Thursday, January 26, 2012

Update on Court Proceedings

**Proceedings**
Case	Plaintiff	Defendant	Item	Date	REF	Proceeding Entry
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	0	18 Sep 2011	SC	ELECTRONIC COMPLAINT FILED
CV11510581A	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	1	20 Sep 2011	SC	Conformed Small claims summons and complaint has been emailed to plaintiff
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	2	27 Oct 2011	SC	WAIVER GRANTED PER JUDGE GREEN CG.
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	3	31 Oct 2011	SC	SMALL CLAIMS CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO CIVIL DIVISION JUDGE SEGAL. SMALL CLAIMS TRIAL 11-15-11 HAS BEEN VACATED. DEBRAB
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	4	28 Oct 2011	SC	FILE TO JUDGE 11/17/11 ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	5	01 Nov 2011	SC	CIVIL SCHEDULING NOTICES MAILED TO ALL PARTIES. DP
CV11510581B	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	6	14 Nov 2011	SC	PLTF FILED AMENDED COMPLAINT. ..CMM
CV11510581A	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	7	15 Nov 2011	SC	PLTF'S COPY OF CIVIL CASE NOTICE DATED 11-1-11, RETURNED UNABLE TO FORWARD PER USPS. ..CMM
CV11510581A	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	8	15 Nov 2011	SC	PLTF'S COPY OF NOTICE OF TRANSFER OF SMALL CLAIMS, RETURNED VACANT PER USPS. ..CMM
CV11510581A	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	9	17 Nov 2011	SC	PLAINTIFF FILED CHANGE OF ADDRESS SYSTEM UPDATED..AT
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	10	22 Nov 2011	SC	DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	11	28 Nov 2011	SC	EX PARTE COMMUNICATION LETTER RECEIVED FROM PLAINTIFF. PLACED IN FILE. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	12	07 Dec 2011	SC	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FILED BY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	13	07 Dec 2011	SC	DEFENDANT'S CONTROVERTING MOTION TO SET AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS FILED. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	14	23 Nov 2011	SC	FILE TO JUDGE 12/12/11 ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET. DP
CV11510581B	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	15	08 Dec 2011	SC	4. SIGNED SEGAL/DP PLEASE SEE MINUTE ENTRY FOR COMPLETE RULINGDP
CV11510581A	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	15	08 Dec 2011	SC	MEDIATION/SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: COURT DATE FEB 3 2012 @ 3:00 P.M. (30 MIN). THIS HEARING SHALL BE HELD AT PIMA COUNTY JUSTICE COURT AT 115 N CHURCH AVE 2ND FLOOR COURTROOM
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	16	09 Dec 2011	SC	COPY OF MINUTE ENTRY MAILED TO PLAINTIFF AND TO DEFENDANT. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	17	12 Dec 2011	SC	DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL MOTION FILED. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	18	15 Dec 2011	SC	PLAINTIFF'S MINUTE ENTRY RETURNED VIA USPS. ADDRESS ON SASE IS NO LONGER VALID. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	19	13 Dec 2011	SC	MOTION TO SET AND CERTIFICATE OF READINESS IS NOTED; IT IS ORDERED TRIAL BE SET: STAYED PENDING OUTCOME OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE. SIGNED SEGAL/DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	22	19 Dec 2011	SC	Notice of Impending Dismissal pursuant to Rule 4(i) generated.
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	23	19 Dec 2011	SC	Notice of Impending Dismissal printed by PC
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	24	19 Dec 2011	SC	FILE TO JUDGE 1/9/12 ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR INJUNCTION. DP
CV11510581	SEVELIS, TIMOTHY	VISTA MONTANA APARTMENTS	25	24 Jan 2012	SC	PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY TO BE HEARD AT HEARING SET FOR 2/3/12 @ 3:00 P.M. SIGNED SEGAL/DP

Saturday, January 21, 2012

Treble damages

It's time to pay up..I want my money woman!!!

Treble damages

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Judicial remedies

Legal remedies (Damages)
Compensatory damages Punitive damages Incidental damages Consequential damages Liquidated damages Reliance damages Nominal damages Statutory damages Treble damages
Equitable remedies
Specific performance Account of profits Constructive trust Injunction ·Restitution Rescission ·Rectification Declaratory relief
Related issues
Adequate remedy Election of remedies Provisional remedy Tracing ·Legal costs
v d e

Treble damages, in law, is a term that indicates that a statute permits a court to triple the amount of the actual/compensatory damages to be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff, generally in order to punish the losing party for willful conduct. Treble damages are a multiple of, and not an addition to, actual damages. Thus, where a person received an award of $100 for an injury, a court applying treble damages would raise the award to $300.^[1] The ability to award treble damages is a typical feature in legislation that recognizes the potentially willful nature of the prohibited acts. For example, such damages may be awarded by a court in the United States for willful violation of the antitrust laws, for willful patent infringement, for trademark counterfeiting, and under the RICO statute.^[2] The idea behind the creation of such damages, also called exemplary damages, is that they will encourage citizens to sue for violations that are harmful to society in general.^{[citation needed]}
The United States Supreme Court determined in Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. that, unlike merely compensatory damages, which are exempt from federal income tax, such taxes must be paid on the excess amount (the amount that exceeds the actual damages) of treble damages. Furthermore, some foreign governments will assist U.S. citizens in collecting damages, but not treble damage awards, which are considered penal.

[edit] See also

Punitive damages

[edit] References

^ See, for example, Lowry v. Tile, Mantel & Grate Asso., 106 F. 38, 46 (U.S. Court of Appeals, ): It is for the court, in executing the provisions of the statute in entering judgment upon the verdict (if you shall find for the plaintiffs), to treble the amount of the damages; that is to say, any verdict rendered by you, and upon which a judgment will be entered by the court, will be multiplied by three, and a judgment entered for such treble damages.
^ 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

Legal Strategy...Part 2

I never want to tip my hand..............BUT!! There's more too!!

Legal Strategy

Defendant's Response

Well, it's about time the defense lawyer sent me the documents. When they say 40 days, they mean send it on the 40th day. Legal, but a nice stall tactic. I see she is using Plausible deniability.

Defendant's Response

Friday, January 20, 2012

Legal Strategy

I have to be prepared for the IDIOT DEFENSE.

Idiot defense

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The idiot defense is a satirical term for a legal strategy where a defendant claims innocence by virtue of having been ignorant of facts of which the defendant would normally be expected to be aware. Other terms used for this tactic include "dumb CEO defense," "dummy defense," "ostrich defense," and "Sergeant Schultz defense."

The term was popularized as a result of a number of high-profile corporate accounting scandal defendants claiming that all wrongdoing was performed by others, without the defendant's knowledge or consent. Attorneys for these defendants claimed that their skill was in valuation and deal-making, and that they lacked the training to recognize fraudulent accounting practices they claimed that they would have needed. However, in many cases the defendants's subordinates have testified that the defendants ordered them to falsify the accounts.

No major instances of the idiot defense being successful in criminal proceedings have been reported in American jurism to date. Instead, all such uses are widely believed to have resulted in the defendants employing idiot defenses being found guilty on at least some if not all counts.

[hide]

[edit] Examples

[edit] John J. Rigas

John J. Rigas, the founder of Adelphia, was charged with conspiracy, bank fraud, and securities fraud. Rigas's defense asserted that he expected the Adelphia board, lawyers, and external accountants to provide him warning of any possible abuse. In his closing statements, Rigas's lawyer asked "Does [John Rigas] have a right to believe that things would be done properly, that adequate and appropriate disclosures were made, that the lawyers and the accountants and the personal accountants would make sure of that?"
Rigas was convicted on July 8, 2004.

[edit] Walter A. Forbes

Walter Forbes, former CEO of CUC International, was charged with 16 counts in relation to inflated earnings statements from CUC before it merged with HFC Inc. to form Cendant. During his trial, Forbes testified to working on "the strategy vision part, talking to key clients ...." He also claimed he was "much more valuable to shareholders doing that than being in day-to-day operations." Forbes's attorney, Brendan Sullivan Jr., summarized: "The defense of Walter Forbes is that he didn't know about it."

The jury in the case against Forbes returned on January 4, 2005. While they did convict another defendant, they failed to reach a verdict on the charges against Forbes.

Forbes was found guilty of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and two counts of making false statements at a third trial on October 31, 2006.

[edit] Bernard J. Ebbers

In this case, Bernard J. "Bernie" Ebbers, former WorldCom CEO, claimed that $11 billion in fraud was committed by the company's CFO, Scott Sulivan, and other subordinates without Ebbers's knowledge. During his criminal trial, Ebbers testified, "I was shocked. I couldn't believe it, I never thought anything like that would have gone on. I put those people in place. I trusted them. I had no idea they would do anything like this."
The prosecutor referred to this as the "aw shucks defense." Bernard J. Ebbers was convicted of all charges on March 15, 2005.

[edit] Richard M. Scrushy

Richard M. Scrushy, founder and former CEO of HealthSouth, became the first CEO to be charged with violating the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Scrushy's defense lawyer, Jim Parkman, asked during the trial, "That's what y'all did and how you planned it, so (Scrushy) wouldn't know what the whole picture was?"
Scrushy was found not guilty of all charges on June 28, 2005. But the idiot defense was not believed to have been the reason he was acquitted; instead, the prosecution apparently lacked enough courtroom-admissible evidence to make its case against him.

[edit] Kenneth L. Lay

Kenneth L. Lay was indicted on charges of securities fraud, wire fraud, and making false and misleading statements in relation to the Enron collapse. In a 60 Minutes interview before his trial, Lay said, "I don't think I'm a fool. But I think I sure was fooled." He also added, "But I can't take responsibility for the criminal conduct of someone inside the company."

Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted on many of the charges (see The trial of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling).

[edit] Other uses

Critics of George W. Bush and Tony Blair have also used the reference to an "idiot defense" to describe the two leaders's basing claims of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction on reports from their respective country's intelligence agencies.[1] [2]
Barry Bonds's admission of possible steroid use, and claim that he was unaware of any steroids at the time, have also been described as an idiot defense.[3]

[edit] References

Pulliam, Susan (14 October 2004). "CEOs Under Fire Employ The 'It Wasn't Me' Defense". The Wall Street Journal. http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/legal/20041014-pulliam.html.
O'Brien, Tim (19 January 2005). "'Dumb CEO Defense' Spares Cendant Chairman From Prison". New Jersey Law Journal. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105968924321.
"'I was shocked,' Ebbers says of being told about WorldCom irregularities". The Clarion-Ledger. 28 February 2005. http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050228/NEWS0108/50228006/1041.
"Enron's Lay says he was duped, not dumb". Houston Chronicle. 14 March 2005. http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/business/3084201.
Reeves, Jay (9 March 2005). "Scrushy Defense: Fraud Hidden From Ex-CEO". Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050309/ap_on_bi_ge/healthsouth_scrushy_10.
Christoffersen, John (31 October 2006). "Jury Finds Ex-Cendant Chairman Guilty". Associated Press. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/4300861.html.

[edit] Court documents

United States of America vs. Bernard J Ebbers, United States District Court Southern District of New York, Indictment S3 02 Cr. 1144 (BSJ)
United States of America vs. Kenneth L. Lay, et al., United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston Division, Cr. No. H-04-25 (S-2). (7 July 2004)
United States of America vs. Richard M. Scrushy, United States District Court Northern District of Alabama Southern Division, Case No. CR-03-BE-0530-S. (29 October 2003)

[edit] Editorials

Syre, Steven (18 January 2005). "The 'idiot' defense". The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/01/18/the_idiot_defense.
"The Idiot Defense". Los Angeles Times. 6 March 2005. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-idiots6mar06,0,2962163.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials.
Harrigan, Susan (16 March 2005). "'Embattled CEOs wise up to dummy defense". Newsday. http://www.newsday.com/business/ny-bzcrim164177551mar16,0,220606.story?coll=ny-business-headlines.

[edit] See also

Twinkie defense

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Houston, we have a problem!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Timothy Sevelis <tsevelis@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM
Subject: Ms. Choban's conflict of her testimony in case CV11-019207B-FD
To: judy@scottclarklaw.com, TSEVELIS <TSEVELIS@gmail.com>, joane@applydisability.com

Dear Ms. Drickey-Prohow:

I never really read the wording on the termination notice dated August 4th that Ms. Choban wrote.

Why in court on August 10th, Ms. Choban admits that I never said any of this and I asked her directly in court “did you hear MY voice” apparently on the phone. She admits she heard this from a telephone call and it wasn't my voice she heard. She is saying I said all this and she heard me say it, and then in court tells Judge Blake otherwise. Why on the Termination notice dated August 4th Ms. Choban writes “Tim woke up on Tuesday morning yelling and talking to himself and saying he was going to kill the manager.”

Judge Blake agreed it was at least HEARSAY.” Of course I believe she just made the whole story up to evict me. You really better get the transcripts on case CV11-019207B-FD and read it.
I don't know if YOU see it but there's a major conflict here. Yes I heard him, No I didn't. HMMM. Don't they call this a NON-TRUTH? Check the attachments.

Proceedings

Case
Plaintiff
Defendant
Item
Date
REF
Proceeding Entry

CV11019207A
TPI VISTA MONTANA LLC

SEVELIS, TIMOTHY
1
10 Aug 2011
FD
PLTF W/COUNSEL & DEF PRESENT. JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT. BLAKE/BLB

Monday, January 16, 2012

Bad Faith..............

Bad faith Bad faith (Latin: mala fides) is a legal concept in which a malicious motive on the part of a party in a lawsuit undermines their case. It affects the ability to maintain causes of action and obtain legal remedies. Generally speaking, courts look not only at the legal rights of parties to a lawsuit or transaction; they also look behind the activity, at the parties' motives in attempting to obtain the court's assistance. If a court feels that these motives effectively abuse the law or the power or the court, it will generally deny eligibility for a legal remedy to which a party would otherwise be entitled. This is related to the equitable powers of common law courts to look beyond the law.

Relevance

Bad faith is relevant in the following areas of law:

Transactions that affect creditors: If creditors are denied the opportunity to realize on the proceeds of property that was previously owned by the debtor, they will often look at the motives of the parties involved in a purported sale, primarily when the sale is for little or no consideration. For example, if a spouse puts title to the family home in the other spouse's name before embarking on a risky business venture, this will usually be treated as a good faith attempt to lessen the exposure of his or her family to creditors. However, if the same transaction takes place after a spouse has been sued for a debt, the sale will generally be held void against the creditors, allowing them to look at the equity in the house for satisfaction of debt.

Possession of property: The torts of detinue and conversion allow a person who has lost possession of personal property to regain possession of that property, even if it had been transferred to another after its loss or conversion. However, the court will only order such a remedy if the person with possession of the property obtained it in bad faith - for example that they obtained it for free or for nominal consideration. In other words, a person buying a stereo out of the back of someone's car has no defense to a claim in detinue where a person buying a stereo from a pawnbroker would most likely be able to show that the transaction was made in good faith even if it later turned out the pawnbroker didn't have valid title to the goods.

Punitive damages: If the more powerful party to a transaction refuses to properly deal with its legal obligations and must be sued in order to force it to pay money that is clearly owing, courts will often punish litigants who take the position that the worst thing that can happen after a trial is that they will have to pay the money owed anyway. For example, if a check is sent and cashed in error and it is clear that the person receiving the money had no right to keep it, the court would most likely rule that simply ordering the payment of the money was an insufficient remedy for the plaintiff, who was put through the time and expense of trial for no reason. In Canada, one of the leading cases of this type resulted in a record punitive damages award of $1 million CAD when an insurance company pressed a claim for arson when its own experts and adjusters had come to the conclusion the fire was accidental and the lawyer advised the client that the desperate insured parties would be willing to settle for much less than what they were owed (Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18).^[1]

Remedies in equity: When a party is seeking an extraordinary remedy such as an injunction or specific performance, the court must be convinced that the party seeking the remedy has no ulterior motive for doing so. If the defending party can show that the complaining party has abused the process or the power of the court, the court will generally deny the remedy even though the complaining party would otherwise be entitled to the relief claimed.