Welcome to Montana

I have never been to Montana so I don’t know. I could draw a semicircle around the state and while it may be lopsided, it would include people who are the most remote in the U.S.

It is politics vs. the law. I wonder if a lawyer would say that.

I say it is, and as the great writer John Jay Osborne, Jr. once wrote about in terms of paralegals, I am a paraperson. Citizen, lawyer, paraperson.

An anthropologist would call it culture or enculturation. That is where and how it becomes a big case and not just a tort for damages.

Anarchist is the only word I can think of. I need to work on that, so politics will have to do for now.

“You can’t even let your dog off a leash there anymore!” The explanation point is mine. It was not a statement; it was condemnation and a demand.

The sheriff’s department and the E. P. R. D. have both said the same thing, over time. Only one actually said it out loud. Can you guess who?

Pages: 1 2

Thinking like a lawyer

Writers write. I’d rather call this by that name, but I would have to use it over and over.

I will call it Think like a lawyer because that is something useful and worth putting into words. I haven’t even done anything legal–that is a poor choice of words–yet but it has benefited me. I remember when I felt I had learned to really write, what a great feeling that was. I wouldn’t put this, the ability to think like a lawyer, up there with that, but it is gratifying and a relief. For now I will call it soothing.

For any real lawyers who might read this, I certainly cannot claim to be an experienced or effective person with a career in it. At the same time, I hope to accomplish things, perhaps including some that licensed attorneys cannot, pro se (without a lawyer) and in small claims court (lawyers not allowed).

Is thinking like a lawyer learning lots of new words, like scienter? Its meaning may or may not be loosely based on the word science, but it is a legal term meaning a lie. You could use it to impress someone maybe, or to prove to them you know what you are talking about and that you mean business. It is fun to learn new words that have purpose and history, but that is not thinking like a lawyer.

For me, thinking like a lawyer–I am about halfway through my minimalist education, which I will explain later in this post–is being able to put together a case or respond to one in a rational and legal way. Since I am and will remain an amateur lawyer, that means knowing the basics and where to go for more if I need it.

Remember professor Kingsfield in The Paper Chase? He was the contracts professor who kept saying “I will train your mind and you will teach yourselves to think like a lawyer.”

Thinking like a lawyer can include the word scienter because its use could help to prove or disprove a case. I’ll use it in an example.

I am having an ongoing feud with the Evergreen Parks and Recreation Department, a local special district which provides park space, a recreation center, and classes. Approximately 15 years ago they purchased a 17-acre triangle of land between my home and neighborhood and a busy state highway. This property (Stagecoach Park) has a little league field, lacrosse field, benches and picnic tables, and tot lot. The neighborhood adjacent to the is rather small (about 300 homes), the area is at 7,500 feet and mountainous, and the park is relatively secluded; most users live nearby and walk there (except during games or practices on the athletic fields) while others drive to the small parking lots.

Evergreen, Colorado is in unincorporated Jefferson County and the only law enforcement agency besides the state “patrol” is the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Department. Signs posted by the EPRD at Stagecoach Park and all their locations (approx. 10) say call 911, “Animal Control” (a non-sworn department within the sheriff’s department that helps enforce the animal ordinance from the county commission), and the EPRD Park Ranger.

My home overlooks the park and I am afraid to go there. Nearby residents and drive-there visitors use the park specifically to let their dogs run free. Seldom do they pick up after them. That there is no ranger or supervision is well known. At times there are three or four dogs running at large–defined as not just off a leash– while people play softball, talk on phones, or do other things. I have been attacked several times. It is not safe without a guard dog of your own. Other crimes including commercial activities, motorized vehicles, unapproved private parties, abandoned vehicles, and occur frequently. Without even trying, I see it all from my house on a daily basis.

Jefferson county sheriff’s department deputies will not respond and I have been threatened/told not to call them; I have pictures of deputies in their SUVs with dogs running at large (“at large” is more severe than “dog off leash”) behind them; they will not even get out of the vehicle; nothing is ever said, and they leave. That is if they show-up at all. Animal Control will say “What do you want us to do, give them a warning?” That is, if they choose to show-up after arguing, which is almost always way too late. Pictures, videos, and emails will not help. They will not actually respond.

In 15 years, and I have made “hundreds” or close-to-that number of reports, with pics and video, and not one citation has ever been issued.

Pretending we are in small claims court and as a non-lawyer, how do I handle it? Thinking like a lawyer, what is my case?

Here is a little more background on the EPRD “ranger.” A small amount of checking proves that the phone number belongs to a maintenance manager. I have called dozens of times–live, at real incidents–and have never received a reply. How can a ranger be at ten properties at the same time anyway? It is a complete scam: there is no ranger. There definitely is no ranger in terms of doing what park rangers normally do.

This is (a) scienter or lie, which is not a common word and I don’t know if it is a noun or verb. In legal terms it is fraud and it can be the basis for a tort claim.

In addition, the long battle of reporting it shows both intention and negligence. The EPRD is knowingly and intentionally putting people in danger.

Isn’t it the responsibility of the sheriff’s department to to enforce the law? Yes, and we will get to that. For now, I’ll just say res ipsa loquitor, or it is what it is. It would not be happening “but-if”–another new word I learned–the park wasn’t there or if the park owners were doing something about the crime and danger (maybe I need some help with the writing instead of the diction!).

The fraud goes deeper. I lived here when the EPRD sought a millage to buy the land and create a public park; the offer and “time” since–don’t know yet how to apply that legal principal–was not and is not for a doggy park. Remember what I wrote that I cannot use the park because of the safety issue and the unusual situation in that there is no one to call if there is an incident. I believe the EPRD’s behavior is both negligent and intentional and I can prove it. Finally, their overall intransigence (not a legal term, to my knowledge) contributes to the intentional infliction of emotional distress.

I didn’t say I have it all worked out, but that is the gist of thinking like a lawyer. There are details within the details, but that is a case, and there are ways to initiate it and to defend it.

Let me see here, loose ends, I don’t want to keep the reader in suspense. Who is liable, the EPRD or the sheriff? I contend both, in separate ways. One could consider the EPRD 100% responsible, but that doesn’t even matter, they are culpable enough because of the but-if rule. The sheriff will receive an intimidating a witness claim once I figure out how to do that–claim, that’s a new word I learned for a lawsuit!

Damages? How about a refund of all my tax payments to the EPRD. It is allowed to ask and it does not hurt to ask. “Things,” there goes my writing ability again, will happen as a result of asking.

There is no point trying to argue with the nonexistent ranger (i.e., employee who is just following instructions) because now I have a course of action. Another part of thinking like a lawyer, Professor Kingsfield doesn’t matter and the only thing that does are the components of the case. Nonetheless, I will throw in and remember another media tidbit (need link). The 20/20 program on the Austin, TX judge who dealt with the same criminals in several cases over years until they finally came to her house and shot her in the driveway. She survived, pursued it of course and won; obviously she knew the system, but she displayed memorable and amazing patience. She showed, you have to do it in a considered approach within the system or it will not work.

Think like a lawyer. Put your ducks in a row. Have a plan, or at least a theory or approach, before opening your mouth. Then, when you do it will carry a lot more weight.

How I am Preparing Myself:

Coursera Introduction to American Law

http://www.ericejohnson.com/audio/slides/Torts_Lightning_Review_slides.pdf

The Last Recession

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Ladera-Ranch/40-Iron-Horse-Trl-92694/home/5791362

https://www.redfin.com/CA/Rancho-Santa-Margarita/78-Bloomfield-Ln-92688/home/5798441

About once every three or four episodes one gets to me. I think about it, rewind it, and I go back to it and rewatch the parts that I did not follow.

Tommy Nguyen, who apparently produced it, posted it free for all. His other videos (disabled kids?) appear equally intrusive.

This one spans some 4 years of filming. Were they paid by NBC?

Caution, spoiler to follow! The only hardship the family of four endured other than the economy was the motorcycle accident. That was a bad one, and a major hook for the story is that it was while riding a second hidden Harley. Therein lies a clue to what is going on: it will come back. Home prices, Harley prices, the amorphous economy, and my entire life will come back.

The story is very sad because of the disability. The characters are likeable. But the mystery remains.

Doing the math backward, they paid $65K down on a $325,000 house. They poured all this money into it and also took it out in the form of more mortgages. The mortgages work a lot better when you have a high income. Apparently it was worth near $800,000 and it went down to under $500,000. They were $90K in the red, meaning they had $600,000 in debt.

The house is in Las Flores, CA. I had never heard of it but I like looking-up houses and areas. It is in Orange County, California, which can be very nice and is always expensive. The Sadowski’s home looks a little nicer than those in the links above–it backs up to open space with a giant metal fence, which is where the outdoor dining room sits next to the pool with real rocks. But still.

He had 25-40 employees and 15-17 projects and all that. Something is wrong and even snooping over four years does not answer it.

Neither can find a job in 2 years. They could work at a grocery store or Walmart.

You see these people and they are very sad stories. It is like the series American Greed. The stories are consuming, but what about these poor people?

$650 for food stamps and $750 for welfare.

The woman’s mother lost her house too. What is the matter with these people?

coursera

https://www.coursera.org/learn/american-law/home/welcome

Torts

  • negligent, intentional, strict liability. Ordinary prudence/level of care; plaintiff must prove–reasonable person. (Did not get into burden of proof specifics.)
  • dangerous activities–very hazardous activities–strict liability.
  • res ipsa loquitur “speaks for itself,” one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened
  • list of intentional torts. Conversion.
  • Economics, politics, other factors; laws and case law changes.
  • “Body of reasoned opinion”

Contracts

  • legal way to enforce promise.
  • solution is to put back as if contract were fulfilled with money, i.e., we’ll pay for someone else to do it; expectation damages.
  • again, the issue of “what the political system will enforce.”
  • form (i.e., assent) is separate from substance; first determine if it was agreed to and then what is in it.
  • mutual benefit and time 2 key issues. Doctrine of consideration (something of value).
  • breach: “you chose at that point to go back on the deal” (not “lied about reason to participate”).
  • will of the party–what was its purpose in terms of doing it?–over time is key… e.g., I did not enter into it in order to have money taken from my checking account without authorization.
Pages: 1 2

The Virus

Driving around Denver and running errands was a once in a lifetime experience. Early on it was announced on the radio that Denver restaurants and bars would be closed for two months. The DJ for indie 102.3, whose voice sounded fantastic, was broadcasting from her basement.

At Westerra the lobby was closed and there was a long line at the drive-in. I took the long way trying to find a Bellco or credit union to get cash.

The streets were not empty but they were maybe one-half traffic. Most businesses were open; actually almost all were open, but it was hard to tell because so few people were out. Wendy’s, Little Cesear’s, and 7-Eleven were open. Gas stations and particularly Latin businesses (tire and car repair) places on Federal in Denver were doing business. Most of those “off” appeared to be white collar.

Put differently, people who work were working.

At the Bellco branch the young tellers and other employees were working. The door was open–everyplace had a sign and this one said “If you are coughing, please…” They wore rubber gloves. I quickly gave the young man my account number and almost instantaneously $50 appeared in front of me, placed there by another woman.

“Now that is service,” I said with a grin. He was maybe 25, the entry level man in the burgeoning Denver economy. He laughed. I signed, thanked them, and left quickly.

The woman at the next desk was touching her face. They were working hard to get the customers in and out.

The pot store was doing doing brisk business. The (also) young woman at 7-Eleven, standing in front of the door and cash register, was really, really nice. I was thirsty and the cold beer tasted great.

Colorado has 183 people with covid-19. Two people have died. What is alarming is that more people have it when more people are tested. To go along with that, testing still seems unavailable to many people.

Trump and the administration seems to be relatively unconcerned for the people.

What I have noticed from my perch on the mountain is that local traffic is maybe one-fifth. Again, the white collar thing. There are more people than usual out in the parks and walking. It is secluded and safe. No hurricanes or tornadoes either.

My trip around Denver was uplifting. It was great to see people living.

Then there is this, the guy who decided to use his free time due to the virus to alphabetize the spices in his cupboard.

The link that I have been using is this one. Let’s hope it is under control. And that it means the end of Trump.

For those who died or are sick, it is all about them. Talk about innocent. I think the government could have done a better job, but look at its leader. He is an embarrassment even during times of success. I have never heard Trump speak of the sick or otherwise affected people. I understand he is watching the charts too, but all he knows or cares about is the S&P.

It is not a time for jokes and this is not one: writing is infectious too. I’m glad I wrote about my little trip through Denver. Denver now has a stay at home order and the pot stores have long lines.

I wasn’t arrogant but I did not express a lot of humility or empathy either. We learn so much from reactions.

Why isn’t Gavin Newsom running for President?