![]() |
| ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| | |||||||||||||
| |||||||
| | |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#16
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
I would not, won't, nor will I ever pay someone hundred of dollars, to do something I can do myself, ESPECIALLY when I've done it successfully before. Needless to say, there's less a chance this will happen when dollar amounts are in the thousands. |
|
#17
| |||
| |||
| You have nothing until you go to court, win and get a judgment reforming or invalidating the contract. What you suppose is the answer or the end result is irrelevant. Quote:
As I asked previously, are you still on narcotics? Are you under the care of a mental health professional for anything? It seems as though you are unrealistic in your view of the situation. Delusional, almost.
__________________ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. --W. T. Pooh (aka A. A. Milne) |
|
#18
| |||
| |||
| Delusional? In which argument? The first - that an agreement signed while confined to a hospital bed, and under the influence of narcotics, is a valid contract? I see no argument there; that seems to be the consensus of most with whom I've spoken... As I said before, a few attempted to address that, asking if I had any friend or family present. Or the second - that I've been damaged? Last edited by LtTragg; 04-13-2009 at 05:45 PM. |
|
#19
| |||
| |||
| Both. The consensus is something which must be proved in court to be of any use to you. You have real problems proving you had no idea what was happening and that you did not knowingly gain value from the contract (aka affirm), once you got out. You are a long way from proving either of those to your benefit and both have the burden on you as contracts are presumed to be valid. The second, you haven't been damaged in the way damages are measured in a legal sense as you have not successfully done the above as yet. If you do the above and win, THEN, IF the money is not returned quickly you may have damages. If we pretend a bunch of facts regarding the lawyer's knowledge and intent and assume some things which you have not stated on how he came to your room that day, we might extend the damage portion some, but that is a lot of assumptions. You have nothing right now. You will continue to have nothing until you sue the attorney to void the contract. I think that suit is immensely harder than you think it will be. While it is entirely possible you didn't have capacity to contract while in the hospital, I don't think you can prove you timely disaffirmed the contract once you gained capacity back. (Absent the narcotic or delusional questions I keep asking and you don't answer.) Once you go through the years of the lawsuit, then you have the right to your money if you win. No counterclaim for additional damages absent substantive additional facts we can only guess at.
__________________ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. --W. T. Pooh (aka A. A. Milne) |
|
#20
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Quote:
In the other 3 cases, the outcome was UNcertain, and there was NO paper. This time, the outcome WAS certain, and no paper was [should have been] necessary. Hmm... Ugh. But yes, I SHOULD have known so, because he SHOULD have reviewed with me ALL details, including the existence of the 'agreement', in (specific) accordance with bar ethics guidelines. He did NOT. But he did do what I commanded him to NOT do. Hmm... Your argument was ok, but ... (I did make note of the review failure issue in bar grievance letter) But keep bringing arguments; this is good! Last edited by LtTragg; 04-14-2009 at 06:51 AM. |
|
#21
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
__________________ Parents should remember three things: Love your kids more than you hate your ex (or soon to be ex) & when you have children the relationship with the other parent is until death parts you & how you treat your children determines what type of nursing home you end up in. Nothing stated by me should be taken as giving you legal advice or forming an attorney/client relationship. The devil is in the details after all. Licensed to practice law in Ohio and a Guardian Ad Litem for children |
|
#22
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
__________________ Parents should remember three things: Love your kids more than you hate your ex (or soon to be ex) & when you have children the relationship with the other parent is until death parts you & how you treat your children determines what type of nursing home you end up in. Nothing stated by me should be taken as giving you legal advice or forming an attorney/client relationship. The devil is in the details after all. Licensed to practice law in Ohio and a Guardian Ad Litem for children |
|
#23
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
Frankly, you are not doing a good job at that as I have not really been disecting your facts and have just been accepting them. While you clearly have intelligence, it seems you are not processing things properly. Again, not as an insult, but are you taking narcotics now? Are you under the care of a mental health professional? Should you be? You need an attorney, now. Or, you can kiss the money goodbye. EVEN WITH AN ATTORNEY, you may have severe problems. But without, you are just going to become frustrated and risk sanctions from the court.
__________________ When you are a Bear of Very Little Brain, and you Think of Things, you find sometimes that a Thing which seemed very Thingish inside you is quite different when it gets out into the open and has other people looking at it. --W. T. Pooh (aka A. A. Milne) |
|
#24
| |||
| |||
| Quote:
You don't be 'quite frank', when it comes to law and contracts. You spell EVERYTHING out, ESPECIALLY when you are the professional (at law), and the other party is not, AND, when you have your clients' medical records, indicating physical and cognitive impairment. You then review [with client] at every step along the way - as spelled out in this state's ethical conduct rules. He NEVER did. As noted before, a superior court judge has already presumed invalidation of this 'contract', and negotiation in my favor, after seeing some particulars. He expressed NO doubts. Only the merits and degree of a malpractice counterclaim remain in question... |
![]() |