (German) government wanted to be strict about it, I suppose the cataperps here could have been prosecuted for intentionally harming an aircraft in flight, a serious offense since it is one likely to lead to serious injury or loss of life. However I can see the flip side of the coin being the bad publicity the USA military would like to avoid, to keep as much local goodwill as they still had, and to correct their own overbearing behavior toward the locals, and that could easily be what led to the alternate result you report acually happened.
I am reminded of another anecdote I read years ago -- perhaps in Air & Space Smithsonian magazine -- about a sheep farmer in Arizona whose flocks were continually being harassed by low-flying jet fighters, causing ewes to miscarry and general havoc among the poor sheep. These extremely low-level overflights continued despite his protestations to the base commander until one day, the shepherd took aim with his varmint rifle at a fighter coming toward his flock on a nap-of-the-earth speed run. I don't remember whether he actually pulled the trigger, but I do remember the sight of a gun barrel facing his windshield certainly got the pilot's attention. Of course, the pilot felt he was safe from small-arms fire while flying his supersonic jet, forgetting that when he is coming directly toward someone at nearly ground level, his frontal view presents a nice, clear, steady target with no need to "lead" the shot to compensate for relative motion. I believe the sheep overflights stopped shortly after that incident.
--
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
Landlord duties to avoid liability?
On Sep 24, 12:07 pm, "John D" <djohn393...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have inheirited a dilapidated house with a tennent.
* * *
>I think, no amount of repairs could make the house
> so safe that he couldn't find a way to fall down. How can I protect myself?
Um, buy insurance? If you don't already have liability insurance in place, and you're renting the house out, you're being extremely foolish. Don't blame the falls on a tenant "trying to get some income" -- you yourself characterize the house as "dilapidated" and "not up to code". If anyone should be excoriated for trying to cut legal corners to make money in this situation, its a landlord who won't make necessary repairs and who doesn't even have insurance while continuing to collect the tenant's money.
You owe it to yourself as well as your tenant to be a responsible landlord. Get safety-related issues fixed even if you leave the cosmetic ones for later; be sure you have adequate landlord liability coverage as well as property/casualty insurance on the house; and either fish or cut bait on whether you want to be a professional landlord or whether you want to just sell this place and not have all that responsibility.
-
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
> I have inheirited a dilapidated house with a tennent.
* * *
>I think, no amount of repairs could make the house
> so safe that he couldn't find a way to fall down. How can I protect myself?
Um, buy insurance? If you don't already have liability insurance in place, and you're renting the house out, you're being extremely foolish. Don't blame the falls on a tenant "trying to get some income" -- you yourself characterize the house as "dilapidated" and "not up to code". If anyone should be excoriated for trying to cut legal corners to make money in this situation, its a landlord who won't make necessary repairs and who doesn't even have insurance while continuing to collect the tenant's money.
You owe it to yourself as well as your tenant to be a responsible landlord. Get safety-related issues fixed even if you leave the cosmetic ones for later; be sure you have adequate landlord liability coverage as well as property/casualty insurance on the house; and either fish or cut bait on whether you want to be a professional landlord or whether you want to just sell this place and not have all that responsibility.
-
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
Free lawyer for civil defendants?
On Sep 24, 12:07 pm, phil-news-nos...@ipal.net wrote:
> What this issue, though maybe not your case specifically, shows is what
> I do consider to be a flaw in the system. If a defendant is unable to
> defend themselves at the time the action is brought, for reasons such as
> having insufficient funds to hire a lawyer or investigate the case to
> get good evidence, and ends up losing when they should have won had all
> facts been known, doesn't get a chance to come back later when a lawyer
> and the now uncovered facts and re-litigate an old settled case.
Well, there already _is_ a way for the truly poor to get a lawyer in civil cases; it's called "legal aid." For those whose income is just a little too high to qualify for legal aid, yes, it can be daunting to be sued for money in a civil case. The main reason it doesn't make economic sense to provide free lawyers to middle-class civil defendants in suits for money damages is that the _only_ thing such defendants stand to lose is money, and if they don't have any, they actually don't have anything to lose. A judgment against a judgment-proof defendant is just a pretty piece of paper and if you collect enough of them, you can decorate the wall with them, but that's about all they're good for if the defendant has no assets and no insurance. Of course, if it's a tort claim and if even an impecunious defendant was smart enough and responsible enough to have the foresight to obtain relevant liability insurance, the insurance company will pay for a lawyer to defend him from the claim.
There is movement in various states toward getting the law changed to provide free lawyers in civil cases to indigent defendants facing loss of "fundamental rights" such as in physical or mental disability commitment hearings, and perhaps even in child custody battles. But that's a far cry from saying that everyone who gets sued for owing someone money should have a free lawyer provided by the state.
> How to
> fix this? The only way I see is some kind of way to provide lawyers and
> some investigating funding to those defendants that don't have the money
> to properly defend themselves (as is already so in criminal cases, but
> for a different reason).
And what good would it do to spend all that money every time someone gets sued by e.g. a tradesman or utility whose bill they didn't pay, or any of the typical kinds of non-insured, contract claims ordinary people may expect to face? Who decides how big a case has to be, or how meritorious a defense has to be, before the "right" to a free lawyer would kick in? And if you cut that Gordian knot by just saying "everyone gets one", how hard is that free lawyer going to work, anyway, if he's required to defend regardless of merit, or if there's only a small amount of money at stake?
If it's a tort case, insurance should cover it. Otherwise, the bottom line has to be, is the right which the person stands to lose important enough to them to do what needs to be done to get a lawyer? Other than the truly poor, there is no such thing IMO as not being able to afford a lawyer; rather, there is such a thing as having other priorities on which a defendant decides it is more important to spend his money. If it's crucially important to a person, they can beg, borrow, take out a second mortgage, or do whatever else is necessary (such as cutting back on living space, conserving on utilities and gas, avoiding expensive foods or new clothes, skipping vacations, and cutting out other expenses) to get the funds needed. If they won't do that, the issue at stake is not that important to them, OR the amount of money at stake is too small to be worth it, OR they realize they really have no meritorious defense and they really do owe the money, so for any or all of those reasons they're not going to throw their _own_ money away hiring a lawyer, multiplying the legal proceedings, papering the other side with motions and basically making it more difficult for the opponent to collect what it is owed. That naturally-selective process does tend to factor in to people's decisions on whether or not it is worthwhile to hire themselves a lawyer -- and this natural check-and-balance would be completely short-circuited, to everyone's detriment IMO, if defense lawyers were freely available regardless of cost or merit.
Now, the other thing to keep in mind is that even the most indigent PLAINTIFF has ready access to the best lawyers in the land, if they are the victims of a tortious injury and are trying to COLLECT money from someone else with deep pockets or good insurance. There are those -- and I'm certainly not one of them, since this is the kind of work I do -- who think contingent fee plaintiff litigation is also a plague on the system because it allows claims to be brought that the victim would otherwise be unable to afford a lawyer to handle. But this, too, is a self-correcting mechanism since no sensible lawyer is going to take on a contingent case if he sees insufficient merit and insufficient potential damages arising from the claim to make it worth his time, effort and money to prepare the case and take it to trial. The cases that go all the way, and win, are by definition meritorious, not frivolous, and it is a public service to be able to bring justice to the "little guy" against even the biggest, richest corporate defendants.
-
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
> What this issue, though maybe not your case specifically, shows is what
> I do consider to be a flaw in the system. If a defendant is unable to
> defend themselves at the time the action is brought, for reasons such as
> having insufficient funds to hire a lawyer or investigate the case to
> get good evidence, and ends up losing when they should have won had all
> facts been known, doesn't get a chance to come back later when a lawyer
> and the now uncovered facts and re-litigate an old settled case.
Well, there already _is_ a way for the truly poor to get a lawyer in civil cases; it's called "legal aid." For those whose income is just a little too high to qualify for legal aid, yes, it can be daunting to be sued for money in a civil case. The main reason it doesn't make economic sense to provide free lawyers to middle-class civil defendants in suits for money damages is that the _only_ thing such defendants stand to lose is money, and if they don't have any, they actually don't have anything to lose. A judgment against a judgment-proof defendant is just a pretty piece of paper and if you collect enough of them, you can decorate the wall with them, but that's about all they're good for if the defendant has no assets and no insurance. Of course, if it's a tort claim and if even an impecunious defendant was smart enough and responsible enough to have the foresight to obtain relevant liability insurance, the insurance company will pay for a lawyer to defend him from the claim.
There is movement in various states toward getting the law changed to provide free lawyers in civil cases to indigent defendants facing loss of "fundamental rights" such as in physical or mental disability commitment hearings, and perhaps even in child custody battles. But that's a far cry from saying that everyone who gets sued for owing someone money should have a free lawyer provided by the state.
> How to
> fix this? The only way I see is some kind of way to provide lawyers and
> some investigating funding to those defendants that don't have the money
> to properly defend themselves (as is already so in criminal cases, but
> for a different reason).
And what good would it do to spend all that money every time someone gets sued by e.g. a tradesman or utility whose bill they didn't pay, or any of the typical kinds of non-insured, contract claims ordinary people may expect to face? Who decides how big a case has to be, or how meritorious a defense has to be, before the "right" to a free lawyer would kick in? And if you cut that Gordian knot by just saying "everyone gets one", how hard is that free lawyer going to work, anyway, if he's required to defend regardless of merit, or if there's only a small amount of money at stake?
If it's a tort case, insurance should cover it. Otherwise, the bottom line has to be, is the right which the person stands to lose important enough to them to do what needs to be done to get a lawyer? Other than the truly poor, there is no such thing IMO as not being able to afford a lawyer; rather, there is such a thing as having other priorities on which a defendant decides it is more important to spend his money. If it's crucially important to a person, they can beg, borrow, take out a second mortgage, or do whatever else is necessary (such as cutting back on living space, conserving on utilities and gas, avoiding expensive foods or new clothes, skipping vacations, and cutting out other expenses) to get the funds needed. If they won't do that, the issue at stake is not that important to them, OR the amount of money at stake is too small to be worth it, OR they realize they really have no meritorious defense and they really do owe the money, so for any or all of those reasons they're not going to throw their _own_ money away hiring a lawyer, multiplying the legal proceedings, papering the other side with motions and basically making it more difficult for the opponent to collect what it is owed. That naturally-selective process does tend to factor in to people's decisions on whether or not it is worthwhile to hire themselves a lawyer -- and this natural check-and-balance would be completely short-circuited, to everyone's detriment IMO, if defense lawyers were freely available regardless of cost or merit.
Now, the other thing to keep in mind is that even the most indigent PLAINTIFF has ready access to the best lawyers in the land, if they are the victims of a tortious injury and are trying to COLLECT money from someone else with deep pockets or good insurance. There are those -- and I'm certainly not one of them, since this is the kind of work I do -- who think contingent fee plaintiff litigation is also a plague on the system because it allows claims to be brought that the victim would otherwise be unable to afford a lawyer to handle. But this, too, is a self-correcting mechanism since no sensible lawyer is going to take on a contingent case if he sees insufficient merit and insufficient potential damages arising from the claim to make it worth his time, effort and money to prepare the case and take it to trial. The cases that go all the way, and win, are by definition meritorious, not frivolous, and it is a public service to be able to bring justice to the "little guy" against even the biggest, richest corporate defendants.
-
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
Parking only for in-state tagged vehicles?
On Sep 21, 6:34 am, "johnmoli...@yahoo.com" <johnmoli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I received a parking citation today while at a family member's house.
> I was parked in front of their house on the street. The fine is $75.
> On the ticket, the description reads "no current registation
> displayed" and has the corresponding ordinance. I couldn't understand
> this, since my car is registered and has valid license plates.
>
> I got a copy of the town ordinance and it reads "Failure to diplay a
> current registration or license plate on vehicle issued by the Florida
> Dept. of Motor Vehicles".
Just when you think you've heard everything, a bonehead ordinance like this comes along with a numbskull cop interpreting it. What were they thinking? That Florida doesn't want visitors?
> I'm kind of confused. I am a visitor from another state. Although my
> car registration is valid, the license plates are not from Florida. I
> thought I had a slam dunk case but now I'm not so sure.
For $75, and no moving violation points on your record, you probably don't want to bother hiring a lawyer to contest this for you just to prove a point. But if you're still in town when your trial date would come up, this is the sort of thing you most certainly may want to show up in court and contest by yourself. If the judge has any sense he will throw it out and tell the cops what they really should interpret the ordinance to mean. If you lose, then the most you will lose is $75. Or, you could hire a lawyer to make fancy arguments for you.
> If you take
> the ordinance on its face value, it basically means that anyone
> visiting from another state with non-Florida license plates can be
> cited when they park their car on a town street!
As you can tell the judge, even without benefit of legal research.
Sometimes a "reductio ad absurdum" argument is the most effective (showing that if you take a statement literally, it leads to absurd results).
The law is supposed to be interpreted reasonably, to make sense. And it certainly is not supposed to be interpreted in a way that will do nothing but harm the state's primary industry, tourism, by scaring away all the tourists.
> Are there any state or federal statutes that nullify this ordinance?
Maybe the "full faith and credit clause" of the constitution, requiring the states to recognize and give effect to other states' official actions (such as MVA registration); the "commerce clause" pre-emption of state restrictions on freedom to travel from state to state, and the common law rule against twisted, unnatural interpretations of statutes and ordinances that has nothing to do with their primary, salutary purpose of ensuring that unlicensed, unregistered vehicles not be operated or parked on the public street?
> It seems rediculous to me.
Me too. Another crazy cop story (see the "fleeing and eluding" post today on MLM -- was that one in FL too? What are they putting in the water?)
--
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 received a parking citation today while at a family member's house.
> I was parked in front of their house on the street. The fine is $75.
> On the ticket, the description reads "no current registation
> displayed" and has the corresponding ordinance. I couldn't understand
> this, since my car is registered and has valid license plates.
>
> I got a copy of the town ordinance and it reads "Failure to diplay a
> current registration or license plate on vehicle issued by the Florida
> Dept. of Motor Vehicles".
Just when you think you've heard everything, a bonehead ordinance like this comes along with a numbskull cop interpreting it. What were they thinking? That Florida doesn't want visitors?
> I'm kind of confused. I am a visitor from another state. Although my
> car registration is valid, the license plates are not from Florida. I
> thought I had a slam dunk case but now I'm not so sure.
For $75, and no moving violation points on your record, you probably don't want to bother hiring a lawyer to contest this for you just to prove a point. But if you're still in town when your trial date would come up, this is the sort of thing you most certainly may want to show up in court and contest by yourself. If the judge has any sense he will throw it out and tell the cops what they really should interpret the ordinance to mean. If you lose, then the most you will lose is $75. Or, you could hire a lawyer to make fancy arguments for you.
> If you take
> the ordinance on its face value, it basically means that anyone
> visiting from another state with non-Florida license plates can be
> cited when they park their car on a town street!
As you can tell the judge, even without benefit of legal research.
Sometimes a "reductio ad absurdum" argument is the most effective (showing that if you take a statement literally, it leads to absurd results).
The law is supposed to be interpreted reasonably, to make sense. And it certainly is not supposed to be interpreted in a way that will do nothing but harm the state's primary industry, tourism, by scaring away all the tourists.
> Are there any state or federal statutes that nullify this ordinance?
Maybe the "full faith and credit clause" of the constitution, requiring the states to recognize and give effect to other states' official actions (such as MVA registration); the "commerce clause" pre-emption of state restrictions on freedom to travel from state to state, and the common law rule against twisted, unnatural interpretations of statutes and ordinances that has nothing to do with their primary, salutary purpose of ensuring that unlicensed, unregistered vehicles not be operated or parked on the public street?
> It seems rediculous to me.
Me too. Another crazy cop story (see the "fleeing and eluding" post today on MLM -- was that one in FL too? What are they putting in the water?)
--
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
Contract statute of limitations
On Sep 21, 6:34 am, "Alan" <alanb_lano2s...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Los Angeles Small Claims Court makes a distinction between written and oral
> agreements for purposes of determining statute of limitations. I am a
> printer who issues an invoice upon completion of work. There is no prior
> written contract. Is an invoice generally accepted to be a written
> agreement? If not, would the sign-off that the job is okay to print
> constitute such an agreement? This form -- signed by the customer --
> basically says: I have looked at the job and I approve it to go to print.
My question to you is, does any of this matter to YOU?
If in doubt, why would you wait until after the earler of the 2 possible statutes expires, before filing suit? As long as your suit is filed early enough to be timely under both interpretations, then who cares?
OTOH if you have already allowed the earlier statute to expire before you found out about this distinction, you have nothing to lose by filing suit anyway, and arguing for the interpretation that helps you. Again, win or lose, the outcome of this discussion would have no practical influence on _your_ behavior.
So, don't hesitate any longer than you have to, and go ahead and sue if you've already made a demand for payment and it has been refused or ignored and if all the other factors one ought to consider tell you that suing is the only way you are likely to get paid and that it is worth the hassle. 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
Homestead exemption
On Sep 21, 6:34 am, Johnny <J0hn_2...@rock.com> wrote:
> If an unsecured creditor sues me and obtains a judgment of $15,000,
> can the creditor enroll the judgment as a lien on my property or take
> my home that has a homestead exemption? The exemption in Georgia -
> Up to $5,000 in value, no area limitation. Code of Georgia, Annotated,
> =A7 44- 13-1 and 44- 13- 100.
>
> I do not know what the Georgia law means.
I am not a GA lawyer, and I don't either, but I'll hazard a guess. Generally a state law homestead exemption refers to the amount of equity in a property that a debtor is allowed to keep, i.e. that is _not_ subject to seizure by legal process to help pay off the judgment debt.
So, the GA homestead law means you are allowed to keep up to $5000 in equity in your property with no limitation on the area (number of acres) that can be exempted.
If your equity in the property is worth more than $5000, the judgment creditors can seize the rest of it, either by filing a lien that will be paid off when you sell it, by forcing a judicial sale, from which all the proceeds except $5000 would go to the creditor; or by legally forcing you to take out a second mortgage on the property for all the excess equity (up to but not including the $5000 exemption) and giving the loan proceeds to the creditors. I don't know which of these 3 possibilities GA law permits.
> In the particular county I live in I have a homestead exemption as a
> senior citizen. The property is mortgaged for $167,000 and has a
> taxable fair market value of $152,000
Since you have negative equity IMO you probably don't have anything to worry about re: keeping the house at least until you die or choose to sell. Even if the creditors are permitted to file a lien, it would be junior to your existing mortgage, and they would likely not get anything from a sale so they probably can't force a sale or force you to take out a second mortgage.
> and gross assessment of $60,720.
> On the tax bill it shows an exemption of $60,720 and zero assessment.
Your tax bill has nothing to do with the homestead exemption from collection on judgments against you. They are separate issues that just happen to use similar language. A "homestead" for debtor-creditor purposes doesn't just refer to the land your house is built on; it potentially includes all kinds of property, including your car, business equipment or tools of your trade, furniture and other household goods, personal effects and clothing, and so on. If push comes to shove you should compile a list of all the property and goods you own, what each item is worth, and how much you still owe on any property that you're making time payments for, and your lawyer can help you figure out what would be most to your advantage to claim as part of your $5000 exemption from the creditor's collection efforts.
> So what does the $5,000 exemption mean? Can a creditor execute on the
> homestead and take the home or place a lien on the property?
Maybe. But in your case, probably not, since you have no equity in the home. The creditors _could_ seize other property you own unless you specifically include it in your homestead exemption (adding up to a total of $5000 in value).
> What would be the situation if I were to declare bankruptcy?
IMO that would be a really bad idea unless you are specifically advised to do so by competent local counsel. Chances are it would do nothing to further exempt you from your creditors than you already are, and would only complicate your life tremendously. You're probably OK at this point just doing nothing. But if the waste material hits the fan, or even before that if you want to be careful, consult a local lawyer and get real, paid advice. 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
> If an unsecured creditor sues me and obtains a judgment of $15,000,
> can the creditor enroll the judgment as a lien on my property or take
> my home that has a homestead exemption? The exemption in Georgia -
> Up to $5,000 in value, no area limitation. Code of Georgia, Annotated,
> =A7 44- 13-1 and 44- 13- 100.
>
> I do not know what the Georgia law means.
I am not a GA lawyer, and I don't either, but I'll hazard a guess. Generally a state law homestead exemption refers to the amount of equity in a property that a debtor is allowed to keep, i.e. that is _not_ subject to seizure by legal process to help pay off the judgment debt.
So, the GA homestead law means you are allowed to keep up to $5000 in equity in your property with no limitation on the area (number of acres) that can be exempted.
If your equity in the property is worth more than $5000, the judgment creditors can seize the rest of it, either by filing a lien that will be paid off when you sell it, by forcing a judicial sale, from which all the proceeds except $5000 would go to the creditor; or by legally forcing you to take out a second mortgage on the property for all the excess equity (up to but not including the $5000 exemption) and giving the loan proceeds to the creditors. I don't know which of these 3 possibilities GA law permits.
> In the particular county I live in I have a homestead exemption as a
> senior citizen. The property is mortgaged for $167,000 and has a
> taxable fair market value of $152,000
Since you have negative equity IMO you probably don't have anything to worry about re: keeping the house at least until you die or choose to sell. Even if the creditors are permitted to file a lien, it would be junior to your existing mortgage, and they would likely not get anything from a sale so they probably can't force a sale or force you to take out a second mortgage.
> and gross assessment of $60,720.
> On the tax bill it shows an exemption of $60,720 and zero assessment.
Your tax bill has nothing to do with the homestead exemption from collection on judgments against you. They are separate issues that just happen to use similar language. A "homestead" for debtor-creditor purposes doesn't just refer to the land your house is built on; it potentially includes all kinds of property, including your car, business equipment or tools of your trade, furniture and other household goods, personal effects and clothing, and so on. If push comes to shove you should compile a list of all the property and goods you own, what each item is worth, and how much you still owe on any property that you're making time payments for, and your lawyer can help you figure out what would be most to your advantage to claim as part of your $5000 exemption from the creditor's collection efforts.
> So what does the $5,000 exemption mean? Can a creditor execute on the
> homestead and take the home or place a lien on the property?
Maybe. But in your case, probably not, since you have no equity in the home. The creditors _could_ seize other property you own unless you specifically include it in your homestead exemption (adding up to a total of $5000 in value).
> What would be the situation if I were to declare bankruptcy?
IMO that would be a really bad idea unless you are specifically advised to do so by competent local counsel. Chances are it would do nothing to further exempt you from your creditors than you already are, and would only complicate your life tremendously. You're probably OK at this point just doing nothing. But if the waste material hits the fan, or even before that if you want to be careful, consult a local lawyer and get real, paid advice. 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
Fleeing and eluding police
On Sep 21, 6:34 am, "Casual Observer" <"no_junk_mail;"@nowhere.com;;> wrote:
[friend charged with fleeing and eluding unmarked cop car not using emergency equipment that followed him home and had his car towed after he went to bed]
If the facts are exactly as you state, the only thing I can think of is these cops were crazy, or otherwise inclined to abuse their police powers. It's not unheard of. But IMO it's far more likely that there are facts that matter a great deal that you have not told us in your post.
> He as already talked with an attorney - but I'm trying to get a better
> understanding of this - any thoughts?
Yes, your friend should follow his attorney's advice and should also not discuss his legal woes with friends, much less opine about them on Usenet.
If your friend wants to share this event in his life with you, he will. Otherwise he would probably appreciate if you would refrain from being nosy.
--
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
[friend charged with fleeing and eluding unmarked cop car not using emergency equipment that followed him home and had his car towed after he went to bed]
If the facts are exactly as you state, the only thing I can think of is these cops were crazy, or otherwise inclined to abuse their police powers. It's not unheard of. But IMO it's far more likely that there are facts that matter a great deal that you have not told us in your post.
> He as already talked with an attorney - but I'm trying to get a better
> understanding of this - any thoughts?
Yes, your friend should follow his attorney's advice and should also not discuss his legal woes with friends, much less opine about them on Usenet.
If your friend wants to share this event in his life with you, he will. Otherwise he would probably appreciate if you would refrain from being nosy.
--
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
Dismissal on the morning of trial
On Sep 21, 6:34 am, "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So today I went to court and my
> attorney told me as I walked in that the DA decided to drop the case.
> Apparently they made this decision based on reviewing my declaration
> from the written trial.
This is an excellent outcome for you, but you don't sound glad about it.
> So my question is, should my attorney have
> known the DA wasn't going to continue with this case before today?
Only if he's a mindreader. The DA probably made the decision figuratively "on the courthouse steps" as he was preparing for trial that morning. You don't think the state's attorney sat there contemplating your piddly little ticket file for a whole week before the trial date, do you? He's got 300 other cases at a time to worry about. It takes him probably all of a minute to decide what to do with your file, but typically he's not going to do that until the morning of trial, for a number of reasons: you could withdraw your trial request and just pay the fine; you could die in the meantime, abating the ticket; you could not show up, in which case his decision would be to ask the judge to issue a bench warrant for your arrest, or to enter a show cause order of contempt; the cop could not show up, which may be the reason he decided he couldn't prove a case against you; or any of a number of other things that he wouldn't know until right before trial. If he tried to review all the minor ticket files on his docket a week early, he would just be wasting huge amounts of time (he has probably 30 or more of them a day, even if each of them would only take a short time to review) and moreover if he did so a week early he would have to do it all over again anyway the day of trial because, things could change between now and then.
Bottom line is, if you're accused of a serious felony you've got a better chance of getting your case dismissed at an early stage than for a minor traffic ticket. In a ticket trial, they basically compress all the required proceedings (plea, arraignment, pretrial motions hearings, trial) into a single, short, court appearance at a "cattle call" docket with 30 or 50 other schmoes who also got minor tickets. That's about the only way they could do this efficiently. Your "trial by letter" option in CA is another attempt at streamlining the procedure and saving time for the courts, cops, and DAs, and not incidentally, for you the accused.
> Should I have needed to go to court and pay the attorney to be in
> court if the DA has already decided to drop the case?
Don't begrudge your attorney the fee you paid him. Perhaps the fact that you hired an attorney and were going to seriously contest the case is what made the DA decide to drop the charge. In any event, neither you nor your attorney could have known about the decision before the DA made it. If the DA had made that decision earlier, he most certainly would have communicated it to your attorney, who would have told you. The DA has no interest in making you and your attorney waste a commute to court and clog up their docket and take up space in the crowded spectators' benches in the tiny courtroom if he's already decided he's not going to prosecute your case.
You got a good result. Your attorney helped you get that result. Be happy.
--
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
> So today I went to court and my
> attorney told me as I walked in that the DA decided to drop the case.
> Apparently they made this decision based on reviewing my declaration
> from the written trial.
This is an excellent outcome for you, but you don't sound glad about it.
> So my question is, should my attorney have
> known the DA wasn't going to continue with this case before today?
Only if he's a mindreader. The DA probably made the decision figuratively "on the courthouse steps" as he was preparing for trial that morning. You don't think the state's attorney sat there contemplating your piddly little ticket file for a whole week before the trial date, do you? He's got 300 other cases at a time to worry about. It takes him probably all of a minute to decide what to do with your file, but typically he's not going to do that until the morning of trial, for a number of reasons: you could withdraw your trial request and just pay the fine; you could die in the meantime, abating the ticket; you could not show up, in which case his decision would be to ask the judge to issue a bench warrant for your arrest, or to enter a show cause order of contempt; the cop could not show up, which may be the reason he decided he couldn't prove a case against you; or any of a number of other things that he wouldn't know until right before trial. If he tried to review all the minor ticket files on his docket a week early, he would just be wasting huge amounts of time (he has probably 30 or more of them a day, even if each of them would only take a short time to review) and moreover if he did so a week early he would have to do it all over again anyway the day of trial because, things could change between now and then.
Bottom line is, if you're accused of a serious felony you've got a better chance of getting your case dismissed at an early stage than for a minor traffic ticket. In a ticket trial, they basically compress all the required proceedings (plea, arraignment, pretrial motions hearings, trial) into a single, short, court appearance at a "cattle call" docket with 30 or 50 other schmoes who also got minor tickets. That's about the only way they could do this efficiently. Your "trial by letter" option in CA is another attempt at streamlining the procedure and saving time for the courts, cops, and DAs, and not incidentally, for you the accused.
> Should I have needed to go to court and pay the attorney to be in
> court if the DA has already decided to drop the case?
Don't begrudge your attorney the fee you paid him. Perhaps the fact that you hired an attorney and were going to seriously contest the case is what made the DA decide to drop the charge. In any event, neither you nor your attorney could have known about the decision before the DA made it. If the DA had made that decision earlier, he most certainly would have communicated it to your attorney, who would have told you. The DA has no interest in making you and your attorney waste a commute to court and clog up their docket and take up space in the crowded spectators' benches in the tiny courtroom if he's already decided he's not going to prosecute your case.
You got a good result. Your attorney helped you get that result. Be happy.
--
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)