Monday, August 29, 2016
Friday, July 8, 2016
How Attorney Saved Client Many $$ Thousands $$ in Litigation Expense --- with One Letter!
When couples split up and are not married and have no domestic contract or partnership or other qualified written agreement, just about anything can happen.
As an example, consider how much money was saved when attorney drafted a demand letter after one party attempted to take advantage of the other party in a real estate situation involving approximately $902,541 in real estate, by welching on her promise; to be honest, attorney was not 100% sure that the letter would solve the problem, since the other party had been carrying on her behavior over at least, a 2 year time frame................
As an example, consider how much money was saved when attorney drafted a demand letter after one party attempted to take advantage of the other party in a real estate situation involving approximately $902,541 in real estate, by welching on her promise; to be honest, attorney was not 100% sure that the letter would solve the problem, since the other party had been carrying on her behavior over at least, a 2 year time frame................
Sunday, June 26, 2016
Law Firms Inside Wal Mart-- Georgia and Missouri...........!!!
BUSINESS OF LAW
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/wal-mart_law_firms_are_already_in_the_us/?utm_source=internal&utm_medium=navigation&utm_campaign=most_readLaw firms are already inside some
US Wal-Marts
POSTED JUN 21, 2016 01:15 PM CDT
When Evan Kaine, a personal injury attorney in Atlanta read a story in the May 2016 issue of the ABA Journal about Axess Law opening up offices in Wal-Mart in Canada, he remembered reading a line about whether these firms would soon be in your backyard.
“My reaction was: ‘Yes it is going to be in your backyard,’” Kaine says. “In fact, it already is.”
His firm, Kaine Law, has offices inside three Atlanta-area Wal-Marts. Kaine says that he opened his first Wal-Mart office in 2012 before expanding to two additional stores last year.
Like many lawyers, Kaine had seen the statistic about how 80 percent of all low-income Americans have unmet civil legal needs. To that end, he came up with the idea to set up shop in an area where most of those underrepresented people shop.
Kaine says his offices are full-service, although he emphasizes that he has built up relationships with a number of other local firms that specialize in different areas of the law and often refers work to them. In fact, he estimates that he only keeps about 20 percent of the cases that come into the Wal-Mart offices. Kaine says the Wal-Mart offices operate on a fixed-fee basis and even offer a number of free services, including a basic last will and testament and notary public services.
“It’s about being able to offer a service to the community,” he says. “We have to minimize the stigma of expensive attorneys.”
There’s a reason why Kaine’s Wal-Mart offices have received very little publicity. “We kept it quiet for a number of reasons,” he says. “The legal industry does not welcome change, and we wanted to make sure our model was sustainable before we went public with it.” Indeed, he’s kept such a low profile that when The Law Store opened offices inside Wal-Marts in Joplin and Neosho, Missouri, on June 1, they believed that they were the first firm in America to do it.................
Wednesday, March 16, 2016
When Judges are Biased Against a Party??
Unfortunately, it does happen. But never in 20+ years have we ever seen a case (until now) where a Judge simply ignores the evidence, and simply awards whatever the mediator says, despite an obvious breach of the local rules/or laws governing mediators and evidence.
A key part of due process, is to give the process that is due....essentially in Family Law mediation, there should be NO evidence submitted to mediator that is NOT also served upon the other party ahead of time, with a proof of service to all parties. Although we do not claim to know the family law in other states outside of California, it would seem quite prejudicial to (a) take evidence and then (b) never show it to opposing party, and then (3) throw out the evidence or give it back to the party who tendered it, and not have a record of the evidence--and THEN -- for Judge to use that evidence in awarding custody to the person who gave the evidence, by claiming the petitioning party did not overcome the presumption of joint custody? This would be the case since Judge rubber stamped the recommendation, which obviously relied upon the evidence never shown to the non custodial parent, which also caused the mediator to not even interview the minor child.
At long cause, judge ignored the argument of due process and ignoring the local rules. This was after custodial parent had caused the long cause hearing to drag on for months, because custodial claimed an attorney would be obtained but never got one; at each trial setting, custodial would choose a date that ended up being changed.
Nevertheless......the losing party then continued the vigil to gain custody notwithstanding the ridiculous ruling. Of course an appeal was out of the question because even if client wanted to engage an appeal, it would take so long that it would not be worth it.
Instead, client remained vigilant to actually follow the court's crummy order of several hours a week visitation, supervised. In meantime, the custodial parent continued to mess up on whatever that parent was supposed to do. About 6mo later, with documented evidence, the custodial parent decided to give up and just abandon the kids to the party wronged by the last order. Rather than attempting mediation again, and risking another bad mediator decision or biased Judge, the non custodial parent let the bad parent just hang her/himself. It was not surprising that the custodial parent had filed three TROs, none of which had stuck.
In our view, by allowing such a blatant evidentiary wrong to make a case for one parent, it was obvious that this was bias, as the non custodial parent even had a written letter from CPS stating that the children had been harmed by someone who was with the custodial parent and CPS was investigating (but not filing charges yet...) And, that the custodial parent was engaging in sexual acts in hotels in front of the minor children. But judge said, that was old news? WTH??!! The police wanted non custodial to do an ex parte. Oh yes, that would have fallen on deaf ears if the judge won't even look at a CPS letter or all the withhold notices from the District Attorney.
This goes to show that every case is usually different, and what might work normally in one case is not necessarily going to work in all cases.
NOTE: Attorney is very aware that 170.6 can be used, however this judge had heard the case prior to this attorney taking the case; judge taking testimony prior so essentially client was precluded from using that tactic. Attorney dropped out of case purposely to see if Judge would treat client differently; at the last motion, Judge actually ruled that CWS and an investigation would take place; it did take place and client was given 50/50 timeshare which he wanted.
A key part of due process, is to give the process that is due....essentially in Family Law mediation, there should be NO evidence submitted to mediator that is NOT also served upon the other party ahead of time, with a proof of service to all parties. Although we do not claim to know the family law in other states outside of California, it would seem quite prejudicial to (a) take evidence and then (b) never show it to opposing party, and then (3) throw out the evidence or give it back to the party who tendered it, and not have a record of the evidence--and THEN -- for Judge to use that evidence in awarding custody to the person who gave the evidence, by claiming the petitioning party did not overcome the presumption of joint custody? This would be the case since Judge rubber stamped the recommendation, which obviously relied upon the evidence never shown to the non custodial parent, which also caused the mediator to not even interview the minor child.
At long cause, judge ignored the argument of due process and ignoring the local rules. This was after custodial parent had caused the long cause hearing to drag on for months, because custodial claimed an attorney would be obtained but never got one; at each trial setting, custodial would choose a date that ended up being changed.
Nevertheless......the losing party then continued the vigil to gain custody notwithstanding the ridiculous ruling. Of course an appeal was out of the question because even if client wanted to engage an appeal, it would take so long that it would not be worth it.
Instead, client remained vigilant to actually follow the court's crummy order of several hours a week visitation, supervised. In meantime, the custodial parent continued to mess up on whatever that parent was supposed to do. About 6mo later, with documented evidence, the custodial parent decided to give up and just abandon the kids to the party wronged by the last order. Rather than attempting mediation again, and risking another bad mediator decision or biased Judge, the non custodial parent let the bad parent just hang her/himself. It was not surprising that the custodial parent had filed three TROs, none of which had stuck.
In our view, by allowing such a blatant evidentiary wrong to make a case for one parent, it was obvious that this was bias, as the non custodial parent even had a written letter from CPS stating that the children had been harmed by someone who was with the custodial parent and CPS was investigating (but not filing charges yet...) And, that the custodial parent was engaging in sexual acts in hotels in front of the minor children. But judge said, that was old news? WTH??!! The police wanted non custodial to do an ex parte. Oh yes, that would have fallen on deaf ears if the judge won't even look at a CPS letter or all the withhold notices from the District Attorney.
This goes to show that every case is usually different, and what might work normally in one case is not necessarily going to work in all cases.
NOTE: Attorney is very aware that 170.6 can be used, however this judge had heard the case prior to this attorney taking the case; judge taking testimony prior so essentially client was precluded from using that tactic. Attorney dropped out of case purposely to see if Judge would treat client differently; at the last motion, Judge actually ruled that CWS and an investigation would take place; it did take place and client was given 50/50 timeshare which he wanted.
Monday, March 7, 2016
Great Results in Case After CPS Snatches Kids
A new case found that CPS snatched both minor kids after one child was found to have ingested a substance turning out to be medical MJ in form of what appeared to be expensive dessert. Although it was accidental, CPS wrote scathing report against one parent and was not too kind to the other parent either. In most cases, CPS turns over case over to the District Attorney, and prosecution for some crime will ensue. Due to a procedural error, even before the first hearing, it appeared one parent never even received a customary intake document to fill out, much less return it.... These documents are supposed to be used for the purpose of making an informed decision re the juveniles, plus they should realistically be done prior to any reports being filed with the court for purposes of keeping kids away from the parents. While social workers might dispute that, it is common sense that one does not have one parent fill out a standard intake, and the other does not, then a report is made before the parent even fills out the intake form.
It would seem that failure to even give one parent the form to fill out while still giving the court a report on the entire incident and more, is not due process, even if the form was used for simple facts since such facts can knowingly add to, or detract from the parent's background in toto.
Upon not even being able to have time to read the entire report because CPS did not hand it out until 10 minutes before court, where report should have been given out 2 days earlier, attorney objected to moving forward based upon lack of time to review report, failure of CPS to have one parent fill out the intake document they use, and it was stated to judge, to be prejudicial to client....Judge decided that it would be a contested hearing and set matter over for about six days.
Remarkably, the next day (big surprise)--- clients were informed that children were going to be returned to the home, at least one parent still living at home, and other parent only to be supervised by the in house parent. That is about the best result one can get without even having gone to any other hearings at all, and considering how bad the report was written against one parent in particular, it sends the message that one should always:
(a) take caution and not accept anything CPS throws out just because they wrote it;
(b) the full disclosure documents should be given and returned prior to hearing, not after a hearing; (c) reports which misconstrue or misstate facts should be objected to strenuously and by cross examination.
(d) any reports, documents, evidence or anything related to the case that is in written form which is subject to some type of time limit (for example, should be received 2 days prior to hearing)--should be followed; and if not, objection should be lodged for cause and hearing pushed forward. Judge is not going to necessarily know what date the parents or others involved, received the data.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Links to Interesting Issues Within Divorce
Mental Health Issues and Divorce in California | DivorceNet.com
www.divorcenet.com/resources/mental-health-issues-and-divorce-california.html
If you have additional questions about mental health and divorce in California after reading this article, you should consult a local family law attorney.Understanding and Calculating Alimony in California | DivorceNet.com
www.divorcenet.com/.../divorce/...issues/understanding-and-calculating-alimony-c
When a married couple divorces after building a lifestyle together, a court may require the ... UnderCalifornia law the purpose of temporary spousal support is toResearch on FC Section 2640: (from Mr. Arnold)
http://www.thurmanarnold.com/Family-Law-Blog/2010/December/What-Are-TRACINGS-In-California-DIVORCE-Proceedi.aspx
It is extremely common that a community property asset (acquired during marriage, possibly but not necessarily in joint names), or improvements to it, traces partly or 100% to a separate property source. Many parents 'gift' their child part or all of the downpayment for the couple's first home. Or, a separate property asset (acquired during marriage but titled in one spouse's name alone - usually seen with real estate) may be purchased using joint funds. In either event there is a tracing right of reimbursement per Family Code section 2640 to the respective community or separate property interests that bought it, in the event of a dissolution or legal separation. FC §2640 is in the top five of all California property division statutes and is critical for an understanding of what your legal interests are if either spouse has any colorable claims to separate property used during marriage. Many middle income and high asset property division cases are a puzzle map of assets that are not what they seem at first glance
Other California Family Law Issues | Bohm Wildish
www.cadivorce.com › California Divorce Guide
Military Divorce ... Due to this fact, there is a unique set of laws that are utilized when it comes to dissolving them. For instance, California family law created a set of procedures to handle situations that arise in registered domestic partnerships ...Top 10 Divorce Myths in California | LawGives
https://www.lawgives.com/guide/.../Top-10-Divorce-Myths-in-California
Make sure you're prepared to handle any challenges a divorce may throw your way. ... One exception: California will recognize a "common law" marriage if a ...Tuesday, January 5, 2016
New Laws 2016 Including Guns, Searches/Warrants on Phones, Social Media; and Restraining Orders
Searches-- The new year also requires law enforcement agencies to obtain a search warrant before looking at private emails, text messages and GPS data stored in smartphones, laptops and the cloud.
Restraining Orders-
Four months after a disturbed man killed six UC Santa Barbara students and wounded 13 others, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation allowing the temporary seizure of guns from people determined by the courts to be a threat to themselves or others.
Restraining Orders-
Four months after a disturbed man killed six UC Santa Barbara students and wounded 13 others, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation allowing the temporary seizure of guns from people determined by the courts to be a threat to themselves or others.
The Isla Vista massacre in May occurred even though the family of Elliot Rodger had sought help because of concerns about his strange behavior before the shootings.
The legislation approved by the governor allows law enforcement officers or family members to ask a court for a restraining order against a person believed to be a threat, barring his or her possession of firearms for 21 days.
The measure was opposed by groups including the National Rifle Assn. and Gun Owners of California. The groups objected that the gun owner would not get a hearing before the restraining order is issued. Under the new law, a hearing must be held within 21 days of the order being issued.
“Without a doubt, AB 1014 is one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties ever introduced in the California Legislature,” wrote Charles H. Cunningham, a director with the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action.
For family law cases--- a domestic violence TRO will cause weapons to be removed, HOWEVER, note that this law was put into place because there was no civil harassment or domestic violence with family, friends, live in girlfriend, boyfriend, etc. There may have been strange behavior (the defendant allegedly was suffering from Aspergers), see http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/asperger/detail_asperger.htm
In fact part of this young man's issue was that he could not get a girlfriend, as evidenced by his lengthy online ranting, and he was jealous of men with girls and even wanted to somehow torture them because he felt he was better and deserved to get a girlfriend; at least that is what was read/seen online which showed the young man's ranting online.
The parents should have probably sought help to file a restraining order based upon conduct which made them afraid by putting together the "strange" behavior which could then cause a potential psych eval to warrant no weapons. This was not done it appears, because the parents did not try and obtain or failed to obtain an order, and it appeared the parents did not think the adult son had weapons. It is common sense that almost anyone who has a brain dysfunction should probably not own or obtain guns, yet we know even if this is the case, most people can find an illegal gun to buy.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Below, a San Diego attorney talks about gun laws and more
Parents
- The vaccination law eliminates the ability of parents to waive immunization rules
- for their children based on personal beliefs. Though the law takes effect on Jan. 1, it allows parents to
- delay the vaccinations until July 1 if they filled out a request before New Year’s Day. But almost all students will have to show proof of immunization shots for the start of the new school year this fall. Read more here and here.
- The state suspends for three years California's high school exit exam, which is normally a requirement for students to receive diplomas. The law also allows about 32,000 students who did not pass the exam, either since it became mandatory or during its early phase-in years, to receive diplomas so long as they have completed all other graduation requirements. Read more »
- Schools must provide places for students to breast feed or pump breast milk.
- High schools that mandate health courses must provide lessons aimed at preventing sexual violence and the concept that both parties must consent to sexual relations. Read more »
- Students are required to take sexual health classes unless their parents object — the classes are now voluntary — and the lessons must include the teaching to be inclusive of different sexual orientations.
- The state must make sure future history textbooks for public schools include a section on the 1930s deportation of more than 1 million U.S. citizens of Mexican descent. Read more »
- California community colleges can suspend or expel students accused of sexual assault off campus.Read more »
- The state will spend $40 million to provide health coverage under the Medi-Cal program to children under age 19 who are not in the country legally. Read more here and here.
- Children 13 and younger who are witnesses in violent crimes may testify by remote video hook-up.
For more, go to latimes.com/politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)