I don't ever actually prepare the pleadings for others. All I ever do is to show them either where to buy the proper legal forms or where to get the proper format to use. I also do not ever fill those forms or pleadings out for them. I only show them where and how to do the legal research that is pertinent to their situations and let them go from there on their own. I will also give them copies of other successful court filings that are either exactly like the one they are trying to prepare or very closely related to it. They have to take it from there and do the actual preparation themselves. I also tell them that prior to their actual filing of any document with the court that they take what they have prepared to a practicing attorney or a 4th year or better law school student for their review and commentary. I tell them never to proceed without the advice of competent legal counsel. On top of that, I never charge anyone anything for what I do show them or teach them. I do all of that voluntarily. I also make absolutely certain that those who do pay for part of what I do has nothing to do with any filings or court proceedings and is not legal advice. I'm not an attorney nor even a law student. I am a student of the law, and there is a vast difference.
I'd be happy to see the legal citation, since for most (if not all) purposes that would seem, well, insane. Saar
Bill what is ultra varies? You toss out these terms like they are important when they mean nothing. Thats what is dangerous and you should be very careful. Its one thing to share your experiences but quite another when you you throw around meaningless legal terms. You have 0 creditability with me going forward. For others who may be tempted to pay this guy ......please be very careful.
I thought exactly the same thing when I first heard about it, so I demanded the case cites for it and the person later emailed me the case cites. I went down to the Oklahoma State Law Library at the Capitol building and looked it up and sure enough, he had it right. Now I have misplaced my findings and will have to go back to the law library and look it up again. I can't do that today, of course, but I do need to do it again anyway for other reasons, so I'll be going down there one day next week and will look it up again. Sounded nuts to me too when I first heard of it. Of course, I'm quite sure that you'd get laughed right out of the court room if you were trying to sue General Motors for that kind of damages. I'd think you would want to use some discretion in it's use so that you wouldn't come up looking silly.
Hey Bill you used the term "ultra varies" in your post as if it meant something. I asked you what it means and you say you have to go to the law library to look it up. I think thats B.S. and that you have no idea what your talking about. If you are going to post about a topic why dont you make sure you know what the words mean before shooting your mouth off. I think yor creditabilty is less than zero. I hope people herer dont base any decisions they make on your nonsense.
Thank you for your kind comments. They show great consideration for those of us who aer not walking law libraries. Have you thought of making better use of your ignore button? I think we would both benefit greatly if you used it more often than you seem to have done so far. Have a nice day and a better one tomorrow and enjoy them both in the best of health. .
Hey Bill Where would I look this up at online? I looked at www.law.com and it didn't come up w/anything. Since I travel a good deal, I can't normally take a day off from the client site to physically go to a library. I tried to go to Emory here in ATl. on Sat but you have to be a student/alumni to use their law library. Any suggestions as to somewhere online that would help me with an explanation of this??? I also was just thinking about going for the 1% of the net worth as punitives. In a recent case the guy got it but it was overturned b/c of some stuff that won't apply to me. But I'm curious as to your approach... just can't seem to find it in the law dictionary.
Hey Bill you still havent explained why your writing about something which you dont know the meaning of. Look under LawFinder.com its kind of a Blacks Law Dictionary of the internet.
As I said to the rude guy, I'll be going to the law library probably in a short while and I need to look it up again anyway I don't remember the case cite numbers any more but I do happen to know which shelf and which book it was in by location. Sort of like you don't remember the persons address but you know how to get to their house. Actually, he jogged my memory with his first post and I remembered that it was at a teaching seminar dealing with Ultra-Varies that I first heard about it, so I suppose that I used the term "Ultra-Viries" as a memory jogger. I seriously doubt that the situation has any formal legal name such as "Ultra-Varies" because as he so correctly pointed out, that deals with corporate law. I think the 1% or other appropriate figure would be just as applicable and valid as the other anyway and maybe even that needs to be adjusted to fit specific situations. The whole point I think is that it is considered better by some experts to give the jury a somewhat reasonable standard or formula to go by when assessing damage awards than it is to just let them decide the proper amount off the top of their heads. I believe that the case I refer to just happens to have had a fair relevance to the probable proper damages in that and other similiar cases or situations. One needs to use common sense in these matters rather than shooting for impossibilities. I mean, just imagine that a Southwestern Bell Telephone repair truck ran over your dogs tail and broke it. Are you realistically going to be able to sue and demand even 1% of the company's net worth or yearly income as damages? Not even if it killed him. Now then, to reduce the crude humor down to realities, suppose you demanded that a debt be validated and since 30 days is considered by most courts to be a reasonable time for the CA to validate the debt but it took them say 45 or 60 days and they still had not complied with the law, so you sue them. Are you going to be able to demand even 1% of their income for even one year as your damages? Much less the formula referred to in the case I am referring to. So what's it realistically worth? $500, maybe a grand if you stretch it enough. If on the other hand, you demanded validation and instead of giving you what the law says they must give you they just went to court and sued you, you might very well have a fairly valid defense and you might even be able to counter sue and get the full grand So you must make your demands realistic, and I'm quite certain that you realized that in the first place, didn't you? Of course you did.
Bill, with all due respect, there is no way the collection agency or any other company was scared by a pro se plaintiff pleading "ultra vires" damages. I have checked the caselaw in Missouri; there is no such catergory of damages cited. Moreover, I doubt very much that any court in the US would ever create a categoty of damages and call it "ultra vires," -- it would be a misuse of the term and wouldn't make sense. The 1% formula you describe (and maybe the 60% of the difference formual, too) may have been used by lawyers arguing for the calculation of PUNITIVE damages. But make no mistake, those kinds of awards are highly discretionary and it would have to be a pretty exceptional case for them to be awarded in a collections or credit reporting dispute. When lawyers for a company see a pro se pleading with legal gobbledygook like "ultra vires" damages, they relax, because they know that the pro se plaintiff doesn't know what he's doing. When the Court sees it, it thinks the same thing and is much less likely to take the claim seriously. The best bet when pleading damages is to keep it simple and not metion an amount unless you have specific facts in the complaint to back it up. Squawk1200
Bill, with all due respect, there is no way the collection agency or any other company was scared by a pro se plaintiff pleading "ultra vires" damages. You may be absolutely correct in the above statement. It's not important why they decided to "cease & desist" only that they did. It would be equally valid to assume that they simply didn't wish to take a chance of throwing good money after bad. It may have been because they took a closer look at the fellow and determined that he was bullet proof due to his disability and then throw in his threats to sue, what would they gain by fighting rather than settleing and taking it as a tax write off or whatever??? It's really totally irrelevant what their reasons were, only that the matter was resolved in a manner favorable to the person. Whatever works.That's what counts. ********************************* I have checked the caselaw in Missouri;there is no such catergory of damages cited. Moreover, I doubt very much that any court in the US would ever create a categoty of damages and call it "ultra vires," -- it would be a misuse of the term and wouldn't make sense. I agree with you completly as I stated in another earlier post. I stated that I had learned about the case I was referring to in a seminar on ultra vires and so I probably used the term as a personal memory jogger to help remember where I first heard about the damages deal. --------------------------------------------- The 1% formula you describe (and maybe the 60% of the difference formual, too) may have been used by lawyers arguing for the calculation of PUNITIVE damages. But make no mistake, those kinds of awards are highly discretionary and it would have to be a pretty exceptional case for them to be awarded in a collections or credit reporting dispute. Again, that's exactly what I stated in another earlier post. You are going to look pretty silly trying to ask for that kind of damages because the telephone repair truck ran over your dog's tail or even killed him. ************************************* When lawyers for a company see a pro se pleading with legal gobbledygook like "ultra vires" damages, they relax, because they know that the pro se plaintiff doesn't know what he's doing. I imagine that they would. They'd likely laugh a little too. That's why each and every statement that one makes in a pleading should be backed up with a case cite, and if you can't back it up your arguments point by point with a case citation which agrees with the point you are trying to make, then maybe you should not be attempting to make the point. It's also exactly why I always strongly recommend that the pro se litigant do his homework first, prepare his case and get it in a format that he thinks is proper and then hire himself a practicing attorney or a 4th year or better law school student to look over his work and critique what is being done. If the professional person can find nothing wrong with the pro se's work, then and only then should he think about proceeding. Doing otherwise is almost a sure way to lose the day. Pro se's should never go off half-cocked no matter how good they think they are. They are at a sufficiently severe disadvantage in the first place and most assuredly do not need to add ignorance and stupidity to their list of woes. ************************************* The best bet when pleading damages is to keep it simple and not metion an amount unless you have specific facts in the complaint to back it up. Well, if you don't have specific facts and legal opinions of judges to back up your arguments and pleadings, then it matters little if you are a practicing attorney or a student arguing in moot court or a pro se, then you will very quickly become the next court jester. All of that is simply common sense, and if one has little or none of that then he has little business in a court of law as either an attorney, a pro se or a defendant. With the obvious legal knowledge that you have, I would have supposed that you would not have had to make such a "loud" point over such trivialities that anyone with any common sense should realize. Have a nice day and a better one tomorrow.
