The Joel Bieber Firm

Call 1-800-451-6393

Author Archive

“Breaking in and Renting”

Thursday, May 16th, 2013

     Some questions only have  answers that are even more confusing.

large moon

     The is a case that is that and more. This from a USA Today story about a former NBA and Old Dominion basketball player. 

 Chris Gatling

     Chris Gatling ran the following ad on Craigslist for a home in Arizona:

$800/4 br – EX NBA-Paradise Valley Home for rent with Pool & Utility included … Going back to Miami, Mexico City, Italy for a year or 2 need someone to watch my home here in PV and what a great place, close to everything and Very Very Quite! Really looking for a Woman, but guys can feel free to contact as well … (Just Like a Women’s touch).”

     That would seem like a good ad if you want to rent a house. The problem that Chris faced is that he did not own the house and had no right to that house.

     Records do show that Gatling had obtained an Arizona driver’s license using this residence as his home address. So, he certainly believed that it would be fine to claim the place as his own. In fact, he even rented the house to a tenant and cashed the first two cashier’s checks. Then, the renter found out from the real owner that Gatling did not own the property and had no right to rent it to her. That immediately caused her to realize why Gatling had never given her a key to the home. It also made her probably think… “now I know why I only paid $800 for this something that should cost $2,000.”  Or, maybe she just read the facts and were as confused as I am.

     The facts show that Gatling had originally tried to personally rent the home in 2010. He was turned down because of his bad credit. Then, Gatling broke into the lock box to gain access to the residence, which was fully furnished with running utilities. He got away with it from July 2010 to May 2011, apparently because of the housing market and that the owner never saw him there.

    Now, Gatling is charged with two counts of theft and forgery,  and one count of taking the identity of another and one count of fraud. His attorney says, “We believe this to be a misunderstanding, and we are working to resolve the matter.”

     Gatling played in the NBA for 10 years, averaging about 10 points and five rebounds per game. He even was an NBA all-star in the 1997 game. He last played in 2002.

     I hope you have a great weekend. I can imagine a fortune cookie with the following: “Beware of anyone selling a car or renting a house who cannot give you a key!

      And for pic o’ day, let’s stay with the theme of a crazy explanation after getting caught:

getting caught

 

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Uncategorized
Comments (0)

What is Virginia’s Statute of Limitations?

Wednesday, May 15th, 2013

     Who is Limitations and why is there a statute named that ? ice cream

     Yes, that’s probably the kind of question that I would have asked when I was a kid. For the same reason that I thought that the song  we were singing in church was, “Bringing in the sheeps… we shall Columbus, Georgia”,  instead of “Bringing in the Sheaves… We shall come rejoicing”.  That’s what happens when you sing what you hear, when you can’t yet read. Like Statute of Limitations, not statue of limitations.

     Of course, I really am doing a round about discussion of the question, “How long do I have to bring a lawsuit”? Well, below is a quick chart on some civil actions, provided from Lawyers.com.  Separately, ”When does the statute start to run” is a question that is sometimes argued to a Judge. 

      Still, even with the following chart, it still can be a bit confusing. kinda like:confusion chart 

Assault and Battery, 2 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(A)

Contract (in writing), 5 years

Va. Code § 8.01-246(2)

Contract (oral or not in writing), 3 years

Va. Code § 8.01-246(4)

False Imprisonment, 2 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(A)

Fraud, 2 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(A)

Enforcing Court Judgments, 20 years

Va. Code § 8.01-251        

Legal Malpractice, 3 or 5 years (Depending on the type of contract or agreement)

Va. Code § 8.01-246(2) or (4)

Libel, 1 year

Va. Code § 8.01.247.1

Medical Malpractice, 2 and up to 10 years (Depending on the type of malpractice and when it’s “discovered”)    

Va. Code § 8.01-243(A) and (C)

Personal Injury, 2 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(A)

Product Liability, 2 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(A) and (B)

Property Damage, 5 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(B)

Slander, 1 year

Va. Code § 8.01.247.1

Trespass, 5 years

Va. Code § 8.01-243(B)

Wrongful Death, 2 years

     So for pic o’ day, just in case you aren’t interested in a chart, how about a little lawsuit adversity that compares to… hand meets fist? I know… it’s getting crazy!

hand meet fist

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Warrants for Cellphone Searches

Tuesday, May 14th, 2013

      If you look at Internet home pages, you might read  ”How to stop the FBI from reading your email” or  something about the IRS targeting the Tea Party and how the Justice Department is investigating.   

     Expectation of privacy, government intervention in private lives and Constitutional protection are all hot topics. Stay with me on this. I know that the prior sentence can cause anyone’s eyes to just glaze over. Instead, let me tell you about a Florida case and see what you think.

     The decision has been called a protection for drug dealers and child pornographers. Others call it an appropriate recognition of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, that guarantees that citizens are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures.

     The Tampa Bay Times reports on the ruling from the Florida Supreme Court. In a 5-2 opinion involving facts from a 2008 robbery of a convenience store, the Court ruled that “a warrant was required before the information, data and content of the cellphone could be accessed and searched by law enforcement”. It is all about the expectation of cellphone privacy.

     The majority ruled that police cannot just take a cellphone and go through it, without a warrant. There is an expectation of pricvacy. The two dissenting justices noted that the opinion “has the potential to work mischief in Fourth Amendment law.” 

     The police noted that a man found with five child pornography photos in his pocket, could be arrested for having child pornography photos in his possession. Conversely, if the pictures are on a cellphone, “he’s going to get away with it”.frustration

 

 

(frustration)

The Court did leave open the possibility that there could be an exemption for the requirement of a warrant for  ”exigent circumstances”. That might leave the door open if it appears that evidence is about to be deleted. That makes me imagine a police officer snatching a phone out of the hands of some suspect who is scrolling and deleting.

     I regularly hear the expression that “our founding forefathers would have (insert a multitude of things)”.  Sometimes it does seem clear as to what the Founding Fathers and framers of the Constitution meant. Other times, it might not seem so clear. Especially when it relates to cellphones and other technology. Like this is a case where modern day meets Constitutional scrutiny. That’s why 7 Justices on the Florida Supreme Court could not agree.

     This robbery case had made it to the Florida Supreme Court after the Court of Appeals had ruled differently. They had applied a 1973 case where police had found heroin in a cigarette pack during a search. This Supreme Court overturned the lower court and distinguished the phone from drugs in a cigarette pack. What do you think?

     For pic o’ day, how about some airline non-humor:

airline nonhumor

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

The Video Deposition

Monday, May 13th, 2013

     Do you remember this Schwab investment TV advertisement? It is comparing a bad stock company to Schwab by portraying some boiler room stock-selling company in a unfavorable way. Their manager is telling all the sales people to get on the phone and pitch some crummy stock to customers by “let’s go out there and put some lipstick on that pig”.lipstick pig

     When I watch it, it still makes me laugh. It also reminds me a little bit about what sometimes happens in some of our cases. A thought on the evidence.  (Practice Alert)  I am going to tell you a blog secret between you and me!  Defense lawyers… your eyes are getting very sleepy. You better go catch a nap.   

     This involves why we video the depositions of the opposing party (defendant) on most of our cases. I am not insinuating that the other side is a pig. Just whether a jury perceives someone trying to be something that they are not. The defense attorney making their client get all  ”dressed up for court”. 

     This past week, I drove to Wytheville, Virginia, for my scheduled depositions. I was taking the defendant’s and the opposing attorney was questioning my client.  We also had the deputy who had investigated this 2010 crash. Because the defense attorney’s office was about 50 miles from the county, we agreed to have the depositions at the courthouse where the trial is scheduled.

     I showed up a little early so I could also get a look at the courtroom. Then, I was shown back to the law library where the depositions were scheduled. Soon, my client, the court reporter and videographer arrived. I had noticed the deposition for video and court reporter. The defense deposition notice was for transcription by the court reporter without any video.

     The defendant arrived before his lawyer. He was dressed in a T-shirt and jeans. Like he would normally dress everyday. Soon, his lawyer arrived. The depositions proceeded. After I had completed the first deposition, the videographer packed up and left.   

     Generally speaking, I think that people should basically dress comfortably. My grandfather was a farmer. He would always dress the way he wanted to… in overalls like a farmer. 

      In court cases, I believe that clients should basically dress in something that they normally and comfortably wear and not wear something that they would normally never wear. I think that some lawyers believe that their clients should always be dressed in their Sunday best; and if they don’t own dress clothes, they should buy some. To me, I think people act differently in clothes that they never wear.

    That takes me to why I like to videotape depositions.  In many cases, I will show the video deposition during trial. The jury usually begins watching the deposition. Then, I will sometimes notice when they look over at the defense table where the defendant is now all dressed up. Consciously or unconsciously, I think that it sends the message that the opposing party is trying to project something that they are not.

     After one trial, I even had a juror come up to me with a smile and comment on how “dressed up” the opposing party came for trial. Maybe it’s just my crazy thinking. I also think that videotaping keeps everyone more alert during the deposition and even captures the tone and pauses of the questions and answers.

     As to last week’s deposition,, it will be interesting to see if the opposing party shows up in his usual clothing or if the defense lawyer will decide to make him get “all dressed up”. 

     Hopefully, the defendant will do something to make the jury ask “why”. Then, maybe that will carry over on to the evidence. In every trial there is a truth-giver and someone who is perceived as less. I think being real about appearance might be part of that. There has to be a reason that “a picture is worth a thousand words”.  What do you think?

     For pic o’ day, I stayed with blame and evidence!!

blame

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Bible Verses for Cheerleaders

Sunday, May 12th, 2013

Here is a story from Utah’s Deseret News with an unusual combination. It is a pairing of cheerleaders and Bible verses. Plus, the cheerleaders won.

cheerleaders

A Texas judge has ruled that Kountze High School cheerleaders were not violating the Constitution by displaying spirit banners at football games, that included Bible verses. This ruling occurred after an attorney on behalf of an Atheist group had filed a complaint that originally started the court case.

Judge Steven Thomas ruled that the school district can permit the banners under the establishement clause, but it is not required to do so. The judge left a crack in the door for additional argument after stating that there was still a basis for the school board to exercise editorial control over such displays as banners.

Those responding on behalf of the cheerleaders are calling it a victory because the banners remain displayed. Their attorney added that, “The message that this decision sends is, it is impermissible for the government to ban the private speech of students”.

The opponents of the decision continue to argue that, “In our opinion, this court just said that Christianity is an official school religion”. They also indicate that they may look to Federal Court for relief. For now, the fifteen banner-hanging cheerleaders are the winners.

One final note unrelated to the blog subject; I truly got to celebrate Mother’s Day. I was so fortunate to spend Saturday with my mother and then Sunday with my mother-in-law. As the old proverb/saying says, “A mother understands what a child does not say”.

And for pic o’ day, I am posting one from my Mom… one from the country!

city dog

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments (1)

The Friday Blog

Thursday, May 9th, 2013

Have a fun weekend! You deserve it.

Friday Blog

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Uncategorized
Comments (1)

A Trial Report

Wednesday, May 8th, 2013

     Let me tell you the story about my jury trial last week. Usually, I don’t mention trial results because the bar, rightfully so; wants lawyers to always include disclaimers that each case is different and no result means a guarantee for another case. This result shows why each case is different.

     Kim Raab and I showed up to Richmond Circuit Court last week for a trial on a rear-end impact. Admittedly, it was a low impact case. In fact, the defense had blown up a picture of our car that was two-foot by three-foot big. Get the picture? The question was whether we could prove that our client’s upcoming back surgery resulted from this impact.

     The jury was instructed that the defendant was only responsible for the injuries (harms) that she had caused. An aggravation of a preexisting injury meant that the defendant could be responsible for only the aggravation.

     The first day of trial (Thursday), the judge kept going until about 8:45 p.m. The jury was escorted to their cars. I had packed up my things and was headed to my car. (I am about to digress!) When I got there… I had a flat tire. I said to myself, “Self, seriously?”. I looked around and realized that no one was in the garage. Plus, you had to basically drive a special way to get out of the lot. No AAA wrecker would be able to get to me.

     I know, you are wondering if I changed the tire myself. Well, I must be honest… No. My excuse is that it takes some kind of special tool. The reality is…well, you know the reality. So, I drove very slowly to a nearby hotel and got the tire changed. Now, back to the trial story! Isn’t that what they call “part and parcel”?

     After all the evidence was in. After all closings were done and jury instructions were read to the jury. They retired to deliberate and I went to sit down outside the courtroom, and wait.

     After about ninety minutes, I heard the buzzer and thought that we had a jury verdict. Then, the bailiff said that the jury had sent out questions and we were to go to the judge’s chambers. (office). The judge then read from a yellow piece of paper that the jury had sent out. The paper had a question that indicated that a juror had spoken to someone about the case that was not part of the jury. This, against the judge’s specific instructions.

     Since this is becoming an epistle, let me cut to the end. When the judge called the jury out to inquire about the question, he concluded that a juror had potentially not followed his instructions. The judge declared a mistrial. That means… we have to reset it for trial and try it all over again in front of a new jury. Mistrial… it is the second worst word that I could hear. Well, maybe the third. Those words? The word “defense” in front of verdict; and the word “Denied” on a judge’s ruling of importance.

     A trial report with nothing to report. No result. Only part… no parcel.

     Pic o’ day reminds that some things just don’t make sense:

turning

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Categories : Auto Accidents
Comments (0)

A Claim for Insomnia

Tuesday, May 7th, 2013

     From 2004 through 2007, attorney Victoria Anderson worked for Discovery Communications. She was commended for her strong technical, legal and drafting skills. Her annual reviews did note that she needed to improve her organizational and interpersonal skills. She needed to do better in getting along with others.

     Acccording to an article in ”Virginia Lawyers Weekly” (Deborah Elkins), in October of 2006, Anderson took a leave of absence from her employer under the Family and Medical Leave Act. She was having difficulty sleeping. 

     Testing ruled out sleep apnea. Her physicians determined that she was suffering from fatique, sleep deprivation and insomnia and prescribed her Ambien, to help her sleep. Anderson then returned to her job in November. She came with a doctor’s note that advised that her daily work schedule had to be limited to eight hours.  After two follow-up doctor appointments, in December she was then released without any work restrictions.

     When Anderson returned to work, she advised her employers that she could only work between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Her employers advised that they needed her to work a full 40-hour work week because their core business was during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

     In December of 2007, Her employer fired Anderson, claiming that she had entered inaccurate time entries for her work; refused to accept a performance plan, and had a ”combative, difficult, and manipulative” nature.

     Anderson sued her employer. The case was styled Anderson v. Discovery Communications LLC.  Her lawsuit was based on her claimed rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.  

     The Federal Court judge granted summary judgment for the employer. She appealed to the 4th Circuit. The 4th Circuit upheld the lower court’s dismissal; and the appellate panel, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that “sleep patterns vary between individuals and even during a person’s lifetime. On this record, Anderson simply failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was ‘substantially impaired’ in December 2006, as a result of her insomnia”.

    Separately, Anderson had also brought an action for retaliation and an interference claim. That also was dismissed because she remained employed and was given full benefits until her termination. According to the Court, the employer had a legitimate reason to terminate her; based on her untrustworthiness in completing time sheets and poor communication skills.

     In simple terms the Court was saying… The End.

     And this pic o’ day just seemed topical!

a nap

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Seat Belt Counting

Monday, May 6th, 2013

     Virginia’s relies on good old-fashioned research. It hires students to count the people wearing seatbelts in vehicles.

     Seatbelt counting

     OK, I know that I shouldn’t, but doesn’t this give me another excuse to post Eli Manning’s picture?

Eli

     I know, I am probably the only person that sees humor in this. So, just bear with me. Pretend that it really does make the point that he is really watching and paying attention. What… not so much?

     Anyway, PilotOnline reports that Virginia has hired surveyors to stand on the side of the road and look into cars, to see if people are wearing their seat belts. Those hired are trained to mentally capture about a half-dozen details in about 3 seconds, as cars pass by. Was the driver male or female? On a cellphone? Was the passenger wearing a seat belt?

     All this is done to collect data all across Virginia, to help contribute to a constant collection of research on safety “in the Commonwealth”. The workers are paid through a grant with salary, or an average per hour pay of about $12-$15 dollars per hour, on a contract basis. Each survey lasts about an hour per location.

     Currently, Virginia is one of seventeen states that classifies a “failure to wear a seat belt” as a secondary offense; which means that a person can only be ticketed for not wearing their belt,  if they have another traffic violation as well.

     The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimated last year that there was a marked increase of Virginians wearing their seat belts. That translated into Virginia having about 36 fewer traffic deaths, 544 fewer serious injuries and $138 million less in costs.

     According to the surveys, last year about 78.4% of daytime drivers were wearing seat belts. It found that male drivers buckled up at a rate of about 7% less than female drivers. However, as one surveyor put it, she has seen, “little, old grandmas driving to church” not wearing their seat belts while “hard-looking teenagers with their music blaring” are cautiously strapped in.

     All of it is a reminder to wear our seat belts. Currently, there is also a move to change the law and make the failure to wear a seat belt, a stand-alone traffic offense.

     And now for pic o’day… a bit self-explanatory:

FB Pose

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Airline Miles “Expiration”?

Sunday, May 5th, 2013

Here is an interesting thought on contract law from an unexpected place: “Dear Abby“.   It comes from a question that she received:

 

Dear Abby: My mother is in her mid-90s and in good health. She has no intention of dying soon, but asked me an interesting question. She has mileage points with a major airline and was wondering if she can use them for the “final trip” back to her home state for burial when the time comes. Do you know the answer?

— One-Way Ticket

Dear One-Way: Your question is not only an interesting one, but it’s a first. I contacted a spokesperson for a major airline who responded that his company does not accept mileage points as a form of payment for any type of “shipment.” For her last flight, your mother would no longer be considered a passenger; she would be cargo, which is why her points idea won’t fly.

At the bottom of the article, there were some angry comments about the airlines.

disgust cat

Then some other comments provide some interesting suggestions. One suggested that maybe “Platinum status” should include allowing the miles, as part of that level’s benefits.. It was also mentioned that airlines don’t care about helping because there would be “no repeat business”. But, as one lady reminded, the movie “Die Hard” has had several bad sequels that included “Die Harder” and that the airlines should not be so short-sighted!

One thing that I have noticed, no one ever fights over the airline peanuts!

For pic o’ day, I went with a little airline cartoon humor:

maskcharge

Please click the Facebook “Share” button below this post to let others know you enjoyed reading it. Thanks!

Comments (1)