- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
That Awesome Time I Was Sued for Two Billion Dollars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWqx8goqSY
From Defcon 17, the owner of textfiles.com talks about getting sued by a sovereign citizen for 2 billion dollars. Entertaining and informative!
Lonnie G. Schmidt writes the date as “October 18, 2001 A.D.”
What a a dumbass. Anno Domini is a prefix, not a suffix.
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 20:41
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 20:09
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
I'm a notary and you would be surprised the number of times I've seen the distinction that papers are signed this year AD. The papers are always a form letter from legalzoom and it probably came about when some bitch was left out of a will and challenged the validity of a document based on not being clear if the paper was forged because it is very unlikely the thing was signed 4000 years ago. Then again I'm a notary and not a lawyer.
Wouldn’t it be a good thing to have the other party making dumb arguments like that?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 22:46
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
quote:On this note. We had a local business owner buy 600 dollars in shoes. The check passed the screening system, but bounced. However you can put a check through twice before not being allowed to deposit it again. The guy refused to return the shoes, so my boss held that check and called the bank every day for 2 weeks. Eventually the lady at the bank was used to talking to him and called him to say there were enough funds for the check to clear. Apparently the guy was an rear end to the cashier and she recognized his name from checking his balance daily. He drove down and cashed the check, and deposited it in his register. The guy calls him and is loving livid. I can hear him screaming obscenities at him at the top of his lungs. Apparently the guy put just enough in the bank to clear a check for a ticket, and the department issued a warrant for his arrest for writing a hot check.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2016 14:31
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
SheriffCreepy on Reddit posted:Ah the ghost.
Okay, so, in the first place it's always nice to get a client from a business card you left at a diner. It means people pick those things up. However, when leaving business cards at diners in certain areas of town, I should expect some issues.
This call came through on a dreary December day as I was sipping coffee and watching the snow fall. The caller ID read that it was the local hospital, and as I picked up I spoke to a rather frantic young man who informed me he was being held against his will and he needed an attorney to help him. When I asked where he was, he simply said "the 5th floor." While this may sound innocuous, every hospital has a "5th Floor," where Napoleon roams the halls freely and the residents speak to their imaginary friends who may, or may not, have been an influencing factor in why they decided that clothing was a way for the government to track them and therefore the only solution was to create Poop Pants to throw off the monitoring ability of the CIA.
Long story short on this portion, within an hour of the call a friend had dropped off my fee, and I was en route to the Fifth Floor to meet with my new client. I assumed it would be an involuntary committal defense, and after speaking with my client I gauged that, while the man was most definitely in need of mental care, he was not a danger to himself or others and was unlikely to be one. He had, in my opinion, been forced to agree to being committed by his probation officer, and frankly I wasn't going to let that stand. I got the name of some contacts from his treatment plan who were willing to vouch that he had, until recently, been compliant with his medications, and contacted his social worker who was able to confirm that, yes, since he had ceased taking the medication due to an inability to afford the medications, the county would assist him with it. A slam dunk, I would simply swing my big lawyer dick around the mental ward and get him released, then appear in the Court to defend against the involuntary committal.
Within 24 hours of being committed, my client was back at home. A hearing was set a couple weeks in the future, and I did daily checks to be certain he was compliant with his medication leading up to the hearing...until the one day I didn't.
A call from the local police was my tip off. An older officer, one I was familiar with, called to advise they had responded to a disturbance at my client's home. He apparently had been screaming in an empty room loud enough that the neighbors were concerned and called the police. The police officer, a friendly sort, gauged the situation and decided my client wasn't a threat, but asked what the situation was.
"The ghost," my client had responded, "The ghost won't get out and it won't leave me alone."
"Well," said the officer, "I can tell it to leave."
So he did. He told the ghost to leave. And then, apparently for shits and giggles, told him that it was a "civil matter" if the ghost refused to leave, and therefore an attorney would need to be contacted. At which point my client dropped my name....which resulted in the cop giving me a heads up.
So, I call my client...who is inconsolable at the concept of sharing his home with the ghost. Keep in mind, I've been to this guy's house. This is the first I've heard of a ghost. But there is a competency hearing on the horizon, and this will not play well in front of the judge.
"The cop said it's a civil matter," my client repeated about the 18th time after I told him I was not, in fact, a priest, but was a lawyer and didn't know how to perform an exorcism.
"What do you want me to do," I snapped a bit, "Evict it?"
There are moments in time when you should keep your mouth shut. This is one of them, because the immediate response was "CAN YOU? THAT'D BE GREAT!"
Well poo poo.
So, long story short, I ended up driving out there with a "Mock Up" Notice to Quit addressed to "Any spirits in possession of the property located at [1313 Mockingbird Lane] without any authority under color of law" advising them that their possession was "unlawful in nature" and ordering them to "quit and surrender the premises, or any portion thereof, within fifteen (15) days of the date of this notice."
As I was obviously unable to obtain personal service via hand delivery, I had my client direct me to the portion of the premises the Ghost occupied, an empty spare bedroom, and made service by posting the Notice to the door of the room. I then announced that the ghost "HAD BEEN SERVED A VALID NOTICE TO QUIT AND SURRENDER POSSESSION" and went home.
A week later, as we're preparing to enter the Court for my client's competency hearing, I ask about the status.
"Oh Mr. Creepy, it worked great!" my client announced. "He moved out the same night and took all his stuff with him."
The ghost apparently had "stuff."
Anyhow, I smiled and patted my client on the shoulder as I offered some sage advice.
"Well, good," I said, "now, let's not mention this in front of the judge. He might have a problem with the service and order us to let the ghost back in if he finds out about it."
My client nodded enthusiastically. I kept him out of the mental hospital that day, and take some comfort knowing somewhere today this crazy bastard is still telling people about his great lawyer who got rid of his ethereal roommate for free.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 09:07
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
The Prompt posted:Lawyers of Reddit, what is the most outrageous case someone has asked you to take? SheriffCreepy posted:There's a lot of them:
There's the completely guilty sex offender sitting in jail who wanted me to handle his appeal under circumstances that would have resulted in him being released...then immediately charged and convicted of a more serious crime.
SheriffCreepy posted:Well....he was guilty.
Without too much in the way of details, I was just starting out and had a not so nice basement office in a nice building. To give you an idea of the space, it was the type of place with an overhead light that buzzed annoyingly and, if working late, had no access to the bathrooms which were on a more secured first floor. Going outside for a cigarette wasn't worth the hassle after hours, so I developed a habit of smoking at my desk and blowing the smoke into a toilet paper tube stuffed with dryer sheets. Yes, this is a trick stoners will recognize, and yes, I did learn it from a client.
Anyhow, a family came into my office one evening regarding their respective son/brother. The issue was he had been charged with statutory rape of an underage girl. He was over 20, and it had gone to trial, and he had ended up being convicted of a lesser charge, namely Sexual Misconduct with a Minor. Not rape, but not good. The kid was serving some time in a jailhouse out in the country as a result, and the family wanted him out and on the street.
Now, there are reasons you can seek post-conviction relief, and reasons you can't, and after driving out to the jail and introducing myself I took what I call an "investigative retainer" to look into the merits of the matter. They paid, and I started looking into things.
First, it became abundantly clear his primary claim would arise from the fact that he didn't testify, and the fact that the kid actually didn't do it...on that day.
See, he had been dating the girl when she was underage, and they had been intimate. Then he broke up with her...and out of anger, she came up with the rape allegation, that he had shown up, forced himself on her, etc. when she found out he was dating someone else. He had a solid alibi for all of this...but it required him to testify....
...which would waive his Fifth Amendment rights and open him up to cross-examination. Wherein he'd be asked if he "ever had sex with [the victim.]" And he'd have to answer yes...and then asked about his current girlfriend...and have to advise she, too, was under the age of consent. And that he'd been intimate with her.
Sure, he'd get out of jail for sexual misconduct. Then he'd be immediately charged with at least one, maybe two, counts of statutory rape which he had admitted to on the stand.
I ended up turning down further representation on that one.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 09:12
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
RogerDeanVenture on Reddit posted:I worked legal aid for a while. Every day was "outrageous" and goes something like this - But I have a restraining order on my first ever "client":
The very first person I ever spoke to in a legal capacity was a woman who wanted to sue her contractor for $250,000 for an unfinished job and emotional distress. First, being upset at an incomplete job isn't emotional distress. Second, The contract was only for about $100,000 and upon further questioning I learned that this contractor had actually completed all terms of the contract. This woman eventually admitted she was suing him because he was "Rude and always late."
I informed her that we would not take this case. Additionally I warned her that a failure to pay the contract would most likely result in the contractor suing her. She found this idea ludicrous and began to yell at me in my office - first person on my first day - about how she had a right as an American that I act as her lawyer. So I handle that, we are not helping her in this case.
Two days later, I get a call from the Contractor's attorney stating that this woman has cited me as her attorney and threatened a hailstorm of suits upon the contractor from me. It took all of 5 minutes for the other Attorney to realize what was going on. Heck, they even made sure to remind me of the steps I should take to protect myself from any related suits this lady might bring upon me. Actually... I still talk to this attorney, so silver lining on the first day I suppose.
About a month or two passes (foggy on timeframe). Woman comes in again, furious because the contractor sued her and was able to get a lien on the property. She said this was my fault because I didn't help her. I manage to talk her down. She then immediately gets fired up again because "they are trying to scam her into giving them all her documents." Turns out, trial on the matter was coming up in about a week, and they had requested photographs of allegedly unfinished work, damages, etc... as well as the original contract and payment receipts. Basically - all stuff very very typical and reasonable to request and that she is obligated to provide. She (and nearly every client I worked with in this capacity) thought that evidence was supposed to be a "surprise" at trial and that sharing this information would hurt her case. NO poo poo it would hurt her case because she is a liar.
Anyways, again. Not her lawyer. Actually make her sign a paper signifying she understands this. She leaves. Months pass, I'm no longer at Legal Aid. Lady finds me at my school. I get a call from the loving dean asking me to swing by. Says he just met with a disgruntled client of mine who says I cost her her home, marriage, and children (apparently things went downhill fast). She claimed she would do everything in her power to make sure I never did anything again. Anyyyways, dean is a nice guy and helped me with my restraining order paperwork.
TL:DR - First "client" ever was some crazy lady lying psycho who keept thinking I'm her lawyer. She Loses everything, stalks & threatens me, gets restraining order filed against her.
Either that or the time somebody wanted me to sue their ex's infant for lost sleep. I actually laughed because I thought they were joking. They weren't.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 10:15
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
What are the legal and ethical boundaries to humouring someone's delusions like that? Because if that hasn't worked I can see it doing some damage to people's careers and mental states.
Reddit had an exchange over that.
It’s long so I’ll just link it.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2016 15:16
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
v: short for AND, not versus. A pet peeve of lawyers everywhere.
Wikipedia posted:The "v" separating the parties is an abbreviation of the Latin versus, but, when spoken in Commonwealth countries, it is normally rendered as "and" or "against"
Hmm…
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 12:11
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
Yes, that's what I said. Against =/= versus.
It may be tradition to pronounce it “and” in Britain, but it quite literally is short for versus.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 20, 2016 13:08
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
Artist Accused of Disowning a Painting Testifies
quote:The lawsuit, brought by Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Bartlow, charges that Mr. Doig is either confused or lying, and that his denials wrecked their plan to sell the work at a Chicago auction house for what they said could have been millions of dollars.
Peter Doig, shown in 2013, is being sued as the creator of a desert landscape canvas, which he denies having painted.
The plaintiffs are suing the painter for at least $5 million in damages and, in addition, are seeking a court declaration that the artwork is authentic.
Mr. Doig took the stand on the first day of the trial, called as an adverse witness by the plaintiffs, whose lawyers asked him to go through the minutiae of how he creates art. The plaintiffs contend the work resembles other paintings by Mr. Doig and employs colors he typically uses.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 03:30
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
Forty‐one victims of the Aurora, CO cinema shooting of 2012 sued the cinema.
Now four of them owe the cinema seven hundred thousand dollars in legal fees.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 04:14
|
|
- Adbot
-
ADBOT LOVES YOU
|
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2024 20:09
|
|
- Platystemon
- Feb 13, 2012
-
BREADS
|
Well only the 3 who went with the guy owe the money. The other 37 or however many don't owe anything, as far as I can tell.
They don’t owe anything, but he did cost them each fifteen hundred dollars in settlement money (ten thousand dollars each for the ones most seriously injured).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 13:52
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2016 20:41
