Judicial system in the trenches just sucks for the poor...

[MRM]

You have an absolute duty to return found property once the owner is identified, and you probably have a duty to make reasonable inquiry to find the owner. I'm not sure how old this rule is without checking, but off the top of my head I'd say about 500 years, maybe a few more. It dates back to English common law that would have developed right around then, no later than mid 16th century. But it might be a hundred years or so older than that.

But you don't have a duty to pick up lost property and find the owner. You only have a duty to the owner if you pick up the property. The question is whether Phone Guy discharged his duty by returning the poperty to the original position where he found it and advised the owner of its location. I say it's actually a close call.

Jim, if you think it would do Phone Guy any good, I'll split the cost of the with M. Robert. If you front the expense I'll send a check right down to you. You know you can trust me, right?

Oh, that was your client's DUI? Whew.

[Dueller]

MRM, RPK and others...thanks for your offers. There are some quirky ethical rulings about a lawyer advancing bonds/court costs down here. I'm gonna swing by the jail and talk to the guy tomorrow...see if he even wants my help. I'll keep you posted.

MRM...lol...not my DUI. I know better. I tried 43 DUI cases this past year. Won 37 of them. 2 are on appeal to the Miss Supremes.

[Jim727]

Well, I have to agree that the judge needs a new line of work. However, who is right/wrong or bright/dumb really doesn't make much diff here, does it? If I were in your position I'd find a mirror and try to see two guys - the one that took the case and the one that didn't. Pick one -- that's the guy you get to live with.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

I can certainly understand wanting a $20 reward for a phone that potentially cost as much as 10x that amount.

The guy that had his phone returned is a total tight wadded jack ass for making such an issue out of $20.00

At the risk of sounding offensive, i'll quote the legendary mel brooks, "Even a jew would be ashamed."

just so

[Dueller]

Update: Went and saw the guy in Sat evening. His family/church ahd raised money for his fine. Spoke with judge/prosecutor/"victim" as well. Got him released on Monday for time served and fine reduced by $100 with $25/day credit.

Could have appealed it and taken chances but this was the most effocoent way to get it behind him.

Thanks all for your concern/compassion.

[LeRoux Strydom]

Originally Posted by Tim Hancock

Did the guy have a legal right to demand $20? I am guessing not. He went from performing a good deed for someone to being an arsehole instantly when he demanded the money. I have no pity for him at all.

+1.

He deserved what he got. Whatever happened to good manners and grace by just taking back the phone without demanding payment? If he hadn't mentioned anything, just maybe the phone's owner would have offered something anyway out of gratitude. By "demanding" (something most beggars seem to have perfected to an art), he screwed his own situation, then aggravated it by holding the phone as ransom and putting it back in the gutter.

Being poor is no excuse for being a dickhead. Maybe being a dickhead is a perfect excuse for being poor, though.

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by Dueller

Update: Went and saw the guy in Sat evening. His family/church ahd raised money for his fine. Spoke with judge/prosecutor/"victim" as well. Got him released on Monday for time served and fine reduced by $100 with $25/day credit.

Could have appealed it and taken chances but this was the most effocoent way to get it behind him.

Thanks all for your concern/compassion.

he got totally ****ed. I'd have happily donated $5 bucks toward his fine or bail.

You're a great guy Dueller. I gotta toss a few back with you sometime.

[Dueller]

Not great by any means, snipe...still up for beers in the future.

This was just zany from the outset. Watching it unfold was just dumbfounding. I can't tell you how many times I've seen this kind of trainwreck waiting in court. Phone finder guy was dumb for asking for $20 for gas then not giving "victim" phone back. Victim was a jerk for reacting with a racial epithet. Prosecutor was over the line in courtroom antics being outraged by the "ranson" or "extortion." Judge should have calmed everyone down and come up with something a bit more reasonable in punishment. All could have been avoided had someone with calm demeanor just goten to the bottom of it and negotiated/imposed a reasonable resolution.

[m21sniper]

If i was the judge i'd have tossed the plaintiff in jail for wasting the court's time.

[RPKESQ]

Glad you worked it out for this guy. Being cash poor or not the brightest bulb does not justify excessive penalties for your actions under the law. Without compassion all we would have is a legal system not a justice system.

Thanks Dueller

[Dueller]

Originally Posted by m21sniper

If i was the judge i'd have tossed the plaintiff in jail for wasting the court's time.

Nah...he had a legitimate gripe. In talking to victim, I think he was a little shocked at how serious the jusdge came down on the guy.

Let me give you an example of another recent case I handled. Guy lets his nephew use his car. Nephew gets pulled over for speeding. Nephew has a warrant for unpaid traffic fines so they arrest him. Cop does the reasonable thing and calls the car owner to come pick up car rather than having it towed. Very reasonable on part of LEO, right.

Car owner goes to police station to pick up keys as cop had locked the car and left it where the offense occurs. Naturally, the desk sergeant asks for ID before releasing keys. As a routine, desk sergeant runs a background NCIC check on car owner. Nothing on computer against car owner but he also checks manual records. BINGO!!!! Outstanding warrant on car owner for FELONY GRAND LARCENY indictment. FROM 1988!!!!

Car owner hasn't a clue what they're referring to. He's arrested and posts a $5000 bond to get out of jail. Comes to me totally clueless about the charge. Hires me to represent him. I grill him thoroughly. Not a clue what they're talking about.

Turns out that 22 years ago, when car owner was 19 y.o. he borrowed a car from co-worker to run some errands. He was supposed to be gone for about and hour but gets distracted with some friends. When he wasn't back in 4 hours, co-worker gets PO'd and calls police to report car missing. Police take report and file it. Guy comes back later that evening, apologizes for being gone too long, etc etc. Everything is resolved, right?

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. Grand jury is convened (in 1988) and a number of cases are presented. Grand jury indicts guy based on LEO report. Never has been a follow up investigation by PD. Case gets turned over to DA who never pursues it or talks to victim. It gets filed away. BUT THERE IS AN OUTSTANDIG WARRANT ON THE INDICTMENT.

Soooo...I set it for trial. On the trial date, the DA graciously offers me deal....Reduce to misdemeanor for petty larceny $750 fine and 6 months suspended. I say nope. I want to try it. And BTW the investigating officer has not been here since 1996. And the victim's whereabouts are unknown. Without saying a word, he hands the file to the judge for an order of dismissal.

Guy felt the $500 I charged him was a deal.

[Dueller]

ooops...dbl post.

[Hugh R]

Not criminal law, But my intro to the legal system was when I sold my last house to a just minted lawyer who was studying for the bar. I disclosed about 20 things in the sale. He had to acknowledge all of them. A month later he sues me for the 20 "defects". For example I put "Sliding door doesn't lock; use stick". It was in the disclosure, the home inspection and the final walk through. First thing he sues me for is "Sliding Doors doesn't lock; I have to use a stick". I have every item documented somewhere in the sales/disclosure process. What I missed, as did my real estate agent, was that he didn't initial the arbitration clause. Asked my lawyer (wrong lawyer in retrospect) to go for summary judgement. The judge was those are matters of fact for a jury to decide, not matters of law for him to decide (life did he miss a statute of limitations in filing the lawsuit). Cost me a truck load of money to eventually settle. I was going to fight it, but I just didn't have the money (had to take out a personal loan to fund the lawyer). He was wanting to bring in his expert witness buddies for depositions at $300/hour, plus my lawyer at $350/hour). It turns out that he did the exact same thing to buy his previous house. I will never sell a house to a lawyer agaiin.

[Ram930]

not to take this post in another direction, but the problem is in race relations. if the phone owner had not been predisposed to think that the black guy was trying to stiff him then he would have understood that the right thing to do was to compensate him for his time and efforts. If it was one of his own race that returned it to him he would have likely taken the guy out for drinks and established a longterm friendship.

[RWebb]

Originally Posted by MRM

You have an absolute duty to return found property once the owner is identified, and you probably have a duty to make reasonable inquiry to find the owner. I'm not sure how old this rule is without checking, but off the top of my head I'd say about 500 years, maybe a few more. It dates back to English common law that would have developed right around then, no later than mid 16th century. But it might be a hundred years or so older than that.

But you don't have a duty to pick up lost property and find the owner. You only have a duty to the owner if you pick up the property. The question is whether Phone Guy discharged his duty by returning the poperty to the original position where he found it and advised the owner of its location. I say it's actually a close call.
* * *

OK, so old common law -- may be ousted by a state statute or not. But, what is the penalty for breach? Is it a tort or a crime if you pick up a cell phone and hang on to it instead of, say... calling the police, calling someone on the list of calls on the phone, etc. etc.?

[GH85Carrera]

Originally Posted by MRM

You have an absolute duty to return found property once the owner is identified, and you probably have a duty to make reasonable inquiry to find the owner. I'm not sure how old this rule is without checking, but off the top of my head I'd say about 500 years, maybe a few more. It dates back to English common law that would have developed right around then, no later than mid 16th century. But it might be a hundred years or so older than that.

But you don't have a duty to pick up lost property and find the owner. You only have a duty to the owner if you pick up the property. The question is whether Phone Guy discharged his duty by returning the poperty to the original position where he found it and advised the owner of its location. I say it's actually a close call.

Jim, if you think it would do Phone Guy any good, I'll split the cost of the with M. Robert. If you front the expense I'll send a check right down to you. You know you can trust me, right?

Oh, that was your client's DUI? Whew.

OK, so you say there is a duty to return lost property. Is that duty listed on any law anywhere? When we found a phone there was positively no feeling of duty to return the phone. It was just the logical thing to do. I sure was not going spend more than minutes trying to locate the owner. I was flat out not going to spend any money to return it. We did not ask for a reward and did not want or receive any compensation other than a thank you.

Are you saying if I find an item of value with just some initials on it I have a duty to find that owner? Just how much effort is required to satisfy my duty to find the owner? Is this duty directly proportional to the value of the item?

If I see a cell phone on the ground do I have a duty to pick it up and try to find the owner or can I just ignore it and walk on by?

What is the punishment for not performing this duty, and who dispenses the punishment?

[Hugh R]

So if I find a $20 bill (property)on the sidewalk, I have a "duty" to find the owner?

[jyl]

Why didn't the Phone Guy accept representation by the public defender?

[svandamme]

Folks read books about the old days, like 100 years ago, and how folks struggled with poverty,
and how the rich got along just fine, taking advantage of those who never had what they have.

Well, it's still out there.

For instance, my sister works in a social workplace, she's somewhat challenged,
can't think as fast as me, and get's frustrated easily.. and then throws tantrums.
But she's not retarded, she can live on her own..

She makes minimum wage, and rents an appartment. Basically a city house converted to 3 appartments.

The owner, i found out today, is the son of a factory owner... they make prefab furniture stuff, you know, laminated boards and what not... 10 000 000 turnover a year...
And he simply invested in some real estate.. nothing wrong with that.

But then this landlord goes to my sister, shoves a letter in her hand stating that , because he's about to do some renovations,
he's legally entitiled to raise rent 50 euro a month.. effective immediately. (despite the fact he hasn't even done any renovations)
"And don't worry, i won't raise your rent via the index system this year."

My sister is stunned, doesn't know her rights, can't even be able discuss the issue with this university graduate..50/month is a lot of money for her.

Now she does have me, and i sorted it out for her. Basically called the guy, and made firewood of his liberal interpretation of the house rent legislation we have in Belgium
(369 contract, fixed, only indexed per year, revisions only possible on the 3'ed and 6th year, she's now going to be on year 2 the next 1st of April
)
He kept insisting he had a right to raise rent , and came up with one lame ass argument after another. His no index raise is a weasely thing ,
because there simply is no inflation index jump this year, there's deflation..
there will be a rent decrease, so him generously stating he won't raise the index , is a joke...

In the end, i tell him there is no rent increase, and if he wants one, he can go to court over it and i'm looking forward to it. And we end the phone call.


30 minutes later, he calls me to say he had consulted his lawyer, and it's ok, no rent increase, he'de leave it as is for now...
And then pursue the matter by the book later. I again tell him, that's fine, looking forward to it.

I have no problem with them raising the rent when they can.
But to try and bluff somebody who has less then you have, into giving you more when you don't even have a legal right to do so within your contract,
that's just greed, it's taking advantage of people, it's bad karma.


All is well that ends well for my sister.
But this happens all the time, and i'm sure it happens all over the world
And not everybody has a brother or relative to look out for them.
Not everybody has the right sequence of events to learn the right way, some don't even have the capacity to learn things on their own.
My sister, without assistance, would be doomed into terrible poverty and/or abuse. She would end up in dept, poverty... worse.


There is still rich and there is still poor, the line just was blurry for a long time, covered up by growth , capitalism, MTV and credit..
But i'm convinced that it will be a sharper line 50 years from now. It's inevitable.


Those who have more, don't need to give handouts, they should simply act right towards those they interact with who have less.
Be correct, honest and with honor. If more would do that, there would be a lot less misery, and a lot less crime...

Dueller, my hat off to you for checking out this man's options.
I do it for my sister, my blood, you do it for somebody you didn't even knew.

I'm sure he did a dumb thing, he probably didn't know any better, let's hope he does now.

[9dreizig]

Dueller, you're a great guy!!! WTF was the procecutor of that last case you talked about thinking?? What's his motivation for sticking it to an obviously innocent guy ?? Guys like him should have bullets in their heads as they are a plague on society...