Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Right, but you know, I think standard negligence law would take care of that without some sort of national law barring illegal aliens from suing US citizens. Lets say I rob your house one night and in doing so, step on a rusty nail sticking out of the floor boards because you were too busy debating Intelligent Falling theory here to bother fixing. I get an infection and lose my leg and then sue you. The jury could and would find that my illegal act was the sole proximate cause of the injury thereby letting your lazy butt off the hook. I would be left to hobble off into the sunset without a penny. 416620[/snapback] I agree with you...except that nowadays, a jury'd be just as likely to find me negligent for letting an unsafe condition exist with the potential to cause injury. It has happened. And, of course, the solution there isn't a series of new laws, but educating people on the definition of "proximate cause".
Mickey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 That's horribly disingenious, and you know better than that. The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property. A car or jewelry is legally not the same as land. And even beyond that...real estate isn't portable. Had they awarded a car or jewelry or even cash, that's one thing. But awarding an illegal immigrant land...that's just a little strange, in that their status as illegal aliens means they can't legally occupy the land they legally own. I don't necessarily think it's wrong (I certainly don't in the xenophobic sense JSP does)...but I do think it's one of those wacky legal contradictions that seems to belong in the new Iraqi Constitution. 416618[/snapback] There are a lot of distinctions between the two but in terms of collecting a jugdment, they are both reachable, they just make it harder when it comes to real property. I think the reason it sounds strange is because that isn't what happened. I don't think they were "awarded title" to the property, I think that is how the sister settled it. In collections, you don't get title, you get a lien on the property (lis pendens) which can be foreclosed upon, you force a sale and your lien gets paid from the proceeds. The sister could offer to settle the case by signing over the property but that would be her choice. Maybe we need more detail but even so, I don't see any moral imperative at issue here, just the technical aspects of satisfying judgments. Since I always get my clients off, I have no experience with defending judgments
erynthered Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Since I always get my clients off, I have no experience with defending judgments 416626[/snapback] No ego here.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 There are a lot of distinctions between the two but in terms of collecting a jugdment, they are both reachable, they just make it harder when it comes to real property. I think the reason it sounds strange is because that isn't what happened. I don't think they were "awarded title" to the property, I think that is how the sister settled it. In collections, you don't get title, you get a lien on the property (lis pendens) which can be foreclosed upon, you force a sale and your lien gets paid from the proceeds. The sister could offer to settle the case by signing over the property but that would be her choice. Wife's in real estate; I'm more familiar with real estate law than I really care to be. The original post, though, makes it sound like they got the property in full, which I believe is wrong and which, as you say, would be wrong as it's an improper way to collect on a judgement. Ergo, I think we can deduce two things: 1) it was pretty damned stupid of me to take the original post at face value, and 2) certain people in this thread don't know enough to argue about it. Maybe we need more detail but even so, I don't see any moral imperative at issue here, just the technical aspects of satisfying judgments. Since I always get my clients off, I have no experience with defending judgments 416626[/snapback] My lawyer never gets me off. I have to resort to Penthouse and hand lotion.
Mickey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 I agree with you...except that nowadays, a jury'd be just as likely to find me negligent for letting an unsafe condition exist with the potential to cause injury. It has happened. And, of course, the solution there isn't a series of new laws, but educating people on the definition of "proximate cause". 416625[/snapback] That phrase has been eroded. The jury instructions now read in NY say that as long as a cause is a "substantial factor" in bringing about the injury, it can be a "proximate cause".
Mickey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Wife's in real estate; I'm more familiar with real estate law than I really care to be. The original post, though, makes it sound like they got the property in full, which I believe is wrong and which, as you say, would be wrong as it's an improper way to collect on a judgement. Ergo, I think we can deduce two things: 1) it was pretty damned stupid of me to take the original post at face value, and 2) certain people in this thread don't know enough to argue about it. My lawyer never gets me off. I have to resort to Penthouse and hand lotion. 416645[/snapback] I can't believe I got blind sided by that one. Now I know how Drew Bledsoe feels.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Actually, JSP specifically said "non-citizens" above. Which was pretty stupid, and entirely normal behavior from him. As for the rest of his argument, he'd probably do better calmly pointing out that the predicate act was, in fact, the complainant's illegal entry into the country and trespassing on private property, and it's pretty questionable (wrong, I believe) to hold others responsible for their actions. Seems like a better argument than his typical xenophobic "Keep the damned spics off my land!" nonsense. 416577[/snapback] Right. Let's say you own a nice little house on a sizeable piece of land. Every single night of every single day, groups of people trample across your property, littering, breaking into your house, violating your rights. Let's see how open-minded you are then when you feel your family is threatened. Let's say these people contain a certain percentage of individuals who are violent felons as well. Still feel the way you do? You're a hypocrite and a pompous jackass. At least I'm honest.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 That phrase has been eroded. The jury instructions now read in NY say that as long as a cause is a "substantial factor" in bringing about the injury, it can be a "proximate cause". 416649[/snapback] That's the main reason I'll kill an intruder before I'll injure him. I'd stand a better chance pleading self defense in a criminal trial than I would pleading "proximate cause" in a civil suit.
Mickey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 That's the main reason I'll kill an intruder before I'll injure him. I'd stand a better chance pleading self defense in a criminal trial than I would pleading "proximate cause" in a civil suit. 416657[/snapback] Wrongful death action baby. You lose either way. At least in NY though damages are much less in death cases. Where you really get into big bucks is when they linger for years and years. In Texas the grieving family can recover for their mourning and emotional loss. That is why you see such huge verdicts from there. Same case in NY could be worthless.
KD in CA Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Wrongful death action baby. You lose either way. At least in NY though damages are much less in death cases. Where you really get into big bucks is when they linger for years and years. In Texas the grieving family can recover for their mourning and emotional loss. That is why you see such huge verdicts from there. Same case in NY could be worthless. 416691[/snapback] So that's why Bernie Geotz said "you don't look so bad, have another" before he pluged one of those scumbags a second time. Of course, he still didn't manage to kill him!
philburger1 Posted August 24, 2005 Author Posted August 24, 2005 That's horribly disingenious, and you know better than that. The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property. A car or jewelry is legally not the same as land. And even beyond that...real estate isn't portable. Had they awarded a car or jewelry or even cash, that's one thing. But awarding an illegal immigrant land...that's just a little strange, in that their status as illegal aliens means they can't legally occupy the land they legally own. I don't necessarily think it's wrong (I certainly don't in the xenophobic sense JSP does)...but I do think it's one of those wacky legal contradictions that seems to belong in the new Iraqi Constitution. 416618[/snapback] How does being against having your laws and sovereign borders trashed with no respect at all make someone "xenophobic"? I think most Americans have been more than patient enough with this whole issue. Wonder why Mexico feels the need to the Army on their southern border, but when the U.S. wants to put up a fence, Mr. Fox cries to the U.N. about it?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 How does being against having your laws and sovereign borders trashed with no respect at all make someone "xenophobic"? I think most Americans have been more than patient enough with this whole issue. Wonder why Mexico feels the need to the Army on their southern border, but when the U.S. wants to put up a fence, Mr. Fox cries to the U.N. about it? 416735[/snapback] What? The guy was sued, didn't show up, lost the case, and lost his house. Had the plaintiffs been from Colorado, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Since they're from Mexico, you're up in arms about it. Precisely what laws were trashed, and how is that NOT xenophobic?
philburger1 Posted August 24, 2005 Author Posted August 24, 2005 What? The guy was sued, didn't show up, lost the case, and lost his house. Had the plaintiffs been from Colorado, you wouldn't give it a second thought. Since they're from Mexico, you're up in arms about it. Precisely what laws were trashed, and how is that NOT xenophobic? 416741[/snapback] The laws being trashed on a daily basis: Trespassing, loitering, littering theft destruction of property enter the country illegally drug smuggling receiving government benefits that are not for non-citizens what else do you want? I love when liberals jump to their defense with the mantra of "They just don't like them because they are mexican!" So stupid..... If we start having millions of white, french speaking Canadians sneaking in here every year, then we will tackle that issue. So with your logic, if you speak out against inner-city gang violence you must hate blacks, huh? Way to duck the issue. By the way, my wife and all my inlaws are hispanics who famliy came here LEGALLY, and they are just as fed up with this behavior as I am, the white faced GRINGO
Mickey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 The laws being trashed on a daily basis: Trespassing, loitering, littering theft destruction of property enter the country illegally drug smuggling receiving government benefits that are not for non-citizens what else do you want? I love when liberals jump to their defense with the mantra of "They just don't like them because they are mexican!" So stupid..... If we start having millions of white, french speaking Canadians sneaking in here every year, then we will tackle that issue. So with your logic, if you speak out against inner-city gang violence you must hate blacks, huh? Way to duck the issue. By the way, my wife and all my inlaws are hispanics who famliy came here LEGALLY, and they are just as fed up with this behavior as I am, the white faced GRINGO 416887[/snapback] CTM's a liberal now? Does that mean we have to start inviting him to our parties?
KRC Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 The LAW distinguishes between personal property and real property. 416618[/snapback] I will let you know in September, whether that holds true in PA.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 CTM's a liberal now?Does that mean we have to start inviting him to our parties? 416997[/snapback] Just to conservatives. Just like I'm a conservative to liberals. That's how I know I'm right. I piss off all the partisans.
Mickey Posted August 24, 2005 Posted August 24, 2005 Just to conservatives. Just like I'm a conservative to liberals. That's how I know I'm right. I piss off all the partisans. 417058[/snapback] That means we don't have to invite you to our parties. Whew, what a relief. Deb was worried she'd have to hide her bong.
Recommended Posts