|
Nonexistence posted:Tell us more! The False Claims Act allows for relators (ie whistleblowers) to report people who defraud the government. If the US attorney takes the case, the relator is entitled to some percentage of the recovery, 15% or so I believe. If the government doesn’t take the case then the relator is free to sue on behalf of the government and gets a bigger cut, 25% to 30% plus attorneys fees. For things like Medicare fraud or government contractor fraud, with contracts in the tens of millions, plus the potential for treble damages and penalties, it can be pretty lucrative for the relator. Phil Moscowitz fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Nov 16, 2021 |
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
So, my stepdad died last monday. I say stepdad, but he and mom were never officially together on paper, they were just together for 17 years. His kids went to a lawyer and stuff, and when they said they would talk to mom about the will, the specific wording they gave us was "we can discuss the will that was submitted if you want". does this mean that there was a different possible will that could have applied, but they went with the one they did? because he said earlier this year he was working on updating his will, but it seems that since this summer he got so busy he put it on the backburner, and so when he passed the will he was supposedly working on might have been on his work computer that the company demanded be returned immediately. I am curious because the will being used is from 2013, and only benefits his biological kids, with my mom mentioned in only the case that all his kids are dead. and if she is also dead, then everything he owns goes to charity. I am assuming that he was planning on updating things recently to help mom out if he passed, but that's of course something I can't know unless the files his company returns shows as such.(edit: and since they are being returned to the kids, we are completely at the mercy of them honoring it and letting us know about it) The wording they gave us when saying they would discuss the will with us seemed extremely peculiar to me. Like they had different wills to choose from and picked the one that benefited them the most to the exclusion of everyone else(specifically, my mom). like he is leaving a LOT of money to his kids. mom didn't even want anything significant, just to be able to replace the like 30-year-old siding on the house so it's not so drafty. I hate having to discuss and think about this poo poo at all right now. they let mom take a few (notably of only sentimental value, of course) things from his house that they don't want. I am pretty sure because she wasn't officially married to him, despite being his SO for 17 years, there's nothing for her except to get completely hosed over by life yet again. Captain Invictus fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Nov 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 23:28
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:"we can discuss the will that was submitted if you want" To me, this sounds more like the kids are worried your mom is going to turn up with a will out of nowhere giving her everything. They’re emphasizing up front that the one they’re referencing is “the will that was submitted” to give it authority over anything else that may come up. If you’re in a common law state, you can probably make a pretty strong claim, but other than that she’s probably SoL.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 23:49
|
|
|
You need a lawyer to investigate, I primarily do trusts & estates lit and stepwhatevers are far and away the top of the list for undue influence/forging wills/whatever. Don't believe anything they say or allow them to be the gatekeeper of any information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 16, 2021 23:52
|
|
|
I had to explain to someone what discovery, due diligence and foreknowledge meant, today. They were pissy that I would only accept “yeah the paperwork says it’s bad and unsafe, but it’s actually fine” in writing. Their argument was that all I had to do was not show the other party the paperwork. Thought of you guys.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 00:04
|
|
|
Nonexistence posted:You need a lawyer to investigate, I primarily do trusts & estates lit and stepwhatevers are far and away the top of the list for undue influence/forging wills/whatever. Don't believe anything they say or allow them to be the gatekeeper of any information.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Where's the outcome where your client stops wasting money on your services trying to get blood from a stone? drat bold take in the... lawyer thread?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 01:23
|
|
|
Captain Invictus posted:We are the stepwhatevers, dealing with his biological kids. and we're not even the stepwhatevers, because they weren't officially married. they lived separately due to his hoarding tendencies, they decided it would be better for the relationship. Right, the advice goes both ways
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 02:05
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:drat bold take in the... lawyer thread? There's a reason why the term "judgement-proof" exists, and a frequent usage is when clients need to be told by their lawyers not to bother pursuing this lawsuit further. It's also used often when explaining to people why they need "uninsured motorist" coverage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There's a reason why the term "judgement-proof" exists, and a frequent usage is when clients need to be told by their lawyers not to bother pursuing this lawsuit further. haha word? tell me more,,, fascinating
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 03:24
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:There's a reason why the term "judgement-proof" exists, and a frequent usage is when clients need to be told by their lawyers not to bother pursuing this lawsuit further. When I was riding motorcycles for a while I had a very frustrating conversation with my insurance agent. I told him that I wanted uninsured motorist coverage and medical coverage but I didn't give a poo poo about comprehensive coverage on a $4200 motorcycle. He didn't seem to understand that I wanted full coverage for some jackass running me over and didn't give a poo poo about someone stealing my toy. In my experience people selling uninsured motorist don't know what it means.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 03:40
|
|
|
Leviathan Song posted:When I was riding motorcycles for a while I had a very frustrating conversation with my insurance agent. I told him that I wanted uninsured motorist coverage and medical coverage but I didn't give a poo poo about comprehensive coverage on a $4200 motorcycle. He didn't seem to understand that I wanted full coverage for some jackass running me over and didn't give a poo poo about someone stealing my toy. In my experience people selling uninsured motorist don't know what it means. He didn't understand why you didn't want him to get his big commission.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 04:53
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Where's the outcome where your client stops wasting money on your services trying to get blood from a stone? I'll assume for the sake of discussion you were being genuine, and the answer is, "it's up to the client." No, I don't work on contingency, so the client has to gauge the risk of spending more fees than they might recover with a judgement, and this is true in all plaintiff-side litigation. However, most cases of complex litigation involve both sides arguing the other one owes the money, so it's often a matter of having to be there to defend yourself in addition to seeking your own damages, so the point is moot. In the limited number of cases where one side has zero counterclaims, and the defendant is presenting as potentially insolvent, it's never 100% for sure that they do, or don't have money, so you have to make your best guess. Compounding that, judgments are still good for many years (10 in Texas, then longer if you revive them) and things change over time. People come into money or property, get back on their feet, inheritances, etc. At least once a year I get a call on some file I worked years back where a title company or mortgage company is trying to close on a deal and they want to know the payoff for the judgment lien, and voila, my client gets a very unexpected and exciting phone call out of the blue that they got their money, finally. In the end, it's exceedingly rare that a debtor who doesn't have the money to pay for a settlement somehow does have the money to pay for a trial in their defense, so most often they settle, even when claiming they're "judgment proof" because when you put a proposed agreed judgment to them, it calls their bluff.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:In the limited number of cases where one side has zero counterclaims, and the defendant is presenting as potentially insolvent, it's never 100% for sure that they do, or don't have money, so you have to make your best guess. Compounding that, judgments are still good for many years (10 in Texas, then longer if you revive them) and things change over time. People come into money or property, get back on their feet, inheritances, etc. Yeah that's why I'm surprised that people would ever accept a "proposed agreed judgment" doesn't everyone in the US think they're going to eventually win the lottery or invent Facebook or find oil in their backyard?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 16:34
|
|
|
Say you got a guy with 3,000,000 in assets and 2,500,000 in liabilities staring down a likely 1,000,000 judgment. I assume the guy would declare bankruptcy at some point but would he maybe do it before the trial just to delay things? What would the advantages be of declaring bankruptcy beyond the normal "preserve your primary home" stuff? It seems to me like it would absolutely be better for the guy to sell some assets and come up with at least 200 grand to try and avoid a much worse outcome but maybe its so hard to extract money out of judgments the guy figures he'll be dead and it'll be his estate coughing up the money and doesn't give a poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 16:39
|
|
|
Bankruptcy can erase all previous debts . It’s powerful and I’ve lost a lot of money due to people getting bankruptcy protection
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 16:49
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Bankruptcy can erase all* previous debts . It’s powerful and I’ve lost a lot of money due to people getting bankruptcy protection *most
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
The existing modifier of "can" already covers that range of uncertainty
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:The existing modifier of "can" already covers that range of uncertainty So either "definitely able to" or "may be able to" depending on which definition you use Lawyers: known for loving ambiguity in their writings
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 17:45
|
|
|
Punitive damages generally can't be discharged in bankruptcy if that's relevant to your case
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Say you got a guy with 3,000,000 in assets and 2,500,000 in liabilities staring down a likely 1,000,000 judgment. a lot would depend on other details. for example: what liabilities (secured or unsecured - the most likely thing would be they're secured because it's a mortgage) and what is the lawsuit about. at the end of the day the reason to declare bankruptcy would be that some amount of your assets will get preserved in the bankruptcy and everyone will be getting even less than their 85 cents on the dollar they'd have gotten if they could get at all of your assets. also, importantly, some of your future income may be preserved
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 19:54
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Say you got a guy with 3,000,000 in assets and 2,500,000 in liabilities staring down a likely 1,000,000 judgment. Your folly is in assuming all people are equally rational actors. Some people are so mad they've decided to fight everything, all the time, forever. Some people are so scared, they immediately roll over. 90% of people are somewhere on that spectrum, where their decision will be mostly rational, tuned a few degrees to one side of the spectrum or the other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:04
|
|
|
People don’t like unknowns and will often settled for less just to have a known . Imho
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:05
|
|
|
You're also probably not as familiar with the level of self-delusion that people are capable of, or the level of uncertainty that comes with any case, given that the fates of both parties can rest on what the Judge had for lunch, or how well a few jurors slept the night before deliberations.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Drama in the Rittenhouse trial right now, looks like the ADA might get himself disbarred!
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Drama in the Rittenhouse trial right now, looks like the ADA might get himself disbarred! I'm dumb and literally every Google result shows 'ADA' as the Act, not a person. Who is the ADA, and what's the details on this one?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:22
|
|
|
Canine Blues Arooo posted:I'm dumb and literally every Google result shows 'ADA' as the Act, not a person. Assistant District Attorney (the guy running the prosecution case). He hosed up massively and gave the defence a copy of the drone footage that was something like 1/3 the resolution as the one the crime lab got. And then it looks like he's lied about how that happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
 I'm not even a lawyer and I know that's a legal faux pas to end all faux pas. How in hell does one make that mistake if it even was a mistake?It couldn't be a mistake, could it? They knew they had a snowball's chance of convicting Rittenhouse so he tried to pull a fast one on the defense?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:48
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Assistant District Attorney (the guy running the prosecution case). ohhhhh nooooo
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:54
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:
Had to look this up.... according to CNN: https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kyle-rittenhouse-trial-verdict-watch-11-17-21/index.html posted:In a motion to dismiss the case filed earlier this week, the defense claimed that, "On November 5, 2021, the fifth day of trial on this case, the prosecution turned over to the defense footage of drone video which captured some of the incident from August 25, 2020. The problem is, the prosecution gave the defense a compressed version of the video." So not as unreasonable as it may seem. But if the prosecution is lying directly to the judge when called out lmao edit: so to be sure, Apple uses stupid-rear end proprietary codecs that nobody else uses for their photos and videos. I've had tons of trouble at work getting other people's videos to play on my computer or phone. edit again: and also, file size doesn't necessarily mean anything here. I'm no expert of course, but compression doesn't necessarily result in loss of information. DaveSauce fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Nov 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I'll assume for the sake of discussion you were being genuine, and the answer is, "it's up to the client." Thanks. I was being genuine, and that's a much better answer than I was expecting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Had to look this up.... according to CNN: Uh why was the video not turned over until the fifth day of trial Any and all video in a self defense case is potential Brady material
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:03
|
|
|
I think its because he's an idiot, but this is why you have experts do your evidence handling rather than try and do it yourself on your personal Gmail account. E: like, the file size might not change the compression if done professionally (it wasn't) but that doesn't excuse not realising you've passed on a different file size with a different name. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Nov 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:Had to look this up.... according to CNN: it's incredible to me that lawyers exchange evidence via iphone message or what the poo poo, how is this remotely ok why would it not be done via some kind of secured file repository, or even better, some verifiable method where the recipient has to sign for what they received so they can't claim in the future that they never got it
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:05
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:why would it not be done via some kind of secured file repository, or even better, some verifiable method where the recipient has to sign for what they received so they can't claim in the future that they never got it Like, I don't know, a flash drive or SD card where both parties are present for the handover and verify the fact that the file is what it purports to be? Do they not make physical file transfer media anymore or...? EDIT: Like we're talking about an entire digital forensics section of law that pretty much (at least in FL) disallows you from ever operating on an original version of, say, a drive. You copy it bit-by-bit and store the original in a loving vault, and operate on one of three copies and give the other to the defense. 
D34THROW fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Nov 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:it's incredible to me that lawyers exchange evidence via iphone message or what the poo poo, how is this remotely ok i lol'd when they decided to e-mail it, but only after trying to airdrop it I don't know how either method is acceptable when it's evidence in a murder case Hieronymous Alloy posted:Uh why was the video not turned over until the fifth day of trial I was hoping you lawyer types could answer that! Seriously shouldn't that have been something that both parties had well ahead of the trial? I'm confused, but I don't know how entering evidence works. I would have assumed that some central entity holds the evidence and both parties retrieve it from there to look at, specifically to prevent one side from tampering with it and giving the other side a bogus/altered copy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:09
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:i lol'd when they decided to e-mail it, but only after trying to airdrop it Nope, typically law enforcement gathers the evidence, and they give it to the DA, and then it is up to the DA to turn over all discovery they intend to use at trial and any Brady or exculpatory material. This is the problem with Brady - lots of prosecutors have different definitions of "exculpatory" evidence, and as a defense attorney it can be extremely difficult to know or verify if you have all the exculpatory evidence. As an example, in the jurisdiction I used to practice in, the DA's wouldn't turn over 911 calls as a matter of course, defense attorneys had to specifically request it from the police directly. it was infuriating. The flip side of that though is in many misdemeanor cases with baby DA's, I had the 911 calls b/c I had got them from the police, and the DA hadn't requested or listened to them before trial. Which would often lead to some hilarious cross examination and impeachment. I am also confused about the timing of this as well, and I haven't been paying attention to their arguments this week, so I don't know why the video was turned over so late (if that is indeed what even happened) Xenochrist fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Nov 17, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 21:59
|
|
|
Apparently it only showed up on day 5 and only after the evidence closed did they have an argument over putting it to the jury and the prosecution said 'oh no use the high res version' and the defence realised what happened. This is not lossless encryption: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2021 22:37
|
|
|
All you people assuming that a criminal defense firm and a prosecutor's office have resources like "file sharing systems." Or verifying what is being sent. I have to get a paralegal to upload any documents i want to send to opposing counsel to the low-bidder vendor. We're only allowed one account for our 70 attorney office. If she's not working i literally can't share documents unless i can email them (25mb limit!). Yes I'm a government lawyer. Big lawyers have money and resources. They starve the government offices and give us ridiculously useless tools.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 00:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 12:27 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:Apparently it only showed up on day 5 and only after the evidence closed did they have an argument over putting it to the jury and the prosecution said 'oh no use the high res version' and the defence realised what happened. Tag yourself I am (no logarithms)
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2021 01:24
|
|
