|
A coworker of mine is the executor of her grandfather’s estate. He passed this summer at like 98 or something. She’s been going through everything with the attorney, and recently found out that she is being sued by two aunts who are adamant that she is withholding $50,000,000 from them. She and her lawyer are completely unconcerned because he was worth nowhere near that, all the documents and everything are in place, and they have nothing to stand on other than “We think you are hiding an absurd sum of money from us”. My question is how common are things like this? Where one party has absolutely no chance at getting a ruling to go their way, but proceeds headfirst into it all. Follow up question, can something be literally laughed out of court?
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2023 23:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
A Real Horse posted:
Maybe not claiming $50mil in hiding, but the thought of money makes some people go straight off the rails into conflict with everyone else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Getting your back rubbed feels good omg wow medical breakthrough that'll be $500 In Florida massage therapy is not covered in auto-PIP but chiros are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 00:01
|
|
|
The chiro industry appears to exist largely because they can be used by rear end in a top hat attorneys to "substantiate" medical harm. I have no idea how you'd go about a state-by-state disentangling of a practice central to the profit methodology of ambulance-chasers.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 01:23
|
|
|
A Real Horse posted:Follow up question, can something be literally laughed out of court? You can definitely hear the judge either trying not to laugh or trying not to scream when you read some orders granting motions for summary judgment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 01:28
|
|
|
q_k posted:Maybe not claiming $50mil in hiding, but the thought of money makes some people go straight off the rails into conflict with everyone else. Guess so. I would be shocked if the estate reached past the mid six figures, it’s just insane to me that they would claim so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 01:33
|
|
|
A Real Horse posted:
It happens, it's rare we get two or three of these and their ilk per year - they usually don't get laughed out of Court, they usually run out of whatever little money they had to begin with that their lawyer was happy to take off them while filing whatever bullshit they told them to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The chiro industry appears to exist largely because they can be used by rear end in a top hat attorneys to "substantiate" medical harm. I have no idea how you'd go about a state-by-state disentangling of a practice central to the profit methodology of ambulance-chasers. And because of Mormons and bored white women
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 05:37
|
|
|
Ooh, the aunts might be sov cits trying to get at that corporate bond!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2023 08:01
|
|
blarzgh posted:And because of Mormons and bored white women That's more the dietary supplements industry. I can't talk to friends or family about the facts of the interaction between the LDS and dietary supplements because it sounds like a loving conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 08:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's more the dietary supplements industry. I can't talk to friends or family about the facts of the interaction between the LDS and dietary supplements because it sounds like a loving conspiracy theory. Have you ever been in a chiropractic office? They definitely are also in the supplement industry.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 08:37
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's more the dietary supplements industry. I can't talk to friends or family about the facts of the interaction between the LDS and dietary supplements because it sounds like a loving conspiracy theory. Read "Under the Banner of Heaven" for a deep dive into Mormon Culture, and 'alternative business practices' as a pillar of their social/economic model. (Also a history of the church, and a double homicide) therobit posted:Have you ever been in a chiropractic office? They definitely are also in the supplement industry. Oh yeah. The ven diagrams are 100% overlap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 12:43
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:(Also a history of the church, and a double homicide) Fuckin bush league. Let us know when they find unmarked graveyards behind LDS schools.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 16:29
|
|
|
So wait do courts/insurance companies actually buy Chiropractor bullshit? Or is it typically a, "we'll settle for $X to get you to gently caress off" sort of thing where they're not really accepting it as real damages, but just recognizing that the fight is not worth having?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 16:50
|
|
|
DaveSauce posted:So wait do courts/insurance companies actually buy Chiropractor bullshit? Courts 100% recognize it as medical treatment in FL because it is enshrined in statute as such. Massage therapy, on the other hand, is not and is not even covered by most auto insurance medical coverage in FL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 16:56
|
|
|
A Real Horse posted:Guess so. I would be shocked if the estate reached past the mid six figures, it’s just insane to me that they would claim so much. Inheritance literally breaks people’s brains. My brother is 6 years in on being convinced my dad and I are hiding money from our grandma(my dad’s mom) from him. She lived to 93, dude, we spent it on her healthcare. We had to go through a whole forensic accounting process because of it and he still thinks we are hiding assets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 17:34
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:If they've only got 2 bodies, that pretty much qualifies as "best" church, right? Do LDS get some points for the Mountain Meadows massacre and the century-long attempt at a coverup?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
B33rChiller posted:If they've only got 2 bodies, that pretty much qualifies as "best" church, right? nah that book just talks about one double homicide in particular, it also covers a lot more hosed up poo poo (there's a lot of about the FLDS Church in it). Good book, depending on whether you like Jon Krakauer or not
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 18:17
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:Do LDS get some points for the Mountain Meadows massacre and the century-long attempt at a coverup? EwokEntourage posted:nah that book just talks about one double homicide in particular, it also covers a lot more hosed up poo poo (there's a lot of about the FLDS Church in it). Good book, depending on whether you like Jon Krakauer or not
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2023 18:41
|
|
|
I'm in my last semester as a grad student and the university has stiffed me on a couple paychecks. During the normal fall/spring semesters, I am paid out of one bucket of money but I'm paid out of a complete separate bucket for the summer. Problem is, during the last summer session, the incompetent bozos in payroll hosed up my forms and so I have never been paid for the 3 summer months. I have notified both department payroll and central payroll about this and they have been allegedly working on it since July, but every "fix" they tell me they apply never happens. So I go back to complain again, they say they have a new idea how to pay me, nothing happens, repeat process. The latest brilliant idea is to start at the very beginning of the process with a new set of payroll forms, but that will take several weeks at the least before I get paid. I have finally reached the end of my patience. Is it worth it to hire a labor lawyer and have them try to bully whoever is in charge of the purse string to just cut me a check for the backpay owed? Or will billable hours eat up half my salary anyhow? Since the fall semester has started again, I am being paid correctly, but I would like the 3 months owed to me
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2023 00:16
|
|
|
Do you have someone internal to escalate to? At the very least, the university should have an ombudsman's office, which is basically the catch-all, help-me-the-bureaucracy-is-hosed-up office. Or more close to you, an advisor, department chair, or dean?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2023 00:44
|
|
|
I initially told my advisor (who actually had the same issue, but somehow manged to get everything squared up after only a month) and department payroll person in July, who has been working on this with the central university payroll. Some of the fault is mine as I assumed one of them would notify the chair, which they eventually did, but only last week. He's the one who suggested to start re-initialize from the top with the new forms. Department payroll notified me the Dean's office is taking an interest in some capacity, but I have no idea to the extent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2023 00:50
|
|
|
You could probably send their legal counsel a demand for unpaid wages via your state dept of labor. It may not change the logistics but ideally would light a fire under them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2023 03:08
|
|
|
What is the statue of limitations for resolving unpaid wages where you are vs how long have they been waffling? I would have been talking to government agencies about that poo poo during August and definitely not still working for the same org with that kind of debt outstanding
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2023 03:12
|
|
|
Javid posted:What is the statue of limitations for resolving unpaid wages where you are vs how long have they been waffling? I was knee deep in finishing my dissertation, so I kinda had other things on my mind. Not like I could quit without sending 6 years of work down the tubes Texas' stuff is 180 days but they also don't cover state agencies, so I would have to go federal instead. And who knows how long that would take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2023 05:11
|
|
|
Not a lawyer, but I read a lot of board minutes. I'd say the value in having a formally delivered claim is not so much the regulatory timescale, but that now when the top management do their quarterly review the legal matters section goes from 'there is a moderate risk of future claims against us' to 'there is an active legal case to the value of $x'000'
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2023 00:37
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:And who knows how long that would take. An employment lawyer
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
So on a scale from 1 to 100 how great an idea is it for SBF to testify in his own defense for four hours?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:31
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:So on a scale from 1 to 100 how great an idea is it for SBF to testify in his own defense for four hours? It's a great idea for laughs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:37
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:So on a scale from 1 to 100 how great an idea is it for SBF to testify in his own defense for four hours? There's a point in the criminal defense math where testifying is basically equivalent to a Hail Mary pass. Yes, it's probably going to gently caress you, but you're hosed anyway, and there's a small chance you persuade a juror and get a hung jury or something and delay things by a little bit more and every deferral and delay is another chance. So most high profile defendants who people say are making a mistake by testifying aren't so much making a mistake as they are trying to gamble their way out of a mob debt. It's not so much a mistake as it is an available choice out of a set of very bad options. See, e.g., the Murdaugh trial, where all the TV pundits said he made a mistake by testifying, but he got lucky and a numbnuts court clerk told the jury room not to believe him, and now he may get a whole new trial. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:46
|
|
|
Not to contradict you but my half-assed impression is that a lot of high profile defendants testify because they're egomaniacs who don't listen to their own lawyers and are quite sure they can explain everything and get off scott free because blustering their way out of things has always worked for them in every other aspect of their lives. And not specifically because their lawyers have advised them this hail mary desperation play is the only chance they've got left?
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:50
|
|
|
Oh true that's why they do it. I'm just explaining why it isn't automatically a mistake. Dudes made a lot of prior dumbass decisions to get to the point of needing to decide whether or not to testify in their own defense. One more risky play isn't necessarily making things any worse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
To put it in different terms; it's only a mistake to testify if you stand a better chance without your testimony than with. No lawyer will advise you to testify if you already have a solid defence, possibly based on technicalities, because it is a very risky move at the best of times. However, if you are up poo poo creek you might as well try and swim for it. Now, some systems also as an informal rule will consider it a strike against you if you refuse to give your version to the court. Like if you don't testify in a norwegian court room the court is going to be pretty suspicious of you, so the better act is being emotionally distraught or overcome in a way that isn't very detailed and can't be used by the prosecution (like, sympathy plays are amazingly effective) but as a lawyer you can't advise or condone trying to pull off an act like that. Also because the client will rat you out for any shady poo poo you try and basically 1% of people can actually pull it off convincingly anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Almost by definition a high profile defendant (unless they are a celebrity) is someone who has done something extremely illegal in full public view and the trial is a bit of a formality. e: it is also a bit context dependent. For example, Kyle Rittenhouse's self-defence argument was always pretty solid and its hard to see how any reasonable jury could come to another conclusion, but he absolutely had to take the stand in order to make that happen. e2: And in the UK the rule is stronger - if you refuse to testify then the jury direction is essentially 'if you think that the defendant doesn't have a good reason why they haven't answered the prosecution's questions, you can assume it's because they're probably guilty'. Alchenar fucked around with this message at 19:57 on Oct 26, 2023 |
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 19:50
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:Almost by definition a high profile defendant (unless they are a celebrity) is someone who has done something extremely illegal in full public view and the trial is a bit of a formality. Fair points. For Rittenhouse I disagree somewhat. Rittenhouse's self defense argument had some major holes in it, not least that he brought on the difficulty and went to the incident location looking for exaxtly the sort of trouble he ended up in, and a black dude in the same exact circumstances would've gotten convicted, say, three times in five (imho). OTOH you are correct (and I'm pretty sure I said at the time) that he always had a pretty good chance at acquittal assumingna competent defense lawyer. You're also probably correct that he needed to take the stand to make it happen. Rittenhouse wasn't really making a Hail Mary play like SBF or murdaugh by testifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:
This makes a lot less difference in America than people think. Studies of juries have shown that they pretty much routinely assume anyone who doesn't testify is guilty, and judicial admonishments not to do so just reinforce the bias.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:This makes a lot less difference in America than people think. Studies of juries have shown that they pretty much routinely assume anyone who doesn't testify is guilty, and judicial admonishments not to do so just reinforce the bias. Oh yeah, the reason we changed our approach was that everyone knew juries were doing that anyway and so its better if the system acknowledges reality and warns defendants on what's coming. On Rittenhouse I actually disagree - what I took from his testimony is that he wasn't looking for trouble because as a dumb kid he assumed that the gun made him invulnerable, so he blithely put himself in an incredibly dangerous situation that escalated to the point where he needed to use it. I suspect that's what the jury took as well. I think the big question mark over that trial is what happens if the prosecution don't make the unfathomable decision to put several witnesses up who were clearly lying through their teeth all the way through their testimony. Watching the trial I think the point where I decided he was definitely getting off was seeing Gaige Grosskreutz trying to claim that he wasn't running after Rittenhouse but just running in the same direction as him, behind him, with a gun intending to stop him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 20:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:three times in five (imho). interesting choice in odds
|
|
#
?
Oct 26, 2023 21:53
|
|
|
What happens if you get served for an outstanding debt for someone else? A friend got served, apparently because the guy who used to live at his apartment never updated his address, and he just plans on ignoring it. I being, paranoid, suggested he at least call the courthouse or something. Do they not have to check your ID or something? If my buddy does nothing is this other random rear end in a top hat gonna get a bunch of extra poo poo because the sever never gave it to him? It's Florida.
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 02:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
sleepy.eyes posted:What happens if you get served for an outstanding debt for someone else? A friend got served, apparently because the guy who used to live at his apartment never updated his address, and he just plans on ignoring it. I being, paranoid, suggested he at least call the courthouse or something. Do they not have to check your ID or something? If my buddy does nothing is this other random rear end in a top hat gonna get a bunch of extra poo poo because the sever never gave it to him? It's Florida. When you say the server never gave it to him, do you mean he just found it in the mailbox one afternoon?
|
|
#
?
Oct 27, 2023 03:25
|
|
