The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Court Question! (LAAAAAW)
Seaborn111
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
So, moderately long story for a simple question
My Friend, we'll call her "B", is going through a custody case against "J" to get full custody of their son. Plenty of reasons why he needs to sign his rights away, but that's not relevant to the question.
TL;DR: "J" claims he's unemployed to delay a case and get a public defender, we have evidence otherwise. Is this perjury? Contempt of court? Will "B"s lawyer be able to fuck "J" with the long, cold shaft of the law?
sorry to ask but her lawyer won't be back in the office until monday and she's beside herself after finding out he's actually employed.
My Friend, we'll call her "B", is going through a custody case against "J" to get full custody of their son. Plenty of reasons why he needs to sign his rights away, but that's not relevant to the question.
"B" had a court date today with "J" to get the proceedings started, "J" was offered to sign his rights away and have no charges pressed (he's about $3500 behind on child support, hasn't paid the mortgage for 3 months of which he was required by divorce decree, lied to and evaded a process server, etc). He of course said "i'm not fucking signing it".
The judge asked him why he's not represented by a lawyer, he claims he is unemployed and cannot afford one.
Natch.
Judge says he needs to get on unemployment, says he should be prepared for jail time, appoints him a public defender and reschedules for a week later so his counsel can catch up.
HERE'S THE CATCH
he's perfectly fucking employed. Currently works security, we have an affidavit from a fellow employee. Our best guess is he's paid under the table, since it's security at a restaraunt/bar place that's kinda seedy. He is also active Army Reserve post deployment, which nets him a decent check.
The judge asked him why he's not represented by a lawyer, he claims he is unemployed and cannot afford one.
Natch.
Judge says he needs to get on unemployment, says he should be prepared for jail time, appoints him a public defender and reschedules for a week later so his counsel can catch up.
HERE'S THE CATCH
he's perfectly fucking employed. Currently works security, we have an affidavit from a fellow employee. Our best guess is he's paid under the table, since it's security at a restaraunt/bar place that's kinda seedy. He is also active Army Reserve post deployment, which nets him a decent check.
TL;DR: "J" claims he's unemployed to delay a case and get a public defender, we have evidence otherwise. Is this perjury? Contempt of court? Will "B"s lawyer be able to fuck "J" with the long, cold shaft of the law?
sorry to ask but her lawyer won't be back in the office until monday and she's beside herself after finding out he's actually employed.
</bush>
It's impossible for us to without a doubt prove the non-existence of God. We just have to take it on faith that he's imaginary..
Seaborn111 on
0
Posts
unless you get more responses than me, then i will pretend to have never said OK and hate you forever.
proceed.
My question is how the protections granted to those who have severe allergies by the Americans with Disabilities Act compare to those granted to the blind and their dogs. Can a person with severe enough allergy make a person leave his guide dog outside?
Scalfin has a point that being represented by a public attorney will reflect negatively on his case. It just sounds like "B" wants to exact a little more revenge on "J" for his discretions - I'd inform her lawyer (with evidence) when the time comes because it would demonstrate some of "J"s character and may potentially lead to increased penalties, but delaying the trial for a week is a minor delay (imo). I'd just recommend she calm down and be collected when she informs the lawyer.
As for Scalfin's question, I would think you would not be able to force someone to keep the guide dog outside legally. ADA vs ADA, you're looking at a negative right VS a positive right. The government has granted person B the ability to use a guide dog, whereas you are asking for person B to be barred from entering a space because of that right. In those types of situations, usually the positive right (Person B's) wins.
There's no such thing as a public defender (PD) for a custody hearing. If you can't afford an attorney you represent yourself. So either this wasn't a custody hearing, or the judge wasn't appointing a PD. Was this a contempt of court hearing for violating the court order relating to custody? If that's the case, then it's possible the judge would appoint a PD to deal with the contempt charge. However, the PD wont be able to say anything about the underlying custody dispute, the representation would be limited only to the criminal charge.
Alternately (and more likely) the judge stayed the hearing and told him to go get an attorney, and referred him to some type of community legal service where he can attempt to get an attorney at a discounted rate. If he lied to the judge about being unemployed, then let your attorney know and he or she can decide what if anything to do about it.
@Scaflin - Would need more detail. What kind of building (government, something open to the public, something private)? Why is the blind person there? (work, education, customer, guest)? Why are you there?
This is more curiosity. My girlfriend's dad is mostly blind and has a guide dog, and one restaurant didn't like it (manager was out, waitress wasn't great with English) because they were worried about allergies, and it occurred to me that it was both strange that nothing limited ones right to a guide god to hypoallergenic breeds and mixes and that really bad allergies are probably also protected by the ADA (research confirms that both asthma and allergies are considered disabilities).
If you have a signed affidavit from his coworker I would gave that to you attorney asap to notify the judge in the next hearing. JUDGES DO NOT LIKE BEING LIED TO.
The reason i said custody case is because the offer given him was sign away rights and we'll leave you to the courts instead of pushing.
And apparently he truly is being appointed a lawyer.
This sounds like one of those cases where the former spouse is doing everything humanly possible to drag a court case out, in order to harm the other party. My aunt's divorce was similar. The husband is so angry/whatever that they are going to make the case incur as much cost and inconvenience to the wife as possible, without even caring how much it also harms the husband.
Provide the documents to the lawyer, as everyone said, but understand that a fault with the court system (which is also one of its greatest strengths) basically allows him to really drag this out, which will drive up her fees and time spent.
Anyway, B needs to keep ALL emotion out of it and stick with the facts. Yeah, the guy is a schlub and I'm sure Judge will see that very easily, but that's not against the law so any examples of pure schlubbery will be met again, most likely, with boredom from the bench. B's attorney should focus the arguments on resolving the matter to the greatest benefit for the minor child.
I completely understand how badly she wants or even needs to hear Judge tell J he's an idiot, but that's just not going to happen. Judge's goal is to try to get J back into compliance, so that's where the energy will be. "Okay, apparently J is working after all - I want the payments you've missed made up within six months, failure to do so will result in a bech warrant" is going to be the outcome. It's nowhere near as fun as the things she might be fantasizing about, I know, but she really shouldn't expect more than, at most, a "and this court doesn't appreciate your not being forthcoming about your employment status". Boo, I know. Sorry!