Don't fall for it

Life can be a real grind, can't it?  Get to work 10 hour days, get to pay taxes to work, get to work overtime (whether you get paid for it, is another story), get to pay a mortgage (or rent, as the case may be).  It wears on you.

Have you ever, while you're grinding away, thought how nice it would be to win the lottery?  A life of luxury.  Just image all the cheese you could buy?  And that mortgage?  All would be taken care of.  A pipe dream, to be sure, but just imagine if you had all that cash?

Then there are those who get too greedy for their own good.  Take, for instance the guy we had in here a while back.  He got an email from someone in Nigeria. 

Seems Nigerian is looking for a kind soul who will help him funnel  $10,000,000 out of the country so he can start his own shoe factory.  All they need is $100 to open a checking account so they can start the process.

Now, I can hear you snickering.  I mean, who in blazes would fall for a Nigerian scam?  Oh, I don't know - maybe someone who works 10 hour days, gets to pay a mortgage or child support and is tired of the grind?  So, just about anyone, I guess.

Anyway, the $100 turned into $1,000 the next week, then $10,000 the month after that, followed by $100,000 the year after that.  By the time he had mortgaged his house, cashed out his retirement, sold his car (because why have an old car when the Nigerian is going to buy you a brand new one when they get all $10,000,000 out of the country?), guy had nothing left.  

The (or a) problem was his wife was all in it too.  Normally, it's the women who are the straight thinkers and can smell a scam a mile away.  But not this couple - they were tired of the 10 hour days and just wanted a life of luxury.  Now, I suspect, they're working as Walmart greeters.

It's about this time that Guy realized the had been taken to the cleaners and he and wife are standing in front of me wondering if there is anything they can to do recoup their losses.

First, I suggested they take a look at the U.S. Embassy & Consulate in Nigeria's website.  A useful site, it suggests that if you suspect you have been scammed,

1. Do not send more money. Unfortunately, any money that you might already have sent is probably not recoverable.
2. End all communication with the scammer immediately, rather than attempt resolution directly. If you feel threatened, contact your local police at once. Do not attempt to personally recover the funds lost.
3. Report the matter immediately to the Internet Crime Complaint Center, a partnership among the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C), and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BIA), at www.ic3.gov.
4. If the scam originated through a particular website, notify the administrators of that website.

Since the transactions were electronic, the guy wonders out loud if he can sue the company they sent the money through.  Now that you mention it, I seem to recall a lawsuit where the employees of Western Union knew that transactions were scams but didn't do anything to stop them (because they were making money so why stop a good thing, right?).

Anyway, if they could show that the electronic transfer company had a hand in the scam, then they might want to look at:

• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 23, Chp. 269 (Fraud & Deceit))
• California Civil Practice: Torts (TR)
• Civil RICO (Lexis)

and off couple slunked to try to recoup their lost retirement

You know, it's like my daddy used to say - if it looks too good to be true, it is.  No probably about it - it's a trap!  So, when that pit in your stomach starts to feel like a black hole, probably a good time to stop and re-evaluate what it is you're doing and stop doing it.

Just maybe.

Work, work, work, work!

Do you remember your first real job.  I'm not talking babysitting or mowing the neighbor's lawn or even selling lemonade at the corner.  

Nope, I'm talking about doing the 9-5 grind, having to deal with  onerous co-workers and/or bosses, endless meetings, and all those hours of sweet overtime.

Yeah, I remember the days when I used to get overtime back when I drove a stake-bed truck for Goodyear.  I remember driving all around Los Angeles and Orange Counties 15 hours a day, six days a week.  

While my hourly wasn't all that great, I made an absolute killing on overtime.  Those were the days.  I suspect though, what with all the stories of employers stealing wages from their employees, there are a whole lot of people who don't benefit all that much from overtime.

Take, for instance the young lady who came in the other day.  Seems a iron-worker by trade, young lady claimed that her employer had stiffed her for hundreds of hours of overtime.  She tried taking it to the union but they sided with the employer (no surprise, there).

Livid, young lady want to know what she can do to recoup her losses.  First I suggested she take a look at the U.S. Department of Labor's website.  It's a great tool to help get you focused on what your rights are as they related to money owed.  Next, I suggested she take a look at:

• California Wage and Hour: law and litigation (CEB)
• Wage and Hour Manual: for California Employers (Castle Pub)
• California Employment Law: the complete survival guide to doing business in California (Employment Law Pub).
• California Practice Guide: Employment Law (TR)
• EEOC Compliance Manual (CCH)

and off young lady went to plot her revenge.

Yeah, really stinks when you put in your 12 hour day and find you got stiffed for doing a hard day's work.  Good thing there are county law libraries around to help get you dial in to where you need to be.

Break Free

Have you ever had one of those days that you are just happy?  I mean, uncontrollable, dancing like no one is watching happy?

So picture it.  This guy comes into the library with a smile from ear to ear.  Seems he's been paying child support for like forever.  I mean, it's been killing him.  Ex is a hag and she has kept nagging him and demanding a raise every year for the last 5 years.  While the ex wear furs, he wears Kohls.

Guy is feeling down in the dumps....until....guy finds out that his 16 year old kid had file for and was granted emancipation from his mom (Guy's ex).  

Guy is SOOOOOOO happy.  Why, might you ask?  Well, it's seems that when a kid is emancipated, the parent doesn't have to pay child support, anymore.  At least, that's what Guy is hoping is going to happen.  Ex-wife, on the other hand, is sweating bullets.

So, standing in front of me, Guy is looking for anything that can help him break free of his support obligations.  So, turning to my collection, I suggest Guy look at:

• Am Jur Proof of Facts (TR; 108 POF3d 177 (Proof of the emancipation of child in order to terminate child support))
• Am Jur Trials (TR; 37 Trials 639, 657)
• California Civil Practice: Family Law Litigation (TR; Vol 1, Chp. 3)
• American Jurisprudence, 2d (TR; Divorce §§959-964; Parent §§ 73-78, 100)

and with a giddy step in his walk, Guy sets about to make his living hell of a life into a paradise.

Yep, sometimes it's like that.  Sometimes you're down in the dumps and sometimes you're the cock of the walk.  Wherever you are at in life, know that your county law library (and, by extension county law Librarians) are ready to help you get on with your life.

Know thyself

Have you ever had a problem that needs solving?  Maybe your neighbor's dog is barking all night and it's driving you mad.  Maybe your landlord had recently told you to move out (what with all those parties and crazy people coming and going at all hours of the night - hence the barking dog). 

Who do you go to talk about your problems?  Husband?  Wife?  Girlfriends?  Hair stylist?  Bartender?  Dog or other favorite pet?  I suspect it doesn't matter who you go to as much as what you are expecting when you go to someone.

I recall one instance involving interaction with my co-workers (in another time/life).  It seems I had been the discussion as of late.  More to the point, the discussions involved my methodologies on how I go about helping people who come to the library.

For example, imagine a person comes to the reference desk.  They start to talk about whatever they came to talk about - as you should reasonably expect a person to do when they walk into a law library. 

 

If I (a guy) am sitting there and they start to ramble into areas that have nothing to do with law or legal things, I would stop them and ask, "Excuse me, but how, exactly, can I help you, today?"  I would then go about pulling resources off the shelf in response to their question/statement.  It's a reasonable response, isn't it?

Thing is I've always worked under the assumption that when people come to a LAW library, they are doing so because they need a legal research problem solved and they are looking for legal resources to solve them.  I mean, why else would you go to a law library?  To socialize?  It's not a bar, people, it's a LAW library.

They came to a LAW library to get a LEGAL question answered or addressed.  I mean, we're talking maybe 10 minutes of personal interaction.  The backstory is not necessary.  

In fact, I don't want to know their backstory (if I can avoid it) because, if for no other reason, I do not want to become a witness in their subsequent trial.  All I need is enough info to get to the heart of what they want/need.

Now, I've done a bit of research on the difference between

men and women; specifically, how men and women address problems.  What I keep seeing over and over are articles dealing with how to change a man, or how to get a man to understand women.  I've got an idea, how about treating men like men and women like women?  I know, radical concept.

This might come like a thunder bolt to some, but unlike women, men are hardwired to solve problems.  Regardless of what industry you're in, men, by and large, we do not have the patience to listen to problems. Solve them, yes; listen to, not so much.  

Do women understand that it is AGONY for a man to listen to problems from a person who makes no attempt to solve them and then complains that the guy is not listening when we try to solve the problem?  

It's like that video where the woman has a nail in her head.  Instead of addressing the nail in her head, she just wants to talk about how her head hurts.  TAKE THE NAIL OUT OF YOUR !@@%!@#!~@ HEAD and you'll feel better!  Nope, she's not buying it.

What would be helpful for the persons in my profession to understand is that I'm never going to be, think, or act like a female.  Not gonna happen.

Confused?  Let me spell it out for you.  I don't want to be a girl.  I won't dress like one, won't yak like one, pluck my eyebrows, wear make-up, and won't walk like a girl.

Wax my legs?  Not a chance. Heck, I won't voluntarily wax any of my body parts, thread my eyebrows, wear uncomfortable underwear, dangerously high heels, anything lacy, won't spend more than $20 on a haircut, and will NEVER, EVER wear nylons.

Of course, this all brought to mind a situation that happened at my library a while back (not where I work now but where I used to work).  A young-ish lady came into our library looking for help on how to expunge her criminal record (so she could get a decent job).  Right off, she starts talking to a member of our staff (who happened to be of the female persuasion).

Initially, I was sitting near the reference desk and about 20 minutes into the conversation, I walked away.  I came back about an hour later and they were still at it.  Another hour, still going strong.  

Nearing the end of the 4th hour, things sounded like they were winding up.  Staff member announced she was going to lunch and turned towards me and asked if I could help the lady.

"How can I help," I asked.  Youngish lady starts with the whole story and I cut her off asking, "How can I help you, today?"  Lady says, she needed to expunge her criminal record.  "OK, lets go," and I walk lady over to our criminal section where I suggest he take a look at:

• California Criminal Practice, Motions, Jury Instructions, and Sentencing (TR)
• California Criminal Law and Practice (CEB)
• Criminal Defense Techniques (Lexis)

and in all of maybe 5 minutes, lady was off and running to develop her case and get on with life and living.

The thing is, I don't get paid to listen to problems.  I'm here to help people find solutions to their problems.  What would be nice is if people would stop trying to get me to develop feminine tendencies.  I doubt the women discussing my methodologies even realize that this is what they are asking of me.

You have a legal research problem that needs to be solved?  I'm the guy to help you do it.  If what you need is someone with which to commiserate, might I suggest you call your girlfriends or hit up the nearest bartender.

You get what you sow

Have you ever considered the consequences of what you are doing now and how they may affect your life years from now?

Enjoy chain smoking?  According to the CDC, life expectancy for smokers is at least 10 years shorter than for nonsmokers. Quitting smoking before the age of 40 reduces the risk of dying from smoking-related disease by about 90%.  So, for all those teenagers who smoked like stacks in high school, you might be wanting to crank out a will some time soon.

How about alcohol consumption?  In a study involving 599,592 drinkers, the study found that persons who consume 100 grams to 200 grams of alcohol weekly have an estimated life expectancy at age 40 that’s about six months shorter.

One more?  How about persons who are addicted to something worth being addicted to?  According to the National Institute on Drug Abuse, Drug use can have a wide range of short- and long-term, direct and indirect effects. Short-term effects can range from changes in appetite, wakefulness, heart rate, blood pressure, and/or mood to heart attack, stroke, psychosis, overdose, and even death.

These health effects may occur after just one use. What the Institute doesn't take into account is the affect drugs and drug addiction has on persons long after they stop taking drugs and get clean.

Take, for example, the young lady who came to me the other day.  Seems in her youth, she had a kid.  At some point, kid was involved in a car accident that left him in a state where his brain was damaged.  Apparently, he was in such a state that it was determined that he would need someone to care for him the rest of his life.

At some point, kid was awarded a large sum of money in settlement for his injuries.  At the time of the settlement, young lady was addicted to a variety of mind-altering drugs and, apparently, her life was in shambles.  

The attorney, at the time, determined that young lady was not in a state of mind to determine how to best spend the monies and "strongly suggested" that young lady let him create a Special Needs Trust to protect the settlement monies for the benefit of kid.

Fast forward a few years.  Kid is now 23 years old.  Well, physically, he is 23 years old. Mentally, he is hovering around 5 or 6. Young lady has gotten her act together and is no longer addicted to anything. 

Kudos to her.

Problem is that even though lady is no longer addicted to anything, the Special Needs Trust that was created years ago prohibiting young lady (i.e. mother of kid) from getting any significant portion of those settlement monies to spend on kid was doing exactly what it was created to do.  That is, of course, to provide support for the kid and protect the funds in the trust from persons who want to spend it all in riotous living and live a life of Riley.

Lady now wants to be rid of the Special Needs Trust so that she and kid can move on with life without having to conform to the requirements of the Special Needs Trust (see "riotous living, above).

See how a moment in time of raucous living can be a millstone about your neck later on?

Anyway, there is one additional problem.  Apparently, one of the beneficiary's of the SPN trust is the State (i.e. government).  If there is one thing I know about government, whenever there is money involved, the state always plays to win.  They're not going to want to cancel a cash cow - no matter how small.  Cash is king.

The problem is that the only resources I have in my library is stuff about how to create a Special Needs Trusts - not how to end one.  OK, I do have one resource that deals with Special Needs Trust called:  Special Needs Trusts: planning, drafting, and administration (CEB) but its only got the one chapter on Terminating the SNT and Lady wants a lifetime of information on the subject.

Fact is there are 4 (count them, four) ways a Special Needs Trust can be terminated.  FIRST is upon the death of the primary beneficiary.  Since her son was not yet deceased, lady has a swing and a miss for strike one.  

Other ways a Special Needs Trust can be terminated is:

• There is a a change in law or eligibility for benefits;
• There are improvements in ability to engage in sustainable gainful activity so that beneficiary no longer meets disability criteria;
• The SNT no longer holds funds sufficient to justify the costs of administration.

Since the law on a SNT is pretty solid and son definitely eligible for benifits, strike two.

I then suggested lady look at whether the her son's (i.e. the beneficiary of the SNT) condition had improved such that he no longer met disability criteria.  No?  Then, strike three.

Finally, does the trust not have sufficient funds to take care of her son?  That's an easy strike four (because lady knows the trust is stuffed with lots of juicy cash).

When I suggest that maybe she needs to hire an attorney, lady goes nuclear.  She's hopping around demanding that her due process rights are being violated and that the attorney who created the SNT didn't explain to her all the consequences of creating a SNT.  

Yeah, about that.  Remember those drugs you were popping years ago?  Then again, probably not.  I guess that's one of the consequences of drug popping - you don't remember the pain.

I'm thinking, how could he know every single consequence?  There are some things that can be known but there is no way to know if lady would ever get her act together at some point down the line.  Kid was his client and, I suspect, he was trying to act in the best interest of his client (i.e. the kid) not the person popping pills.

I guess the moral to this story is, if you don't want someone else making decisions that you should be making, and you suspect that the decisions others make for you may have dire consequences in the future (i.e. restrict what you can and/or can't do) then maybe you need to do whatever you need to do to keep a clear head.

Just, maybe.

Word of the Month for April 2019: Emancipated Minor

Ah, spring.  A time of renewal.  A time to think about new possibilities and resolve old conflicts and that, as it turns out, is why a number of people come to our law library - to resolve conflicts (real or imagined).

Take, for example the couple that came in the other day.  Seems they were parents of a resourceful child of 12 years of age.  Seems Child had designed, developed, marketed, and was now selling a device to businesses in the area.  

No joke.  The device (parents would not elaborate on what it was or what it did - other than the fact that Child was making a killing) was very profitable and was making Child (and, by extension, Child's parents) very wealthy.

The problem was that Child realized that he did not need parents anymore and was seeking to be classified as an Emancipated Minor.  What is an Emancipated Minor, you ask?  Well, according to Black's Law Dictionary, an Emancipated Minor is:

A minor who is self-supporting and independent of parental control, usu. as a result of a court order.  See Emancipation.

I suspect the problem was not so much that Child wanted to be Emancipated as much as Child didn't want parents dipping into his profits (and, subsequently, dad would have to go back to work).  Parents wanted to know what they could do to put the kibosh on the emancipation proceeding.

Uh huh.  So it comes down to parents v. kids, is it?  Already, battle lines drawn, I suggest parents take a look at:

• California Family Code (Div. 11, Part 6, Chp. 1-3, §§ 7000 et seq.)
• California Forms of Pleading and Practice (Lexis; Vol. 20, Chp. 245)
• American Jurisprudence, 2d (TR; Parent § 110)

and off parents went trying to figure out what to do next.

For as many times as I've heard about kids failing to launch (i.e leave the nest), it's funky to see the times when the parents are trying to prevent it.  Good luck with that.