Naive or Knucklehead

Okay: I was raised an Army Brat and my Father and Mother and their friends used the old fashioned term a lot, almost always in a laughing conversation about either themselves or a mutual friend who had done something silly. I thought the term applied to the subject matter of this post, so I have posted a picture of one of the most beautiful motorcycle engines ever built and one that is highly sought after and is very expensive; and the engine's name [below in the label] is also the descriptive term I grew up hearing at the parties Mom and Dad threw and those they took me to until I was old enough to stay home ~ and in the Army that was every weekend, either Friday or Saturday night. It is a term of endearment and at the same time one acknowledging stubbornness to a fault, usually used in a good humored way. With that said, here is what I have to say: I have seen some of the most god-awful agreements seeking to be modified that in almost every case are presented by a prospective client who is well educated, and earning an above average income. How in the world they decided to sign an agreement without an attorney's advice and counsel is bewildering, still beyond me: alimony for life with no ability to modify for any reason ~ Wow! joint custody that is not joint at all but is completely ones-sided with no support despite dramatically disparate incomes ~ college with no cap on the amount to be paid ~ Wow! Please: Don't do your own dentistry, surgery, engineering or legal work if you are not working in your profession and even then don't do it!

WE MOVED TOWARD SHARPSBURG & PEACHTREE CITY!

We moved our office last month to 1665 Hwy 34 E, Suite 300, Newnan, GA  30265.  Yes, that address is in The Summit Professional Park.  We are just west of The Healthplex - across a parking lot in the new building in the Park.  We are proud to be neighbors of The Healthplex, The YMCA and The Delta Credit Union.  We love it out here in Coweta County as close to Peachtree City as we are to Newnan. Call us today for an appointment if you have need of an Attorney or Lawyer:  

770-253-7778

$95 Million Dollar sexual harassment verdict: A Message Sent

   

An Illinois awarded $95 million to a woman who said a manager sexually assaulted her at an Aaron Rents store in Fairview Heights, Ill.  The award includes $80 million in punitive damages, $13.5 million in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in further compensatory damage.  Under the recent punitive damages line of cases ruled on by the Supreme Court the award will probably be substantially reduced.

     The woman Plaintiff was an employee of Aaron Rents Inc. who claimed the store manager was inappropriately touching her and that she complained to corporate management who ignored her complaints.  The Manager got more bold and eventually, thinking he was empowered to do whatever he wanted because the Plaintiff was being ignored, sexually assaulted the woman.  Once the woman hired a lawyer and sued, 'out of the blue' Aaron's paid attention and proclaimed that the Manager's conduct was unknown and far outside the scope of his employment and that of the course the whole thing is the lawyer's fault for blowing the thing out of proportion ... and the jurors were stupid idiots for being angry at Aaron's ... and the verdict shows how the justice system is broken ~ whatever!    The corporate mentality is really unbelievable.  It is apparently the desire and goal to have us all stick our collective heads in the sand and believe whatever crap the US Chamber of Commerce wants to put out there, that organization that gets its whore money from the payday loan companies [now banking industry] that now control it ... or just maybe we actually have brains and can figure out that the jury in this case was angered by Aaron's arrogance and decided to send a message.  Yes the verdict is too much.  But by the same token, the arrogance of the corporate mentality that insists that a lawsuit be filed to seek justice,  must be examined.  

The Role of The Lawyer

Law, Witnesses, Documentary Evidence are the ingredients of every case.  The Attorney is responsible for knowing the Law.  The client for knowing the Witnesses and the Evidence.  Once these ingredients are accumulated

the Lawyer then becomes the Producer, Director and Creator of the product that will be presented to the Judge or Jury.  A simple analogy is that of baking a cake:  Ingredients coordinated incorrectly and baked at the wrong temperature will not yield a good result.  A recent case of alienation presented us with a mess:  Too many witnesses, too many documents; no episodic evident, just a myriad of anecdotes, insinuations, nasty but short comments; an attitude, however, that clearly presented created a mosaic of bad conduct that in turn was a clear picture of a campaign of parental alienation.  The problem presented was how to Produce the presentation to be effective and not the proverbial 'herding cats' debacle that would quickly turn into boring mush that would bring the Judge's instruction "I've heard enough of this now let's move on" which would in turn cast the remaining numerous anecdotes with insignificance and then immateriality.  It is the Attorneys job to correctly meld the witnesses and documents to present a clear and dynamic presentation to the Judge and, or, Jury.  That task is not easy and will not happen without significant reflective thought about how to do it effectively and clearly with the ultimate goal being to present the case with simple ringing truth without browbeating everyone in the Courtroom.  Experience and dedication at every turn is invaluable.

GEORGIA FAMILY LAW JOURNAL: Winter 2011

Here is the link to the Winter Volume of the Georgia State Bar Journal: LINK. it contains a lot of good articles this edition. If you or someone close to you is going through tough times at home please review the articles. Maybe one or two will have a little information for you. If you need to refer someone to a lawyer, call us: 770-253-7778

NEWNAN PRATLAW|| 14th amendment essay

The Supreme Court is reviewing a Chicago gun ban statute this term. The case is McDonald v. Chicago. This is what little I can recall from his interview with Nina Totenberg (PBS): Mr. McDonald, an elderly man, was upset that on 3 different occasions "Utes" came to his home to "visit", would not leave when he asked, demanded that they vacate his property and then stole everything he owned that was valuable. Mr. McDonald decided to purchase a gun to help him persuade the "Utes" the next time they came to visit that they should leave his home without looting it. Mr. McDonald's acts were apparently illegal according to Chicago's handgun ban. Legally, the case poses the prospect of the Supreme Court finally issuing a decision as to the extent of the scope of the 14th amendment and if they take on that topic the case could be one of the most important cases in our lifetime. It is more likely that the Court will just strike down the handgun ban and limit its decision to the specific statute. I posted the link on my blog at HOT LEGAL TOPICS [Click it to go there]. Hope you find the topic relevant enough to follow and keep up with the Court's decision.

Newnan Lawyer Pratlaw's Essay On Documents

...when it comes to documents.

Over the past 23 years I have come to appreciate the fact that Judges as a whole do not like being given documents with highlighted passages or handwritten notes beside the part of the document you think is important. Doing that is really close to a demand that the Court become a participant in the blind men and the elephant philosophical exercise about the scope of perception: The Blind Men And The Elephant Fable and they do not like the Socratic Method to the extreme of banality, i.e., rain is rain you cannot assert you do not understand it until someone explains it to you and you "feel" it. What all this means in plain English is: (a) The Judge controls his or her court room and no one else has any right to control it. So make a copy of any document you feel the urge to write on, so your lawyer can present the 'clean' one to the Judge and draw the Judge's attention to the passage you have highlighted in your 'dirty' copy by asking the Court's permission to draw its attention to that passage; (b) A testifier's inability to grasp easy questions and evasive answers soon turns a Judge off [and a Jury Too]. Do not engage in Tabula Rasa Socratic Responses [inane question answers to straightforward questions], and; always remember: Neither Judge nor Jury need to be hit over the head with information they can clearly see or hear. They really can be trusted to figure it out.