As an estate planner: WTF? It's hard enough getting clients to think about the time when they too will shuffle off this mortal coil. Now I have to warn them that if the declare BK after talking to me they may have screwed themselves?
I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as that. It seems like the client in that article checked off about 9 boxes to screw his creditors and the consultation with the asset protection attorney was just number 10. I guess it is something to warn a client about if they're in dire straits, but most people aren't going to go to the lengths that guy did.
On another topic, my favorite quote from that article is this:
"Finally, a practice pointer for younger lawyers, which is to be wary of clients who have had problems with their previous counsel. Yes, there are bad lawyers out there, lots of them, but nevertheless when a client shows up who had problems with their previous counsel, it is at least a bright yellow flag that the earlier lawyers weren't the problem but rather the client is. If a client has had problems with two or more previous lawyers, take it from me: Just pass on the client and don't look back."
I agree with 9:50 Any time you represent a debtor who has moved assets around shortly before a BK, you are already behind the 8 ball. Timing is a huge issue and as stated above, the debtor did about 9 other things in an attempt to shield his assets from creditors, several of which would be undone due to timing, his insolvency, and apparent lack of consideration for at least some of the transfers. Without those other 9 boxes (or most of them anyway) already checked, it is doubtful that merely consulting an asset protection attorney would have been determinative in any sense. There are several ways to shield assets, even post judgment depending on on the situation. However, it is much easier to protect those actions outside of BK. The problem in BK is that you can have a trustee shining a spotlight up your anal cavity, so everything is scrutinized far closer than in any non BK post judgment collection efforts by a creditor, no matter how determined that creditor is.
There was a whole lot more conduct there than just talking to a lawyer. The guy was a crook and also a stupid crook. Also got into arguments or lawsuits with at least two different lawyers. Quintessential client from hell; making a bunch of demands, not wanting to pay, probably calling every ten minutes and yelling at your receptionist too. Karma has a way of working its magic though, doesn't it?
This isn't new. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act lists "badges of fraud," which includes transferring assets to an insider. I have successfully argued that moving assets to a person's trust establishes that badge of fraud, and I remember that I found like 30 cases that said the same thing. But one badge of fraud alone doesn't get you anywhere, because there's like 11 of them. You basically need to show the dude was moving the money to shield it from a known creditor.
This guy had more badges of fraud than Sheriff Clarke.
Guest
Anonymous
September 28, 2017 5:19 pm
Off topic question: Can anyone suggest or recommend a local business that purchases quality office furniture. I have a custom made modern desk with cabinets that I need to dispose of. I know that there is not much of a market for used office furniture but this is a nice piece. Any ideas? Thanks.
Cliven Bundy requesting to act as his own attorney? I always knew he was quite arrogant, ignorant, and delusional but I never suspected he would be THAT arrogant, ignorant and delusional.
He refuses to acknowledge the high possibility(most would say a high probability) of a conviction and a long sentence.
How is he going to argue to the jury? Perhaps something like "There are several black members of the jury, so you can well relate to my argument of federal oppression and over-reach. For example, the federal government should have left well-enough alone and not abolished slavery. I'm sure the black members of the jury will agree with me that black people were much better under slavery, rather than as part of the welfare state where your young men are all in prison and your young women are just having babies that the state must support."
Bundy would absolutely take that approach and advance such argument, except that he would do so in a much less articulate, and far more offensive manner. For starters, when he made his remarks about slavery, he did even have the decency to say "African American" or even "Black." He kept saying "the negro".
And his discussion of the so-called "welfare state" was even stated far more offensively than you indicate.
So, yes, him representing himself would be a disaster of monumental proportion. I'm glad the judge denied the request because people have gotten appellate yardage out of the fact they were unrepresented-even in cases where they insisted on representing themselves, and even in cases where the judge said the decision to represent yourself can in no way be used as an issue for post-trial relief.
Even though the headlines in both papers made it appear that Bundy was insisting that he represent himself, the content of the articles show that it's not quite that simple. It does appear that Bret Whipple wanted to withdraw, and that Bundy wanted to discharge him. But it could be that Bundy wanted to replace him with new counsel. Nothing about the judge's questioning of Bundy indicates that Bundy was insisting on representing himself, or that he was adamantly opposed to being represented.
Typical sloppy local journalism wherein the headline writer does not really read the article, and the headline then creates a largely false impression.
Its a little of both 2:50. Bundy is not pleased that Whipple is not fighting "hard enough." There is nothing at this stage to fight "hard enough" about. Look at Trial #2: sometimes the best strategy is not to fight at all. But this is Bundy's life here because if convicted he will die in Federal Prison. When it is your life on the line, the stress running high, often defense counsel can never do enough. I have never seen a case like this where the A/C relationship is not strained.
"Bundy probably wants Malcolm LaVergne since he did so much for OJ!" This would make for an epic sitcom. Jaleel White could play Malcolm and Sam Elliot could play Cliven.
The order says Holper wasn't candid with the state court with regards to his client's federal charges. That's code for he lied to the judge. On top of everything else alleged. And you think all he deserved was a public reprimand?
Holper was not completely candid with a State Court Judge regarding Federal charges; Stubbs filed a fraudulently executed plea agreement which required his client to get new counsel and withdraw the plea and committed a crime. Yeah I think the second is more serious than the first. I think Stubbs should have gotten a suspension also.
Guest
Anonymous
September 29, 2017 5:45 pm
Did you read the Order? There was no evidence that Stubbs committed any fraud or did anything intentionally. The Order specifically states that knowledge that his notarizing the document wrong was not necessary. Also funny how the client claimed both signatures were forged, but one of the signatures was proven to be the client's signature after all (other was signed by his girlfriend).
Guest
Anonymous
October 1, 2017 7:35 pm
Lock your doors; hide your cats. The Juice and his ace attorney, M. Laverne are out.
As an estate planner: WTF? It's hard enough getting clients to think about the time when they too will shuffle off this mortal coil. Now I have to warn them that if the declare BK after talking to me they may have screwed themselves?
I'm not sure it's as cut and dry as that. It seems like the client in that article checked off about 9 boxes to screw his creditors and the consultation with the asset protection attorney was just number 10. I guess it is something to warn a client about if they're in dire straits, but most people aren't going to go to the lengths that guy did.
On another topic, my favorite quote from that article is this:
"Finally, a practice pointer for younger lawyers, which is to be wary of clients who have had problems with their previous counsel. Yes, there are bad lawyers out there, lots of them, but nevertheless when a client shows up who had problems with their previous counsel, it is at least a bright yellow flag that the earlier lawyers weren't the problem but rather the client is. If a client has had problems with two or more previous lawyers, take it from me: Just pass on the client and don't look back."
I agree with 9:50 Any time you represent a debtor who has moved assets around shortly before a BK, you are already behind the 8 ball. Timing is a huge issue and as stated above, the debtor did about 9 other things in an attempt to shield his assets from creditors, several of which would be undone due to timing, his insolvency, and apparent lack of consideration for at least some of the transfers. Without those other 9 boxes (or most of them anyway) already checked, it is doubtful that merely consulting an asset protection attorney would have been determinative in any sense. There are several ways to shield assets, even post judgment depending on on the situation. However, it is much easier to protect those actions outside of BK. The problem in BK is that you can have a trustee shining a spotlight up your anal cavity, so everything is scrutinized far closer than in any non BK post judgment collection efforts by a creditor, no matter how determined that creditor is.
There was a whole lot more conduct there than just talking to a lawyer. The guy was a crook and also a stupid crook. Also got into arguments or lawsuits with at least two different lawyers. Quintessential client from hell; making a bunch of demands, not wanting to pay, probably calling every ten minutes and yelling at your receptionist too. Karma has a way of working its magic though, doesn't it?
This isn't new. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfers Act lists "badges of fraud," which includes transferring assets to an insider. I have successfully argued that moving assets to a person's trust establishes that badge of fraud, and I remember that I found like 30 cases that said the same thing. But one badge of fraud alone doesn't get you anywhere, because there's like 11 of them. You basically need to show the dude was moving the money to shield it from a known creditor.
This guy had more badges of fraud than Sheriff Clarke.
Off topic question: Can anyone suggest or recommend a local business that purchases quality office furniture. I have a custom made modern desk with cabinets that I need to dispose of. I know that there is not much of a market for used office furniture but this is a nice piece. Any ideas? Thanks.
take it to a consignment place
How nice? How much you looking for? Maybe we could work something out.
I am interested too… post your contact information please
Costco
12:26 PM,
10:19 AM here. You can download my vcard here: https://tinyurl.com/rodriguezvcard
I wish I could get my VCard back
Cliven Bundy requesting to act as his own attorney? I always knew he was quite arrogant, ignorant, and delusional but I never suspected he would be THAT arrogant, ignorant and delusional.
He refuses to acknowledge the high possibility(most would say a high probability) of a conviction and a long sentence.
How is he going to argue to the jury? Perhaps something like "There are several black members of the jury, so you can well relate to my argument of federal oppression and over-reach. For example, the federal government should have left well-enough alone and not abolished slavery. I'm sure the black members of the jury will agree with me that black people were much better under slavery, rather than as part of the welfare state where your young men are all in prison and your young women are just having babies that the state must support."
Bundy would absolutely take that approach and advance such argument, except that he would do so in a much less articulate, and far more offensive manner. For starters, when he made his remarks about slavery, he did even have the decency to say "African American" or even "Black." He kept saying "the negro".
And his discussion of the so-called "welfare state" was even stated far more offensively than you indicate.
So, yes, him representing himself would be a disaster of monumental proportion. I'm glad the judge denied the request because people have gotten appellate yardage out of the fact they were unrepresented-even in cases where they insisted on representing themselves, and even in cases where the judge said the decision to represent yourself can in no way be used as an issue for post-trial relief.
Even though the headlines in both papers made it appear that Bundy was insisting that he represent himself, the content of the articles show that it's not quite that simple. It does appear that Bret Whipple wanted to withdraw, and that Bundy wanted to discharge him. But it could be that Bundy wanted to replace him with new counsel. Nothing about the judge's questioning of Bundy indicates that Bundy was insisting on representing himself, or that he was adamantly opposed to being represented.
Typical sloppy local journalism wherein the headline writer does not really read the article, and the headline then creates a largely false impression.
Its a little of both 2:50. Bundy is not pleased that Whipple is not fighting "hard enough." There is nothing at this stage to fight "hard enough" about. Look at Trial #2: sometimes the best strategy is not to fight at all. But this is Bundy's life here because if convicted he will die in Federal Prison. When it is your life on the line, the stress running high, often defense counsel can never do enough. I have never seen a case like this where the A/C relationship is not strained.
Bundy probably wants Malcolm LaVergne since he did so much for OJ!
"Bundy probably wants Malcolm LaVergne since he did so much for OJ!" This would make for an epic sitcom. Jaleel White could play Malcolm and Sam Elliot could play Cliven.
Sam Elliott is way too cool to play Cliven. Maybe someone more like Wilford Brimley.
Stephen Stubbs gets a public reprimand from the Supreme Court for his gross misdemeanor. Scott Holper gets a 6 month suspension (90 days suspended).
These seem backwards.
Where are the links for that? Hard to find this stuff on the Nevada Supreme Court site.
Go to C-Track. Enter their name.
Hi Scott.
Hi.
What were the two misdos?
The order says Holper wasn't candid with the state court with regards to his client's federal charges. That's code for he lied to the judge. On top of everything else alleged. And you think all he deserved was a public reprimand?
Holper was not completely candid with a State Court Judge regarding Federal charges; Stubbs filed a fraudulently executed plea agreement which required his client to get new counsel and withdraw the plea and committed a crime. Yeah I think the second is more serious than the first. I think Stubbs should have gotten a suspension also.
Did you read the Order? There was no evidence that Stubbs committed any fraud or did anything intentionally. The Order specifically states that knowledge that his notarizing the document wrong was not necessary. Also funny how the client claimed both signatures were forged, but one of the signatures was proven to be the client's signature after all (other was signed by his girlfriend).
Lock your doors; hide your cats. The Juice and his ace attorney, M. Laverne are out.