Question for the lawyers...

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 3:41 pm

So my cousin was involved in an incident in January where a dude with extreme road rage shot at him on the highway. His Jeep was hit and luckily he and his passengers didn't die. (Yay, Arizona!)

Obviously cops were called; the guy was apprehended; and now it goes into the courts and all that shit.

It's now getting close to the middle of April and the state STILL hasn't let him get his Jeep back. Both the DA and the defense lawyers think they can use it as evidence for/against the assailant.

In the meanwhile, my cousin's car is in the impound until, I guess, the end of time. His insurance doesn't care (USAA, oddly) and the state isn't releasing it at all. They won't even let him get some things out of it.

Basically, by the time he gets it back it will be a brick and I'm fairly certain that insurance won't compensate him and the guy and all the zero dollars they will get out of him will be used to fix it.

Exactly how can the state do this? It's ridiculous and disturbing. They don't give a shit about the fact that the vehicle he owns is not being given back to him. Is there anything we can do?

teeteebee · Post by **teeteebee** » Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:14 pm

Buy a new car?

Only kidding, I have no idea. Not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV.

You could ask Jay Z. He didn't pass the bar but he knows a little bit.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:34 am

Johnnie wrote:So my cousin was involved in an incident in January where a dude with extreme road rage shot at him on the highway. His Jeep was hit and luckily he and his passengers didn't die. (Yay, Arizona!)

Obviously cops were called; the guy was apprehended; and now it goes into the courts and all that shit.

It's now getting close to the middle of April and the state STILL hasn't let him get his Jeep back. Both the DA and the defense lawyers think they can use it as evidence for/against the assailant.

In the meanwhile, my cousin's car is in the impound until, I guess, the end of time. His insurance doesn't care (USAA, oddly) and the state isn't releasing it at all. They won't even let him get some things out of it.

Basically, by the time he gets it back it will be a brick and I'm fairly certain that insurance won't compensate him and the guy and all the zero dollars they will get out of him will be used to fix it.

Exactly how can the state do this? It's ridiculous and disturbing. They don't give a shit about the fact that the vehicle he owns is not being given back to him. Is there anything we can do?

I assume it's evidence at this point, since you said it's in the courts now?

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:46 am

Yea, the case against the dude who shot at him is being made, but they've held the jeep for going on three months. What could they possibly need a vehicle for this long for? It's not like the car can be brought into court or the court will take a field trip to the impound. It's fucking stupid. And it isn't like the state will pay for repairs either.

Post by **Sabo** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 7:56 am

Johnnie wrote:Yea, the case against the dude who shot at him is being made, but they've held the jeep for going on three months. What could they possibly need a vehicle for this long for? It's not like the car can be brought into court or the court will take a field trip to the impound. It's fucking stupid. And it isn't like the state will pay for repairs either.

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess is they can't release the car until the trial is over. Releasing it before the trial could be viewed by the defense as manipulating evidence.

EDITED for clarity.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:13 am

Also, there's a chance the jury would do a site visit. Rare, but I've heard of it happening.

Other than that, I've got nothing.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:18 am

govmentchedda wrote:Also, there's a chance the jury would do a site visit. Rare, but I've heard of it happening.

Other than that, I've got nothing.

That is a long shot. I'd think pictures and forensic evidence on the bullet would be enough. Really sucks for your cousin, obviously, but the legal system sucks. I'd imagine they will keep the jeep until the trial is over to preserve the evidence. Moral of the story, don't bother calling the cops.

Gunpowder · Post by **Gunpowder** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:21 am

I would be pissed but I would totally use it as my excuse to finally buy a nice new whip.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:28 am

Johnnie, is your cousin filing a civil suit for damages? I bet he could do that through his insurance company. He could monetize the hardship of being without his Jeep.

Post by **brian** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 9:29 am

Yeah, seems like the issue is less with the legal system (though that still sucks) than with his insurance company (which is alarming since i have the same one). Seems like something like this should be covered no different than if he drove it into a wall or something.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:12 am

Generally, criminal procedure is kinda like the wild west as far as motions go, whereas civil procedure largely governs the types of motions that can be filed. That is, your friend might write up a request in the form of a motion and file it with the clerk and a copy to the judge/prosecutor/defendant and ask the court to make the state release the vehicle. Id write up something plain and simple asking for the release of the vehicle given the long time and file it with the clerk and then id show up at the next scheduled calendar/hearing date and ask the court nicely for the car back. Some reference to any sort of authority would help him convince the judge. Let the court do what it will.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 11:18 am

I asked my cousin about a civil lawsuit and he doesn't know anything about one. So that means he's not pursuing it.

And as far as anything else is concerned, because he has a 2nd car (one that he wasn't driving often, a Firebird that was more for special occasions as opposed to a daily driver), he said they didn't look at him losing his primary vehicle as that much of a problem.

It's just shitty all around. By the time he gets the Jeep back he'll have to put however many dollars into fixing it and not get compensation. And the loser that shot at him won't have any money anyway, so that's a dead end.

His attitude is sour and seems like he gave up on it. So, I don't know. I figured I'd ask questions. I do appreciate the responses.

Giff · Post by **Giff** » Wed Apr 09, 2014 12:47 pm

I can't imagine insurance wouldn't cover it.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:41 am

When I moved into my current apartment, the floors had just been re-done and the guy who did them left his table-saw on the patio. My landlady told me he would just come by one day and pick it up and leave me the extra key for the unit which he had been using. That was cool with me because I wasn't going to be moved in for a couple of weeks so it was no hassle. Those weeks pass, and I'm finally moved in. One day I'm walking into my place and realize there's a bump in the doormat. Someone had dropped off the extra key, so I assume floor guy had stopped by and taken his saw as well. Nope. Saw is still sitting on my patio.

Last week I ran into my landlady, and told her about the saw issue. She said she was going to be speaking to floor guy anyway and would let him know it's still there. Well, a week later, I haven't heard a thing and I still have a table saw. I've been there almost 1.5 months now.

So, the question is, at what point does the saw become mine to sell or move off the property and not be my problem?

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:46 am

Drop it off at her place.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 10:58 am

mister d wrote:Drop it off at her place.

According to the case of Finders v. Keepers, 41 U.S. 167 (1842), possession is 9/10ths of the law.

I agree with D, leave it with the landlady and make it her problem. I always changed the locks whenever moving into a new place, and sending the landlord a key to the new locks.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:08 am

She lives in France.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:30 am

P.D.X. wrote:She lives in France.

Free trip! I'm sure she will reimburse you if you book the flight/hotel. If not, just dock it out of your rent.

mister d · Post by **mister d** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:33 am

P.D.X. wrote:She lives in France.

Yeah, if only you had the proper tools to build a boat sitting right on your fucking patio.

govmentchedda · Post by **govmentchedda** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 11:37 am

mister d wrote:
P.D.X. wrote:She lives in France.
Yeah, if only you had the proper tools to build a boat sitting right on your fucking patio.

Then just pop into the South Platte, meet up with the Platte proper, hitch a right at the Missouri, catch the Mississippi near St. Louis, head down to the Gulf, and out to the Atlantic. The Gulf Stream should take you from there.

sancarlos · Post by **sancarlos** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:45 pm

I'd change the lock, even if you did it at your own expense without reimbursement.

rass · Post by **rass** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:55 pm

New guy in town gives power tool to French lady with hardwood floors.

I think I've seen that one.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:58 pm

sancarlos wrote:I'd change the lock, even if you did it at your own expense without reimbursement.

Considering I signed a 2-year lease it's probably worth it.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:58 pm

Heh, heh. Hard wood.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:00 pm

It's only pergo :(

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 7:54 pm

Not sure if this is a legal or ethical question (if so, I'm in the wrong thread, amiright) or none of the above. Anyway, interviewed an overqualified person for a part time position and my boss gave her a job offer. She accepted the offer but asked that we pay her $5r/hr less which would bring her right around minimum wage. She made this request because if she makes too much she can't live in affordable housing, collect disability, and so on. So when we get audited (which happens yearly), and they see someone making way less than our stated salary structure, will that raise a red flag and is my program somehow complicit by helping her work the system? And technically, is she doing anything legally wrong asking for less money? I don't like it ethically because government support is there to help people that unable to do it themselves and she clearly is able. Too bad she's really qualified for this job and we desperately need people

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:25 pm

EdRomero wrote:Not sure if this is a legal or ethical question (if so, I'm in the wrong thread, amiright) or none of the above. Anyway, interviewed an overqualified person for a part time position and my boss gave her a job offer. She accepted the offer but asked that we pay her $5r/hr less which would bring her right around minimum wage. She made this request because if she makes too much she can't live in affordable housing, collect disability, and so on. So when we get audited (which happens yearly), and they see someone making way less than our stated salary structure, will that raise a red flag and is my program somehow complicit by helping her work the system? And technically, is she doing anything legally wrong asking for less money? I don't like it ethically because government support is there to help people that unable to do it themselves and she clearly is able. Too bad she's really qualified for this job and we desperately need people

It is at a minimum unethical for both your company and her to do this. It is almost certainly fraud to take less money to maintain disability benefits. If nothing else, I wouldn't hire her because this is a huge red flag that she lacks integrity and can't be trusted.

Post by **Shirley** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 9:36 pm

The Sybian wrote:
EdRomero wrote:Not sure if this is a legal or ethical question (if so, I'm in the wrong thread, amiright) or none of the above. Anyway, interviewed an overqualified person for a part time position and my boss gave her a job offer. She accepted the offer but asked that we pay her $5r/hr less which would bring her right around minimum wage. She made this request because if she makes too much she can't live in affordable housing, collect disability, and so on. So when we get audited (which happens yearly), and they see someone making way less than our stated salary structure, will that raise a red flag and is my program somehow complicit by helping her work the system? And technically, is she doing anything legally wrong asking for less money? I don't like it ethically because government support is there to help people that unable to do it themselves and she clearly is able. Too bad she's really qualified for this job and we desperately need people

It is at a minimum unethical for both your company and her to do this. It is almost certainly fraud to take less money to maintain disability benefits. If nothing else, I wouldn't hire her because this is a huge red flag that she lacks integrity and can't be trusted.

I don't know. It's not like she's not working. It sounds to me like she's trying to maximize her total earnings/benefits package. Isn't that the smart choice? Now, that assumes she's actually right that she's better off taking less. A lot people get that math wrong.

Either way, I don't see any clear ethical violations here. She making so little money either way that her housing is at risk. She should do whatever she can to optimize her situation.

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:16 pm

Shirley wrote:
The Sybian wrote:
EdRomero wrote:Not sure if this is a legal or ethical question (if so, I'm in the wrong thread, amiright) or none of the above. Anyway, interviewed an overqualified person for a part time position and my boss gave her a job offer. She accepted the offer but asked that we pay her $5r/hr less which would bring her right around minimum wage. She made this request because if she makes too much she can't live in affordable housing, collect disability, and so on. So when we get audited (which happens yearly), and they see someone making way less than our stated salary structure, will that raise a red flag and is my program somehow complicit by helping her work the system? And technically, is she doing anything legally wrong asking for less money? I don't like it ethically because government support is there to help people that unable to do it themselves and she clearly is able. Too bad she's really qualified for this job and we desperately need people

It is at a minimum unethical for both your company and her to do this. It is almost certainly fraud to take less money to maintain disability benefits. If nothing else, I wouldn't hire her because this is a huge red flag that she lacks integrity and can't be trusted.
I don't know. It's not like she's not working. It sounds to me like she's trying to maximize her total earnings/benefits package. Isn't that the smart choice? Now, that assumes she's actually right that she's better off taking less. A lot people get that math wrong.

Either way, I don't see any clear ethical violations here. She making so little money either way that her housing is at risk. She should do whatever she can to optimize her situation.

Not sure if it's a legal violation, but I agree with Syb that it's a red flag. This is someone who wants to rely on technicalities to game the system. She will want to do the same thing with you.

(I could maybe accept someone concerned about losing affordable housing - but someone who deliberately wants to make less money so she can claim to be disabled when in fact she is able to work? Fuck that.)

Steve of phpBB · Post by **Steve of phpBB** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:19 pm

Johnnie wrote:I asked my cousin about a civil lawsuit and he doesn't know anything about one. So that means he's not pursuing it.

And as far as anything else is concerned, because he has a 2nd car (one that he wasn't driving often, a Firebird that was more for special occasions as opposed to a daily driver), he said they didn't look at him losing his primary vehicle as that much of a problem.

It's just shitty all around. By the time he gets the Jeep back he'll have to put however many dollars into fixing it and not get compensation. And the loser that shot at him won't have any money anyway, so that's a dead end.

His attitude is sour and seems like he gave up on it. So, I don't know. I figured I'd ask questions. I do appreciate the responses.

Just curious how this turned out.

I think insurance may not work because most general insurance (auto and property) doesn't cover you if you are the victim of an intentional crime. Instead, your cousin is probably left to seek restitution in the criminal system. There may be some funding for crime victims that could be available, too.

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:46 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote: (I could maybe accept someone concerned about losing affordable housing - but someone who deliberately wants to make less money so she can claim to be disabled when in fact she is able to work? Fuck that.)

Now I'm not sure if it was disability or social security or something else, but if it is disability "Fuck that" is a good point. And I just remembered this thinking about the interview. She has a history of successfully starting up and leading a bunch of Out of School Time nonprofits, and the reason she wants a part time job now is she needs time to work on starting up a new program which she hopes to do in three to five years (and supposedly she secured funding). And that program she is developing...an after school program based on character development.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Thu Aug 14, 2014 11:56 pm

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Johnnie wrote:I asked my cousin about a civil lawsuit and he doesn't know anything about one. So that means he's not pursuing it.

And as far as anything else is concerned, because he has a 2nd car (one that he wasn't driving often, a Firebird that was more for special occasions as opposed to a daily driver), he said they didn't look at him losing his primary vehicle as that much of a problem.

It's just shitty all around. By the time he gets the Jeep back he'll have to put however many dollars into fixing it and not get compensation. And the loser that shot at him won't have any money anyway, so that's a dead end.

His attitude is sour and seems like he gave up on it. So, I don't know. I figured I'd ask questions. I do appreciate the responses.
Just curious how this turned out.

I think insurance may not work because most general insurance (auto and property) doesn't cover you if you are the victim of an intentional crime. Instead, your cousin is probably left to seek restitution in the criminal system. There may be some funding for crime victims that could be available, too.

Heh. I forgot about this thread. I'll have to ask him. I do know that the Jeep was eventually released because he posted an off roading pic not too long ago, but I didn't ask him what the outcome of everything was. I think the dude is still locked up and awaiting trial.

What he did tell me was that the 4+ months that the Phoenix PD had it they said they couldn't find the slug at all to "help their case against" the guy that shot at him. My cousin was driving it home from the impound and the thing fell out of his door. He went back to show them and they shrugged. Nice twist of the knife at the end there. Nothing but a bunch of shitbags. This is why people own guns for protection instead of calling the cops. I know my guns aren't going to fail me, but the system will.

Needless to say, he's never calling the cops on something like this if it happens again. It wasn't worth.

The Sybian · Post by **The Sybian** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:52 am

Steve of phpBB wrote:
Shirley wrote:
I don't know. It's not like she's not working. It sounds to me like she's trying to maximize her total earnings/benefits package. Isn't that the smart choice? Now, that assumes she's actually right that she's better off taking less. A lot people get that math wrong.

Either way, I don't see any clear ethical violations here. She making so little money either way that her housing is at risk. She should do whatever she can to optimize her situation.
Not sure if it's a legal violation, but I agree with Syb that it's a red flag. This is someone who wants to rely on technicalities to game the system. She will want to do the same thing with you.

(I could maybe accept someone concerned about losing affordable housing - but someone who deliberately wants to make less money so she can claim to be disabled when in fact she is able to work? Fuck that.)

I was going to say exactly what Steve said. While I understand Shirley's point, and it sucks that she is in a position where she gets screwed for getting a job, she is completely cheating the system. She is getting disability payments (Social Security Disability Insurance) because she claimed she has a disability preventing her from working. Yes, it is fucked up and fraud to take tax payer money because you are not capable of working, while in fact working. No different than committing fraud to get food stamps when you don't need them. In law school I represented a few clients at SSDI hearings. People who truly deserve benefits can have a very difficult time proving it, so it pisses me off hearing about this woman cheating the system.

ETA: the woman could be criminally charged for what she is trying to do. Romero, I'd strongly recommend against aiding her commission of what could be a crime, especially since you know that she is asking your company to help her commit fraud.

A_B · Post by **A_B** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 7:59 am

My company will often hire PIs to investigate disability claims, but that's usually after being tipped off by a co-worker that the person is not in fact disabled and is gaming the system.

EdRomero · Post by **EdRomero** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 8:31 am

The employment lawyers on our end said legally we can do it, but I'm pushing to not do it.

HaulCitgo · Post by **HaulCitgo** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:13 am

Ill fall on the other end of this. Works for you, works for her. Doesn't even seem you have enough info about what she is trying to do to slam her for it. This could be a long-term disability policy. Why would you care about her private contractual relationships, whether a lease or insurance or whatever? And for what its worth, even at minimum wage, a 40hr/week job would exceed the SSDI substantial gainful activity test so I doubt its a social security disability issue.

More practically, if it were my company I would do it. If I were somebody else's company where im trying to climb the management ladder, I would shut it down. Seems like the chance of getting burned is higher than whatever positive may come of some added productivity.

Post by **Shirley** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:47 am

I missed the disability part. If that's part of what she's getting, I change my opinion. That sounds like fraud to me and I'd not be for it.

Johnnie · Post by **Johnnie** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 10:58 am

This whole scenario you guys are going back and forth on just blows my mind, in a sense. It kind of reminds me of growing up poor, continuing to be poor through high school, and then learning later on that we stayed at or around the poverty line in order to exploit stuff given to you because you were poor.

Even when my family owned a business, my father was able to math his way to fixing it to look like losses. My mom stayed as a homemaker and collected whatever handouts the Masschusetts government gives to you (WIC, welfare, section 8 -- which she still has, btw). Hell, he even told me that my mother wanted another kid to stay on welfare/WIC when we lived in California. That's the main reason I'm not an only child.

Here I thought we were victims of living in a high cost of living area, when in actuality we did what we had to do to get by. So the cognitive dissonce for me with this is staggering. I want people to have integrity and earn their keep (it's what I'm doing, but I am fortunate enough to have really awesome programs because of my military status), but at the same time, fuck the local, state, and federal government where it breathes. They are going to take as much from you as they can, why not do it back?

I just wish a country with our GDP level and opportunity didn't encourage people to go this route. It doesn't make sense.

Post by **brian** » Fri Aug 15, 2014 11:10 am

That shit pisses me off no end because my uncle had to file for disability after getting cancer and being so weak that he could barely get out of bed and NEVER ultimately getting it even after a two-year fight involving lawyers and countless red tape. The government dragged its feet long enough for the cancer to kill him. So, yeah. Fuck this chick is my inelegant opinion.

P.D.X. · Post by **P.D.X.** » Fri Sep 26, 2014 10:18 am

Lawyer frogs,

I have to send a demand letter for deposit return to my last property management company (it's 60 days past my lease termination). Can I send to the property manager via email attachment, or do I need to actually send a physical (certified) letter? (This seems ridiculous to me since the company's office is 2 blocks from the post office.) Alternatively, I could personally hand-deliver; is this advisable, and if so, should I have them sign something signifying receipt?