The Joel Bieber Firm

Call 1-800-451-6393

Some Trump and Rump

Wednesday, May 22nd, 2013

     This is a blog of two stories. I was just told that “you can’t title your blog with that!”.  Am I being rebellious as we get closer to a long weekend?  Well, I could blog on how good the new “Special K Popcorn Chips” taste, but that does not qualify as legal blogging. Instead, here is my defense for the blog title… the news.

     First to Donald Trump. The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Trump stood in the lobby of the Dirksen Federal building last week and verbally attacked an 87-year-old Chicago woman. She has filed suit against Trump, claiming that he ripped her off when he sold her two $1 million dollar condo units in Trump Tower.

     Earlier in court, Trump and the lady’s lawyer had gotten into verbal sparring matches that included the Judge becoming so exasperated that she finally interrupted both of them and admonished them by saying, “You’ve got to stop it. Do you think the jury likes this?” Then, the Judge added, “If you think the jury likes it, I can assure you they don’t. You’re wasting your time.”

     The plaintiff, Jackie Goldberg, claims that Trump deliberately misled her when he promised her a cut of the profits from the Tump International Hotel’s two ballrooms and catering business,  if she bought both condos. She then claims that he snatched back control of the ballrooms after she had signed the deal and paid her deposit.

     In the lobby later, Trump had lowered his tone but went on to attack the plaintiff by telling reporters that his opponent is a “sophisticated investor” and that “She owes me $500,000 and is just using the ballroom as a ruse to get her money back. She’s trying to rip me off, she really is.”   

     Trump claims that “Nobody that I’ve ever seen has ever played the age card better than her. She knows everything that’s going on and it’s disgraceful”.

     Goldberg’s lawyer claims that “she comes from a different era when people like Donald Trump didn’t exist. She comes from an era when a deal was a deal”. Trump has testified. Ms. Goldberg’s testimony is to follow. It sounds like he has met his match!

     And to the final story. Of course, I could have stopped at the first one about Trump, but then I would not have had my blog title.

     From the NY Daily News, a workout that the plaintiff claims just was too hard. A New York lawyer claims that his sessions with a personal trainer have left him in disabling pain whenever he sits. 

     Plaintiff Neil Squillante says in his lawsuit that he told his personal trainer about his sore arms. His trainer just laughed at him and told him that the soreness was just “normal”.

     Squillante came back for more workouts and claims that after the third workout, he could not work at his computer. His lawsuit is seeking damages for improper instruction and supervision.

     The training company advertises that they also provide instruction and personal trainers to celebrities. As the lawyer added, he went to them and trusted the trainer because he was told that they are “Beyonce’s secret weapon”.

     The lawsuit could be serious, so I am not giving an opinion on it. Still, I had to go with some workout pictures for pic o’ day. Here’s “Workout Cat” and the “Push-up Family”.

workoutcatpushup

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


What Do You Think?




The Divorce Decree Charmer

Tuesday, May 21st, 2013

     This is one of those news stories where I barely know where to start. Of course, I start. I do so after receiving a reminder about yesterday’s blog that “you could have made 4 blogs out of that one”. In other words… it was way too long!

     So, let’s head straight for the bacon.Bacon

      To South Carolina and a story from the “SummervillePatch“ .

     A Summerville man has been charged with one count of forgery unrelated to money. He wanted to please his girlfriend. So, he came up with a unique idea. He sent her a copy of his divorce decree. Of course, the blog does not stop there.

        ”Mr Summerville” was not divorced. Instead, he made a fake divorce decree and forged his wife’s signature.  He allegedly used the divorce decree from his first marriage; altered it to fit the current wife complete with wife’s fake signature and then mailed it to his girlfriend. 

     Now, he faces a misdemeanor charge for the forgery of a court document that brings a potential prison and a fine. Maybe flowers or a 6 foot bear would have been better to send. OK, maybe not the bear.

     And now to my favorite part… pic o:

Tip over

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


What Do You Think?




Random Legal Stuff

Monday, May 20th, 2013

    Here is a collection of current legal stories. Or, I could also title it, “sniffing out the news”.

sniffing 

   From Winter Haven, Florida, here’s how to really make a lady angry. (WFTV.com) A female deputy was grocery shopping on Saturday night. A man ran by and stole her purse and then jumped into a nearby SUV. Inside the purse was her badge and her .380 Ruger, still inside the holster.

     In my head I can hear that saying about “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. How about a woman who just lost her purse, wallet, badge and gun. Now that is some fury!

    Next, On Saturday Virginia Republicans formally chose Ken Cuccinelli as the nominee for Governor in the November elections. In response, the Internet was filled with attacks from both sides. One especially caught my attention.

     It comes from Charlottesville’s Daily Progress. The writer calls Cuccinelli hypocritical for not standing up for the rights of fishermen. Apparently, this man is angry that Cuccinelli would dare campaign as the Shad Planking. This one reminds me of the saying that ”you can’t please everyone all of the time”. Maybe that’s why they say that when eating a pizza, cut it into four pieces if you are not hungry enough to eat six.

     Want more random?

family photo      

     And finally, from the world of sports. ESPN is reporting that former NFL wide receiver Chad Johnson has now been arrested on charges that he violated his probation. Johnson was serving a year of probation relating to the original charges of assaulting his ex-wife.

                                                                                 (picture from “the good ole days) 

 

johnson

      The original charges resulted after Johnson head-butted Evelyn Lozada. Now, an arrest warrant has been issued when Johnson failed to meet with his probation officer on two occasions, as well as failed to enroll in a mandatory domestic violence education class.

     Not sure if Johnson thinks he is applying the Mahatma Gandhi quote, “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”. Unfortunately, the judge is not ignoring Johnson and I don’t think Johnson has the last part in store for him. 

     And to conclude the random,  pic o’ day. Just decided to end on a more positive note:

cheeseburger

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

Categories : Uncategorized
Comments (0)

What Do You Think?




The Interest Catches Professor

Sunday, May 19th, 2013

     A true “if only” story from TimesDispatch.com. Or, it could simply be called a story about stealing and getting caught.

     In 1975, James Hardigan became a dental professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. In 1980, he became the associate dean for administrative affairs for VCU’s Dental Faculty Practice Association. In 2004, he retired from VCU and subsequently moved to Florida. What happened in between just caught up with him.

     Records show that in 1995, Hardigan opened up an investment account in the Dental Association’s name using the Association’s funds, for an initial deposit of $500,000. In 2004 when Hardigan retired, he transferred the account balance of $137,553 into his own personal account. The discrepancy of the 500K used to open the account versus what was transferred is still unclear.

     At the time of the amount transferred, apparently there was still a few cents that had not been credited for the monthly statement. Those pennies remained in the account after the transfer. In 2013,  the investment firm where the account had originally been opened contacted VCU and the Dental Association about the account. By now, 63 cents of interest  had accrued in the account. 

     Because the Association knew nothing of the account, school officials began looking into it. Soon, they learned about the funds and the transfer that went into the retired professor’s account.

      This past Thursday, Hardigan was in Richmond Circuit Court where he pled¹ guilty to felony embezzlement of $137,553. The details of his past caught up with the 69-year-old former professor. He probably once thought, “if only I had waited until the end of the month to get those remaining cents”. Or, maybe now he is saying, “If only I had not done it”.   The retired professor now awaits sentencing on August 9, which could be as much as twenty years.  

(¹ ABA Journal says that pleaded is also correct.  In US Supreme Court opinions “pleaded” was used 3,000 times and ”pled” was used 26 times )

     This pic o’ seems appropriate for a Monday morning:

coffee

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

Categories : Current Affairs
Comments (0)

What Do You Think?




“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 Do You Think?




     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!


What Do You Think?




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!


What Do You Think?




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!


What Do You Think?




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)

What Do You Think?




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)

What Do You Think?