They're jettisoning the old agreement and starting with a brand new financing agreement. The old one is null and void, by my reading. They should have no right to a single penny from before the signing of that agreement.It depends.Is this just refinancing what principal remained when the issue started?What basis would they have to ask for them after the new agreement starts?The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?
They "refinanced" the total current balance, i.e., old principal balance plus outstanding interest. The only "downside" is that she will have a balloon payment for the remaining principal and interest ... in 2034.It depends.Is this just refinancing what principal remained when the issue started?What basis would they have to ask for them after the new agreement starts?The bank really isn't going to ask for those returned payments?
Isn't this just part of the game?O...M...F...G
I just had a knock down drag out argument with someone because they refused to acknowledge my credentials for a client because they said I didn't give them the right address. The problem as I ultimately found out? When I said the name of the town as "Anywhere Township" that was incorrect because this representative had it on the screen as..... and I kid you not....... truly not making this up........ seriously, I'm deadly serious.......... wait for it.......
Anywhere Twp.
I was expected to say Anywhere twip or however you pronounce that abbreviation FOR ****ING TOWNSHIP!
I'm going to so destroy that bottle of single barrel tonight. Poor thing is going to feel like whatever idiots thought it was a good idea to get into a boxing ring with Mike Tyson not named Buster Douglas.
So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.
But you have to give us more info........
I've only gone on a view of my guy's child porn once. That was enough for me to know I never want to see it again. Just viscerally upsetting. Now I just take their word for it when they tell me yes, they had it, and yes, it shows such and such.So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
I'm too worried about potential PCR/ineffective claims and, as ####### terrible as this sounds, I've seen enough of it now that I can mentally prepare for it somewhat. Unfortunately oftentimes the proof issues relies too much on whether the state can prove age (and the majority of the victims in the pictures are never identified so age is an issue).I've only gone on a view of my guy's child porn once. That was enough for me to know I never want to see it again. Just viscerally upsetting. Now I just take their word for it when they tell me yes, they had it, and yes, it shows such and such.So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
I don't know. I have a pretty vivid imagination. Especially when considering what can be shoved up the rectum of someone who's involved in child pornography.And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum.
Well, then, you've seen in your imagination when I've now seen in hi-def. What this guy did to his rectum should have wrecked him.I don't know. I have a pretty vivid imagination. Especially when considering what can be shoved up the rectum of someone who's involved in child pornography.And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum.
This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?
That is crazy. Cannot believe that this is a real thing.This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.I've actually had clients do this while the case was pending to show that they are not physically aroused by the images in an effort to either reach a better plea agreement or convince a prosecutor to dismiss a case.Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?
It's really crazy. The original is like a sensitive ring around the guy's #### to see if he gets aroused. It theoretically terrifies me because I'm sure I'd show stimulation to some weird random thing.That is crazy. Cannot believe that this is a real thing.This is a test, although likely not admissible at trial, that essentially tests a person's physical reaction to particular images. In short, it's basically a test where if a person views an image of an underage boy or girl whether doing so causes physical arousal. Probationers may be subject to this or courts can order it as a sentencing requirement, like in Sharper's case.I've actually had clients do this while the case was pending to show that they are not physically aroused by the images in an effort to either reach a better plea agreement or convince a prosecutor to dismiss a case.Lawyer types need to explain this to me. Part of Darren Sharper's plea deal involves "penile plethysmograph". Is this covered in Law School?
It is truly awful. And I've seen and heard a ton of other terrible things in criminal cases. Horrible autopsy photos, child molestation victim testimony, etc. I assumed I'd be fine seeing it because doing criminal defense kind of takes away your sensitivity to sick ####. I was way wrong. Like I said it's viscerally disturbing.:X
Not enough money in the world for me to do work that required me to see that stuff.
Costanza defense?So I sheepishly must admit that I put the cart before the horse in relying on the newspaper article and initial reports. Given the nature of the case, I sunk my canines right into this it, grabbed the bull by the horns on this one and went and viewed all the disclosure on this case yesterday (surprisingly they just don't need over this type of evidence to defense counsel even though it's technically public record).Waiting on the police report...I knew that pun was coming but it was still fracking funny.
But you have to give us more info........
The good news is that my client is not a sheep-####er -- at least as far as the video evidence shows. The bad news is he just allegedly possessed videos of people having sex with sheep. And horses. And one lucky bull (at least that is what it appeared to be, although the forensic officer could have been full of bull####). This is amongst about 50 images or so of child porn. The only video evidence is a person very closely appearing to be the client having sex (all types) with the family dog. And shoving anything imaginable up his rectum. These resulted in an indictment with an assortment of counts that could land him in prison for 200+ years.
I got to to view all of this in a couple hour period yesterday. Lawyerin'
That's interesting stuff. I remember listening to a show on NPR that basically came to the same conclusion.It is truly awful. And I've seen and heard a ton of other terrible things in criminal cases. Horrible autopsy photos, child molestation victim testimony, etc. I assumed I'd be fine seeing it because doing criminal defense kind of takes away your sensitivity to sick ####. I was way wrong. Like I said it's viscerally disturbing.:X
Not enough money in the world for me to do work that required me to see that stuff.
How disturbing it was really governs my view on pedophiles too, because I used to assume it was kind of a slippery slope where a person might like regular porn and someone might like "just 18 porn" and someone else might like young teen or then child porn. But when I saw it is was so totally disturbing that I now feel like those attracted to child porn must just flat out wired differently.
Also (and this is a completely non-defense attorney thing to say) I don't think any amount of therapy can change a pedophiles predilection, any more than therapy could make a straight guy gay or a gay guy straight. Therapy can certainly help a person manage and control their urges, but I don't think there's any "cure" to pedophilia.
Dealing with sex offenders housing rights was my first big clue that I wasn't going to want to practice for very long.I wish I had a costanza defense. Unfortunately forensic software can trace the metadata to particular search terms. The device's user searched for these particular images. Circumstantial evidence, particular the numerous photos and videos of person who looks incredibly a lot like my client where he shows his affection for the family dog as well as his ability to fit things inside himself, suggest that may be him.
I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.
You don't have to represent every client that walks into your office.Dealing with sex offenders housing rights was my first big clue that I wasn't going to want to practice for very long.I wish I had a costanza defense. Unfortunately forensic software can trace the metadata to particular search terms. The device's user searched for these particular images. Circumstantial evidence, particular the numerous photos and videos of person who looks incredibly a lot like my client where he shows his affection for the family dog as well as his ability to fit things inside himself, suggest that may be him.
I may be several drinks in right now trying to black the images out.
I have no idea how you guys manage to put it away at night and leave it at the office.
It's a job that needs to be done under our current system (I'd rather go back to inquisitive criminal justice), but I cannot imagine dealing with the cesspool of humanity and not being changed.
Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.
Thanks. Any idea why Heidi Amirault is listed as a restricted name with no attempt to redact it?Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.
As a defense attorney, I will occasionally have to fight the redaction if it contains information I need to effectively defend my client.
She's the reporting party and above 18 so, in my opinion at least, that should be public information. They may attempt to redact it later (although I suppose that ship has sailed).Thanks. Any idea why Heidi Amirault is listed as a restricted name with no attempt to redact it?Generally, the name of a minor or the full name of a minor is kept out of/redacted from a police report -- at least the version available to the public.
As a defense attorney, I will occasionally have to fight the redaction if it contains information I need to effectively defend my client.
Did you get an answer? I don't have time to read through the thread (no idea why I'm reading it in the first place, but it's kind of on par with watching Homeland)... but I live in the city and had my building vacated after a fire.The rent-stabilized/rent-controlled folks have a much different relationship with the city and "make out" comparatively.No experience in NYC but I can't imagine there is.Are there NYC laws that create a duty of care for the City to tenants forced to vacate because of disaster or events beyond tenant's control?What is the question?NYC landlord-tenant anyone?
I did NY State landlord tenant for my 1L summer, but not in the city, so I know just enough to give bad advice.
Have a coworker whose building is vacated, but not destroyed due to the explosion.
Have not seen the lease, but I imagine it's boilerplate.
She's not rent-stabilized/rent-controlled. City does have a vacate order in place cured by building owner showing structural stability
I think this is going to just be a very expensive and painful lesson as to why it's a good idea to have an emergency fund, but was wondering if there was NYC law that I may be overlooking.
I know that NYC eviction process is different than upstate. I was wondering if after 9/11, Sandy or other disasters anything had been put in place for the middle class.
(Total rant, but it's amazing the distinction between the Harlem and East Village explosion. City set aside 250K from the mayor's fund for Harlem, nothing for E Village. City guarantees rent-controlled payments for 12 months and will allow rent-controlled tenants to break lease. Not so for market-rate. Rent controlled/stabilized/subsidized is the suck)
Everything about this is just bizarre.Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.
Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.
I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.
WTF? Looking forward to the update on this one.Settled a case. Jane gets to live in a house until a specific date but can't move anything into the house or take anything out of the house except her clothes and food and such - basically she can't make it look like she lives there in any overt way. John, the person that was suing her, agrees to this and that she has exclusive use of the property until date X.
Jane moves into house and follows the agreement. John has been driving by the house on a fairly regular basis and has determined that since it doesn't look like anyone is living in the house because he hasn't seen anything moved in or out that he would be perfectly within his rights to move in himself. Jane, of course, comes home to the house is question to find John in there with all his stuff. John and his attorney take the position that since it didn't look like she was moving anything into the house or anything else overtly showing that she lived there that she has decided to not live there and John can move in.
I'm dumbfounded. I don't even know how to express my response to the other attorney. But I'm pretty sure the phrase ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME is going to be part of it.
So quit for the day while you're ahead.No updates yet. Mysteriously, no one is returning my call.
On another front, I just was able to negotitate a massive win on a contract case for my client. King of the world type moment. Today is a good day. For now. It's only 11.
Describing a popinjay, were you?I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.
Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.Describing a popinjay, were you?I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.
I may have gone with "Libertine", "Licentious", or "Profligate". Still, "gadabout" is a solid choice. Before the movie "Rounders" I may have used that as well, but it seems to have shifted its meaning, at least in my mind.I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.
Ahhh. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "gadabout". I'll have to check.Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.Describing a popinjay, were you?I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.
I explained that he isn't some "random gadabout who claims to be good with maps."
Sort of an aimless social butterfly.Ditkaless Wonders said:Ahhh. Perhaps I misunderstand the meaning of "gadabout". I'll have to check.Henry Ford said:Opposing counsel filed a post-trial brief referring to my expert as someone who "deemed himself knowledgeable in cartography." This guy was admitted as an expert in cartography, satellite imaging, and forensic geography, and his work is the basis of all commercial satellite imaging technology in the U.S. today. As a for instance, the guys who made Google Earth used to work for him at NASA.Thorn said:Describing a popinjay, were you?Henry Ford said:I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.
I explained that he isn't some "random gadabout who claims to be good with maps."
Awesome.Henry Ford said:I used the word "gadabout" in a brief today. I'm quite chuffed about it.