Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You're listening to KFI AM six forty the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio app. If you're injured
and need a lawyer, go to Handle on the law
dot com. And if you're a lawyer and want to
join our team because people desperately need your help, go
to Handle on the Law dot Com and click on
the join today tab at the top of the page.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
The followings will be recorded program.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Airlines get sued constantly, and the lawsuits go all the
way from the utterly ridiculous to the legitimate. We really
have a case level and that's this one I'm going
to tell you about. And this is a totally legitimate
lawsuit against Jet Blue, and I don't know how Jet
Blue is going to defend this one. So you've got
(00:46):
a fifty one year old woman, Oksana Kirichenko, and she
sued Jet Blue after she and her elderly husband were
subjected to what the lawsuit says, it's an unexplainable level
of cruel, humiliation and ridicule by a Jet Blue crew member.
(01:07):
And here's what happened. They're into first class and they
bring around, they bring along peer. They're twenty three pound
French bulldog to sit with him, and the crew member says, no,
you can't have your dog with you, and they say, yes,
we can, No, you can't. Now Peer is a service dog,
(01:27):
not an emotional support animal, and honest.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
To God certified service dog.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
And the federal government says that with a service animal,
guess what, they can go any place that you can go.
And so they got into it. They're literally on the airplane.
There is such a fight and the plane is taking off.
So the plane turns around, returns to the terminal and
(01:56):
the Kurachenko the Kurachenkos were removed from the airplane physically,
and they argued that the couple's federally protected right to
be a company on the flight where their service animal
was violated. And interestingly enough, that was on the way
back eleven days earlier when they flew in. Hey, Peer
(02:17):
was fine, We love Peer, of course he's a service animal.
On the way back, they throw the Kurchinkos off the airplane. Now,
it used to be planes could be boarded with emotional
support animals, for example, and this has happened.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Airlines have reported this.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Iguanas, peacocks, squirrels, pigs, marmosets, ducks, turkeys, boa constrictors, turtles, kangaroos,
goat spiders, one emotional support hamster who the owner says
he was forced to flush the animal down the toilet
(02:57):
prior to take off, which is kind of interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Blue used to.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Allow dogs, cats, miniature horses in passenger cabins as emotional
support animals, and what happened is they face complaints from
travelers who say the airline refused to let them fly. Well,
that changed over the years, I mean that changed big time,
and airlines now and businesses say only service animals. For example,
(03:24):
you can't have a seeing eyed chicken. Those don't work.
You can't have a kangaroo.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Bouncing up and down. They're dogs. Ninety nine point nine
nine percent are dogs.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
So they are by the way, small dogs and cats
are still allowed to fly in the cabin, but they
have to be in their little carriers or little containers.
So the Cherachenko's or the Kirichenko's sou and I think
they've got a hell of a lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
So what part of it is ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Well, she says that her cancer returned because of this incident.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Her cancer was in remission.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
It came back, and it's Jet Blue's fault for throwing
her off the airplane. I don't know how that's gonna go.
You know that's not going to go too far. But
I think Jet Blue is looking at a world of
hurt in this lawsuit. Let's go ahead and take some
phone calls.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
All right, Mark, you're out, welcome? Mark.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
Basically, Bill, if a will or trust.
Speaker 6 (04:28):
Has changed, does the is there a paper trail for
the old will or trust?
Speaker 7 (04:34):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Not necessarily, not necessarily.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
The last it'll be the last will of the last
trust controls. So let's say you have the Mark Family
Trust and you wrote it in twenty fifteen, and now
that's around, and you amend that trust.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Matter of fact, you throw it out or you lose.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
It, and you rewrite in twenty twenty, and this is
the amended Mark Family Trust and the original date that
you wrote the trust Mark Family Trust dated June first,
twenty fifteen, or now amended the amended version of the
trust written in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
That's legitimate last trust. You don't need a.
Speaker 5 (05:18):
Paper trail, okay, So one would never know if they
were originally going to be included or not.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Right, No, one would ever know.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yeah, the beneficiary would not know. You can change the
trust all day long.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
For example, my kids think that they're going to get
money under my trust.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
What a surprise when they die. Hello, got it? Thanks Bill?
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Okay, God, if only I could do that, you know,
I wish I had.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
The balls to do that.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Oh, yes, all right, Linda, welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
Hi.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
So I entered it into an agreement with a contractor
to provide design services and he would do the building.
And we did six projects together. The agreement was is
I would get fifty thousand dollars per project house. Do
I have a case that he violated our agreement?
Speaker 8 (06:26):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Verbal, I don't have anything.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
It was verbal, Linda.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
It was a verbal contract in which you got fifty
thousand dollars per house.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
How many houses did you do? Six? Six houses? How
much did what does he owe you?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Three hundred thousand?
Speaker 2 (06:46):
All six?
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Didn't you stop at Let's say after one you didn't
get paid?
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Or you do all six at the same time.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
We did one at a time, and you got paid, of.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Course, and you got paid every time.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Correct, I never got paid.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
So let me ask you after number one, you didn't
get paid. Why did you go to number two?
Speaker 4 (07:09):
We got engaged?
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Oh, and then by and number three? Why when you
didn't get paid you were still engaged.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
We are still engaged.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
M okay.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
So you turn around and see him for three hundred
thousand dollars on a verbal contract, and he turns around
and says, no, no, we got engaged. So Linda offered
to do this because she loves me, and she offered
to do.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
It for free.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
No I didn't, Linda says, we had a verbal agreement.
No we didn't. Linda's boyfriend says, so you now go
to court on three hundred thousand dollars based on this
is what he told me, and you have to prove it.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Do you have any proof? Well not really.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
All I have is his promise to pay me. So
he comes with, she did it for free because she
loves me. That's just as plausible. Linda, you're a moron.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Do you understand how many levels of idiocy this is?
Speaker 4 (08:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Yeah? Well good wow?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
I mean usually when I call someone a moronh yeah, yeah,
thousand dollars, five thousand dollars, even twenty five thousand dollars,
three hundred grand verbal agreement boyfriend.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Yeah, that's uh, there's no issue there. This is Handle
on the Law.
Speaker 9 (08:41):
You're listening to Bill Handle on Demand from KF. I
am six forty.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Oh hey Mark, welcome to Handle on the Law. What
can I do for you?
Speaker 6 (08:53):
Well, basically, I have a head of tenant in a
house that I owned in Jasprow, Obama. She stopped paying rent,
gave various excuses, and finally had to hire an attorney
to file an action against her to force her to
pay back rent, which is now fifteen thousand dollars. She
(09:18):
made an initial payment of four thousand dollars back in April,
which she did pay, and then the court order was
starting the first of June and following the first of
every month after she would have to pay fifteen hundred
dollars a month to pay the debt of the fift
initial fifteen thousand plus my court fees. And then I
(09:41):
sent her an email or text message prior to June first,
he said, now how am I going to get paid?
Is everything on the up and up? And she said,
I'm consulting with an attorney now she bought out. It
was a bankruptcy attorney. I'll be hearing from that person
(10:01):
soon she's exploring her options, and then I didn't hear anything,
So I said, is this really happening? And I haven't
heard from her since since June the third. So I
told my attorney to go ahead file the contempt of
court order, and he said, you have two options. Mark,
(10:23):
this will force her to pay, or this will force
her to file bankruptcy.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
Or you can hold off.
Speaker 6 (10:30):
But I would recommend just forcing the issue, which I did.
He filed the contempt at court and is in the
process of having her served. I just what happens when
you file a contempt of court order?
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Okay, but it's well, it depends on where it is.
Because here in California, you have an eviction and it
is and there's a judgment.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
There's the judgment. You got it. You don't need contempt,
you don't need anything else.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
You can do a judgment debtor examination, where you can
actually haul in the debtor and ask questions under perjury,
where's the money, do you have any money?
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Are you working any of that?
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Or you go straight out and garnish wages if the
debtor is working. Now this is Alabama, correct, Yes, yes,
he's out of my house.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
But the concept is the same.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
If down there it's predicated on a contempt order, it's
the same thing. It's a judgment to pay the money.
And with a contempt issue, it's you have the money
to pay it and you're not paying it, or you're
attempting to pay the money and you're not paying it. Now,
if she doesn't have the money, she's not in contempt
(11:46):
because she doesn't have the money. So I don't know
what that would do over there. By the way, if
she files for bankruptcy, it's over. You can kiss that
money goodbye.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
It is done.
Speaker 6 (11:57):
Okay, Because well, she has four business she's a manager
of let's call these oasis beauty spasers.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Okay, so she owns So she owns four businesses.
Speaker 6 (12:09):
Correct, Well, she's a manager of for that, that doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Then she is getting a salary and you can go
you can go against it. You can actually garnish her wages.
You go to the Marshall's office and.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
They'll do it. That's what that's the way they do
it here.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
And I'm assuming it's pretty much the same over there,
because it's universal.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
The coach, well, I just have to wait for the
hearing to.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Be ye too, that's one thing.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
And not knowing that she's going bankrupt you'll know because
once you file for bankruptcy, part of the bankruptcy proceedings
is debtors is creditors.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Which you are have to be informed.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
If creditors are not informed, that is not discharged in bankruptcy,
which means she still owes the money notwithstanding bankruptcy.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
So they always excuse me, I'm still here, all right,
here we go.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
They always let creditors know that there's a bankruptcy filing
so they can so the debtor can be discharged in bankruptcy,
which means you're not out.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Of any money.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
I mean, it's over, it's done. Unless she's filing a
Chapter eleven. Then that's just a week.
Speaker 6 (13:23):
She hasn't filed.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
I haven't heard anything.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Yeah, well okay, then so far, then you move ahead
as if she hasn't filed.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
That's all.
Speaker 6 (13:30):
That's what we're doing right now.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
You're doing it right. You're doing everything right. Hey, Jesse, welcome.
What can I do? Thanks?
Speaker 8 (13:40):
Bill? Yeah, yes, I am a full time exempt employee
and every six weeks we are required to work on
call for one week twenty four to seven and our
employer says we are not eligible for any overtime because
we're exempt employees.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
I you know what, I don't know if that's true.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Doesn't make a lot of sense where you still get
salary and part of it as you're on call twenty
four to seven. Did that just start, by the way,
or were you hired under those terms?
Speaker 8 (14:14):
I moved into this department nine years ago. Under those
terms we had to find a document.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Well, that's part of your salary for one thing.
Speaker 8 (14:24):
You know.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
At this point, I really don't know the exact law
you're here in California. I'm assuming I would simply call
it the Labor Board, labor board being the Department of
Industrial Relations Labor Enforcement Division, and they'll tell you about
all the rules that what I would do. So here
is a typical handle on the law question.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Bill do I can? I would I?
Speaker 1 (14:49):
And I say, I don't know, but thank you very
much for calling because that really makes the show.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Now.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
No matter what business you happen to be in, technology
is absolutely part of it. And this is where NetSuite
by Oracle comes into play because they're going to customize
a solution for you.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
So why do you need them? Well, what NetSuite does.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Is help you do what all business owners want us
we business owners, and that's to make more profit.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
That's what they do.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
You get a snapshot of your business performance right now,
at this moment, so you know exactly inventory if you
deal with that.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Finance is what you owe, what you have in the bank, what.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
You're looking at, and that helps you make a lot
of good decisions.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Basically, you've got the information.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
They upgrade your accounting and finance and they've been doing
this for twenty five years and they have only thirty
seven thousand businesses that swear by them. So NetSuite dot
com is where I suggest you go. NetSuite and you
can download this for free to find out if they
can help you, which I'm sure they're going to help.
Net Suite suite as in office suites. NetSuite dot com
(16:01):
slash handle NetSuite dot com slash handle.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
This is Handle on the Law.
Speaker 9 (16:10):
You're listening to Bill Handle on Demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
All here, Ron, Welcome to Handle on the Law.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
Hey Bill, good to talk to you. I'm as distinct
and fifty as possible. Okay, I know I figured you'd
say that. Listen I live in an area of southern
California where there are a number of vape shops and
liquor stores owned by a certain group of people that
are not from the United States. Time there you go, diplomatic.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Okay, not that that matters, but sure, why not?
Speaker 5 (16:40):
Okay, okay, all right? And these areas are in predominantly
black areas, and I ask you to be a black man.
Now here's the question. These folks are selling, as you
probably know, Bill, last year, the state of California outlaw
the cell of men fall cigarettes. And there has been
years of study.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
So's yeah, the vaps. I didn't know.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
Yeah, yeah, ment cigarettes and there have been yeah, and
there have been a number of studies that showed that
they particularly target the health of black people. Okay, this
area where I am, these people that own these liquor
stores and vape shops are selling not only loose cigarettes,
which is a violation of federal law. You know, some
years ago, I forget the guy's name, but a guy
(17:27):
got killed for selling loose cigarettes by the police. I
forget the famous case. But not only are they doing that,
which is a clear violation of federal law, they're also
selling against state law or or violation in violation of
state law, the ment all cigarettes, and I wanted to
know if there is. You know, I've contacted the Attorney
(17:48):
General in the Public inquir Unit, I'm doing that stuff.
But I was thinking in terms of a class action lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yeah, you know what you can argue. I mean I
don't know, uh, I mean the damages.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Yeah, you can say that people buy loose cigarettes and
they can't and they're selling menthol and that's illegal. Yeah, yeah,
putting people in danger some kind or another. But based
on what you say, we'ren there may very well be
a class action lawsuit already there.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
And that's easy to figure out because all.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
You do is Google start throwing the search words class action,
menthol cigarettes, the law, African Americans targeted. And if it
turns out that there isn't a class action lawsuit based
on what you say, they may very well be. So
then you start looking at law firms class action and
(18:45):
just start calling them because I guarantee you law firms
like class action lawsuits. I mean they advertise like crazy.
I mean, if I watch cable and how many times
you see mesothelioma commercials or if.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
You've you know with this pelvic mess mesh or whatever.
I mean, it's constant.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Bill, Can I ask you one real quick question, sure,
or comment on what you said. One of the reasons
that I think there probably isn't is because it's a
clear violation of law. And I'm gonna Bill, I'm not
a lawyer, but I do have a master's degree in
legal study, so I know enough to be dangerous. I'm
I'm I'm guessing that there may be even a reco
(19:26):
violation here because all of these as I mentioned, these
liquor stores and babe shops.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, you know, but the rico part is there. They
have to talk to each other.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I mean there there basically has to improve that. But yeah,
you can't, I mean there, you know, I mean, what
do they say? You know, one calls another, goes any
let's sell, let's together sell these cigarettes.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
You know, I don't. I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
But based on the fact there's a violation of law,
I mean, Ron, there's a you know, based on the
fact that there's a you know, per your argument, which
makes sense. And by the way, you don't know enough
to enough law to be dangerous. I know less than that.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
So you and I are going to out negatively law.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Each other on this one, and that is violation of
law just helps the case. Then you don't have to
even have to prove liability. That's it, it's done.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
They violated the law. You're finished.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
So yes, that's why I don't think there's That's why
I don't think that there is a pending or existing
And you know what I.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Know which I don't understand because if there is a
violation of law, you know, the case is basically done
for them.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So I don't get that.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So do your search. I was a good qushion too,
Do your search, Debbie. Hi, Debbie, welcome.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
To handle on the Law.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
Hi Bill, thank you. My husband was diagnosed with them
Alheimer's where he was under twenty four pour care at home.
He walked away when when night I called the police department.
They responded, took a report, took some photos, and she
said she'll call the sergeant. Then you know, let everybody no.
(21:00):
Unknown to me, they put it on social media. WHOA
for the public help?
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Okay? Hold on.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
They did it because they couldn't find your husband and
put it on social media.
Speaker 7 (21:12):
At the time that they took the report, they put
it out on Facebook, Instagram.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Okay, and this is before, this is before finding your husband?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Correct? Correct? Oo, okay, good question, by.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
The way, and you want to know who you wonder
know if they can do that? Yeah? Well, let me
ask you, uh, is this sort of common knowledge that
your usband has Alzheimer's?
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Are you keeping that quiet?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
That was just among the family, basically in my but
they put on there that he has allheimer Yeah, no.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
I understand, I get that.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
And did you, by the way, did you tell the
police that he has Alzheimer's?
Speaker 6 (21:49):
I did?
Speaker 7 (21:49):
Okay, I thought that was going to stay within the
police department.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I let me ask you a question. Let me ask
you a question on this.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Here is someone who has Alzheimer's who is out running
around on his own at this point, and there's a
real safety issue, I mean a real safety issue as
to your husband's well bottom line safety. And so you
call the police, legitimately so, and you ask for help.
You got to help me find my husband, which legitimately
they do, and they're going out of their way.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
To say, listen, we're gonna do everything we can.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Let's put it up on social media to see if
anybody can see the husband. Now, did they release private
information medical information in terms of hippa? Are they let
me ask some man, I don't know the answer to this.
Are they required under HIP to not release information? Hip
(22:44):
has to do with medical providers, so technically.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
They may not.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
But the bottom line is, let me ask you a
question on this is, why would you be upset with
the police when they're doing everything they can to find
your husband who is out there and in danger, including
putting it on social media.
Speaker 7 (23:03):
I'm okay with that. I'm not feeling good about the
fact that they disclosed his confidential medical No.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
I understand. No, I completely understand critical. Yeah, yeah, no,
I get it.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
They may have crossed the line in not saying this
guy is out there and please help us find him.
And they could have stopped at that point and said,
and he has Alzheimer's?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Is the line crossed?
Speaker 1 (23:29):
You can sure argue that, Debbie, you can sure argue that.
But now, what do you want to do about it?
Speaker 7 (23:36):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, I mean it's yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I mean, so, now, by the way, who out there
is on social media?
Speaker 2 (23:45):
I mean, how old are you, Debbie?
Speaker 7 (23:46):
I'm seventy, Okay.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
How many seventy year olds are friends of yours go
on social media, Oh I have the phone.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
Was ringing off the wall. There were people saying, I
never knew your husband had all.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Oh okay, all right, so all right, all right, that
answers that answers the right fair enough. Uh yeah, I don't.
I don't know what you can do about it. You
can sue, But what are your damages? Now everybody knows
my husband has Alzheimer's. What is what is that you're
in violation.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Of hip hop?
Speaker 5 (24:12):
Maybe?
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Okay, so you know, you know, let's say somehow this
ends up in court or somehow this ends up in
some kind of administrative hearing, and you're asking that either
you get money, which I don't think you're looking for,
or the police get punished for sharing that your husband
has Alzheimer's and asking people to help find your husband. Yeah. Much,
(24:37):
I understand where you're understand where I understand where you're
coming from.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
If I have I had a loved one, well i'd
go the other way.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
I would absolutely just advertise that they had Alzheimer's, you know,
and actually put up signs.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
But uh, you know, it's you know, it's a legitimate question.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
It really is.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
This is handle on the Law.
Speaker 9 (24:58):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf I
am six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Shelley. Hello, Shelly, welcome to Handle on the Law.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
Yeah with like.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Okay, Shelley, Shelley, I don't understand you. Are you on
a speaker, phone base, chance of some kind of bluetooth.
Speaker 10 (25:24):
Pnie?
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Okay, Shelly, Shelly, you're not listening to me, Shelley, or
you can't hear me?
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Are you on a speaker, are you on bluetooth? Or
what's going on? Because the phone line is not particularly good.
Speaker 10 (25:39):
I can't hear you very well.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Okay, then you got a call back. I'm going to
put you on. Let me do let me do this.
I'm going to drop you and just call right back
because this line really I'm sorry, go ahead, let's try it.
What can you hear me?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Now?
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah? Now I can? What did you do?
Speaker 5 (25:58):
Okay?
Speaker 10 (25:58):
So, the year old mother signed up for power of attorney,
having her niece and her husband the power of attorney
in March twenty twenty three. In November twenty twenty three,
the ninety two year old woman was diagnosed with dementia.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
By a doctor.
Speaker 10 (26:18):
At that time, the trustees of the Power of attorney
must have made changes and the ninety two year old
woman doesn't recall okay.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Making changes. What does that mean? They must have made
changes changes in what.
Speaker 10 (26:31):
With the power of attorney where they became more powerful?
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well, okay, where is Let me ask you this.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
Where is the copy that your ninety year old woman
should have had when a power of attorney was issued?
Speaker 7 (26:46):
I have one?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (26:48):
And if it turns out and that's dated, and there
it is, and if they've taken more power than yours,
something is really wrong.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
And you go ahead, I don't.
Speaker 10 (27:01):
I don't have I don't have power of attorney.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
No, no, but you have a time you have the
copy of the power of attorney. Yes, And if they've
taken advantage, if they have changed it, that is out
and out fraud.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
And that is a problem.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
So someone probably has to go in, hold on, someone
has to go in and probably get a conservatorship over
the woman. It's probably the easiest way to do that,
and that overrides any power of attorney.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Are you related to ninety year old woman?
Speaker 10 (27:34):
Boyfriend?
Speaker 5 (27:35):
Mother?
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Okay, Well, boyfriend can go in there as a son
and ask for a conservatorship.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Does ninety year old woman have money.
Speaker 10 (27:46):
That's the problem. She can't get any money because the
people with the power of attorney sealed her out of
her bank account.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Okay, does she have money? Does she have money?
Speaker 10 (27:57):
She had twenty two undred thousand.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Dollars, She had two hundred and twenty two hundred and
twenty thousand. And do you know if the power of
attorney folks stole that money or took it out.
Speaker 10 (28:10):
It looks like when she went to the bank, the
bank says, I can't deal with you anymore. You're done
to whom you're not on the They say that she's no,
that the account is no longer accessible to her. The
bank fit to whom to the ninety two year old
woman when she goes.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Okay, you need a puta got it?
Speaker 1 (28:28):
And is she let me ask you, is she cognizant
you said she's early stage dementia.
Speaker 10 (28:34):
Yes, but she knows that she can't get her money,
and she knows she doesn't.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Okay, then she has to What she has to do
is uh is, hopefully stay out of court, but walk
in and rescind the power of attorney, absolute recision of
the power of attorney, and that she can do she
rescinds it.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
She goes in front of a notary, she has it.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Notarized, and then goes to the bank and says, there
is no power of attorney. I want to see my
account and if it turned out, and if it turned
out they have taken the money, that is a theft charge.
And if it's a couple hundred thousand dollars, that's no
joke that one the DA gets involved in.
Speaker 10 (29:18):
How does she do the paperwork or rescind the power
of attorney? Where does she get that paperwork?
Speaker 1 (29:22):
It's on the internet. It's easy to get. Matter of fact,
any notary probably has it. They probably have it, and
they have access to it. And you call a notary
public matter of fact, you go to UPS and they
do notaries and maybe they'll help you, especially if you're
(29:43):
ninety two and you're you know, with a cane and
your you know, voice is croaking or whatever, and you say,
I'd like to rescind the power of attorney.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Where do I get the paperwork?
Speaker 1 (29:52):
They may pull it out for her, just because she's
ninety two and you know, someone feels sorry for her,
has half a heart, And then she notarizes it right
there and takes that to the bank the recision of
the power.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
All right, what about this?
Speaker 10 (30:08):
Okay, here's one other layer. As soon as the people
with power of attorney discovered that her son was trying
to help her do all this, they slapped the restraining
order on him.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
She cann't do that, and he instantly goes in and
has that removed, files the document with the court to
have that restraining order removed. And by the way, it
was a temporary restraining order? Was there a hearing on
the retaining order?
Speaker 10 (30:34):
At this point the other party keeps delaying.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Okay, he's got to go in.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
He's got to go in and ask X party to
speed it up, because the argument is going to be
the affidavit attached to it is all the bank information,
and they're looking at two hundred and twenty thousand dollars
that you believe is at risk.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
That's that's said. There's a lot of argument that.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
She makes to to get into the bank and to
he's got to rescind. He's got to go as far
as the restraining order. He has to unravel that, and
he can do that within a couple of days with
an ex partey motion.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
So you got a little complicated, and they want to
see a lawyer on this.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
You really may want to see a lawyer and spend
and spend a little bit of money on this because
it looks like, you know, it smells like someone's out
two hundred thousand dollars, which is a shame. Now I
want to tell you about Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints. This
is stuff that I absolutely love. That's my pack of
Zelman's right here. As a matter of fact, I have
two packs of Zelman's.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
See that's my second.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Pack, well three packs, four packs, especially just one pack.
But this is radio so you can't see Zelman's Minty
Mouth Mints. It's far more than a mint. If you
have an issue with bad breath or just wanting to
have fresh, clean breath for hours and hours, let me
suggest Selman's minty mouth mints. First of all, the mint
(31:57):
that coats this little capsule makes your mouth feel great,
and then you swallow or you bite into the capsule,
it gets to work in your gut and that's where
the foods you eat sometimes cause you know, bad breath,
and Zelmans takes care of that for hours and hours.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
And how good are they? Well, they have a money
back guarantee.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
I've never seen anybody use multiple If you order multiple packs,
you get free shipping, and you probably will try to
get multiple packs or will get multiple packs. So go
to Zelmans z l M i N s zelmans dot
com fifteen percent off when you use the code handle
at check out. Take advantage of the fifteen percent. Go
(32:36):
to the website Zelman's z l M i N s
Zelmans dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
This is Handle on the law. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle show.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
You're listening to KFI AM six forty the Bill Handles
show on demand on the iHeartRadio app. If you're injured
and need a lawyer, go to Handle on the law
dot com. And if you're a lawyer and want to
join our team because people desperately need your help, go
to Handle on the Law dot Com and click on
the join today tab at the top of the page.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
The followings will be recorded program.
Speaker 1 (00:25):
Airlines get sued constantly, and the lawsuits go all the
way from the utterly ridiculous to the legitimate. We really
have a case level and that's this one I'm going
to tell you about. And this is a totally legitimate
lawsuit against Jet Blue, and I don't know how Jet
Blue is going to defend this one. So you've got
(00:46):
a fifty one year old woman, Oksana Kirichenko, and she
sued Jet Blue after she and her elderly husband were
subjected to what the lawsuit says, it's an unexplainable level
of cruel, humiliation and ridicule by a Jet Blue crew member.
(01:07):
And here's what happened. They're into first class and they
bring around, they bring along peer. They're twenty three pound
French bulldog to sit with him, and the crew member says, no,
you can't have your dog with you, and they say, yes,
we can, No, you can't. Now Peer is a service dog,
(01:27):
not an emotional support animal, and honest.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
To God certified service dog.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
And the federal government says that with a service animal,
guess what, they can go any place that you can go.
And so they got into it. They're literally on the airplane.
There is such a fight and the plane is taking off.
So the plane turns around, returns to the terminal and
(01:56):
the Kurachenko the Kurachenkos were removed from the airplane physically,
and they argued that the couple's federally protected right to
be a company on the flight where their service animal
was violated. And interestingly enough, that was on the way
back eleven days earlier when they flew in. Hey, Peer
(02:17):
was fine, We love Peer, of course he's a service animal.
On the way back, they throw the Kurchinkos off the airplane. Now,
it used to be planes could be boarded with emotional
support animals, for example, and this has happened.
Speaker 2 (02:33):
Airlines have reported this.
Speaker 3 (02:35):
Iguanas, peacocks, squirrels, pigs, marmosets, ducks, turkeys, boa constrictors, turtles, kangaroos,
goat spiders, one emotional support hamster who the owner says
he was forced to flush the animal down the toilet
(02:57):
prior to take off, which is kind of interesting.
Speaker 2 (03:00):
Blue used to.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
Allow dogs, cats, miniature horses in passenger cabins as emotional
support animals, and what happened is they face complaints from
travelers who say the airline refused to let them fly. Well,
that changed over the years, I mean that changed big time,
and airlines now and businesses say only service animals. For example,
(03:24):
you can't have a seeing eyed chicken. Those don't work.
You can't have a kangaroo.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
Bouncing up and down. They're dogs. Ninety nine point nine
nine percent are dogs.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
So they are by the way, small dogs and cats
are still allowed to fly in the cabin, but they
have to be in their little carriers or little containers.
So the Cherachenko's or the Kirichenko's sou and I think
they've got a hell of a lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
So what part of it is ridiculous.
Speaker 1 (03:55):
Well, she says that her cancer returned because of this incident.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Her cancer was in remission.
Speaker 1 (04:06):
It came back, and it's Jet Blue's fault for throwing
her off the airplane. I don't know how that's gonna go.
You know that's not going to go too far. But
I think Jet Blue is looking at a world of
hurt in this lawsuit. Let's go ahead and take some
phone calls.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
All right, Mark, you're out, welcome? Mark.
Speaker 4 (04:25):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (04:25):
Basically, Bill, if a will or trust.
Speaker 6 (04:28):
Has changed, does the is there a paper trail for
the old will or trust?
Speaker 7 (04:34):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Not necessarily, not necessarily.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
The last it'll be the last will of the last
trust controls. So let's say you have the Mark Family
Trust and you wrote it in twenty fifteen, and now
that's around, and you amend that trust.
Speaker 2 (04:57):
Matter of fact, you throw it out or you lose.
Speaker 1 (04:58):
It, and you rewrite in twenty twenty, and this is
the amended Mark Family Trust and the original date that
you wrote the trust Mark Family Trust dated June first,
twenty fifteen, or now amended the amended version of the
trust written in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
That's legitimate last trust. You don't need a.
Speaker 5 (05:18):
Paper trail, okay, So one would never know if they
were originally going to be included or not.
Speaker 2 (05:26):
Right, No, one would ever know.
Speaker 1 (05:28):
Yeah, the beneficiary would not know. You can change the
trust all day long.
Speaker 5 (05:33):
You know.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
For example, my kids think that they're going to get
money under my trust.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
What a surprise when they die. Hello, got it? Thanks Bill?
Speaker 1 (05:46):
Okay, God, if only I could do that, you know,
I wish I had.
Speaker 2 (05:53):
The balls to do that.
Speaker 1 (05:55):
Oh, yes, all right, Linda, welcome to handle on the law.
Speaker 5 (06:04):
Hi.
Speaker 4 (06:04):
So I entered it into an agreement with a contractor
to provide design services and he would do the building.
And we did six projects together. The agreement was is
I would get fifty thousand dollars per project house. Do
I have a case that he violated our agreement?
Speaker 8 (06:26):
Sure?
Speaker 4 (06:26):
Verbal, I don't have anything.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
It was verbal, Linda.
Speaker 1 (06:30):
It was a verbal contract in which you got fifty
thousand dollars per house.
Speaker 2 (06:36):
How many houses did you do? Six? Six houses? How
much did what does he owe you?
Speaker 4 (06:44):
Three hundred thousand?
Speaker 2 (06:46):
All six?
Speaker 1 (06:47):
Didn't you stop at Let's say after one you didn't
get paid?
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Or you do all six at the same time.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
We did one at a time, and you got paid, of.
Speaker 2 (06:58):
Course, and you got paid every time.
Speaker 4 (07:00):
Correct, I never got paid.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
So let me ask you after number one, you didn't
get paid. Why did you go to number two?
Speaker 4 (07:09):
We got engaged?
Speaker 1 (07:11):
Oh, and then by and number three? Why when you
didn't get paid you were still engaged.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
We are still engaged.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
M okay.
Speaker 1 (07:20):
So you turn around and see him for three hundred
thousand dollars on a verbal contract, and he turns around
and says, no, no, we got engaged. So Linda offered
to do this because she loves me, and she offered
to do.
Speaker 2 (07:35):
It for free.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
No I didn't, Linda says, we had a verbal agreement.
No we didn't. Linda's boyfriend says, so you now go
to court on three hundred thousand dollars based on this
is what he told me, and you have to prove it.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
Do you have any proof? Well not really.
Speaker 1 (07:56):
All I have is his promise to pay me. So
he comes with, she did it for free because she
loves me. That's just as plausible. Linda, you're a moron.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Do you understand how many levels of idiocy this is?
Speaker 4 (08:15):
Yeah?
Speaker 2 (08:15):
Yeah? Well good wow?
Speaker 1 (08:19):
I mean usually when I call someone a moronh yeah, yeah,
thousand dollars, five thousand dollars, even twenty five thousand dollars,
three hundred grand verbal agreement boyfriend.
Speaker 2 (08:33):
Yeah, that's uh, there's no issue there. This is Handle
on the Law.
Speaker 9 (08:41):
You're listening to Bill Handle on Demand from KF. I
am six forty.
Speaker 2 (08:47):
Oh hey Mark, welcome to Handle on the Law. What
can I do for you?
Speaker 6 (08:53):
Well, basically, I have a head of tenant in a
house that I owned in Jasprow, Obama. She stopped paying rent,
gave various excuses, and finally had to hire an attorney
to file an action against her to force her to
pay back rent, which is now fifteen thousand dollars. She
(09:18):
made an initial payment of four thousand dollars back in April,
which she did pay, and then the court order was
starting the first of June and following the first of
every month after she would have to pay fifteen hundred
dollars a month to pay the debt of the fift
initial fifteen thousand plus my court fees. And then I
(09:41):
sent her an email or text message prior to June first,
he said, now how am I going to get paid?
Is everything on the up and up? And she said,
I'm consulting with an attorney now she bought out. It
was a bankruptcy attorney. I'll be hearing from that person
(10:01):
soon she's exploring her options, and then I didn't hear anything,
So I said, is this really happening? And I haven't
heard from her since since June the third. So I
told my attorney to go ahead file the contempt of
court order, and he said, you have two options. Mark,
(10:23):
this will force her to pay, or this will force
her to file bankruptcy.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
Or you can hold off.
Speaker 6 (10:30):
But I would recommend just forcing the issue, which I did.
He filed the contempt at court and is in the
process of having her served. I just what happens when
you file a contempt of court order?
Speaker 1 (10:42):
Okay, but it's well, it depends on where it is.
Because here in California, you have an eviction and it
is and there's a judgment.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
There's the judgment. You got it. You don't need contempt,
you don't need anything else.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
You can do a judgment debtor examination, where you can
actually haul in the debtor and ask questions under perjury,
where's the money, do you have any money?
Speaker 2 (11:07):
Are you working any of that?
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Or you go straight out and garnish wages if the
debtor is working. Now this is Alabama, correct, Yes, yes,
he's out of my house.
Speaker 2 (11:20):
But the concept is the same.
Speaker 1 (11:22):
If down there it's predicated on a contempt order, it's
the same thing. It's a judgment to pay the money.
And with a contempt issue, it's you have the money
to pay it and you're not paying it, or you're
attempting to pay the money and you're not paying it. Now,
if she doesn't have the money, she's not in contempt
(11:46):
because she doesn't have the money. So I don't know
what that would do over there. By the way, if
she files for bankruptcy, it's over. You can kiss that
money goodbye.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
It is done.
Speaker 6 (11:57):
Okay, Because well, she has four business she's a manager
of let's call these oasis beauty spasers.
Speaker 2 (12:06):
Okay, so she owns So she owns four businesses.
Speaker 6 (12:09):
Correct, Well, she's a manager of for that, that doesn't matter.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (12:14):
Then she is getting a salary and you can go
you can go against it. You can actually garnish her wages.
You go to the Marshall's office and.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
They'll do it. That's what that's the way they do
it here.
Speaker 1 (12:26):
And I'm assuming it's pretty much the same over there,
because it's universal.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
The coach, well, I just have to wait for the
hearing to.
Speaker 2 (12:33):
Be ye too, that's one thing.
Speaker 1 (12:35):
And not knowing that she's going bankrupt you'll know because
once you file for bankruptcy, part of the bankruptcy proceedings
is debtors is creditors.
Speaker 2 (12:48):
Which you are have to be informed.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
If creditors are not informed, that is not discharged in bankruptcy,
which means she still owes the money notwithstanding bankruptcy.
Speaker 2 (13:00):
So they always excuse me, I'm still here, all right,
here we go.
Speaker 1 (13:08):
They always let creditors know that there's a bankruptcy filing
so they can so the debtor can be discharged in bankruptcy,
which means you're not out.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
Of any money.
Speaker 1 (13:18):
I mean, it's over, it's done. Unless she's filing a
Chapter eleven. Then that's just a week.
Speaker 6 (13:23):
She hasn't filed.
Speaker 5 (13:24):
I haven't heard anything.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Yeah, well okay, then so far, then you move ahead
as if she hasn't filed.
Speaker 2 (13:29):
That's all.
Speaker 6 (13:30):
That's what we're doing right now.
Speaker 2 (13:31):
You're doing it right. You're doing everything right. Hey, Jesse, welcome.
What can I do? Thanks?
Speaker 8 (13:40):
Bill? Yeah, yes, I am a full time exempt employee
and every six weeks we are required to work on
call for one week twenty four to seven and our
employer says we are not eligible for any overtime because
we're exempt employees.
Speaker 2 (13:58):
I you know what, I don't know if that's true.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Doesn't make a lot of sense where you still get
salary and part of it as you're on call twenty
four to seven. Did that just start, by the way,
or were you hired under those terms?
Speaker 8 (14:14):
I moved into this department nine years ago. Under those
terms we had to find a document.
Speaker 2 (14:21):
Well, that's part of your salary for one thing.
Speaker 8 (14:24):
You know.
Speaker 1 (14:25):
At this point, I really don't know the exact law
you're here in California. I'm assuming I would simply call
it the Labor Board, labor board being the Department of
Industrial Relations Labor Enforcement Division, and they'll tell you about
all the rules that what I would do. So here
is a typical handle on the law question.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
Bill do I can? I would I?
Speaker 1 (14:49):
And I say, I don't know, but thank you very
much for calling because that really makes the show.
Speaker 2 (14:55):
Now.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
No matter what business you happen to be in, technology
is absolutely part of it. And this is where NetSuite
by Oracle comes into play because they're going to customize
a solution for you.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
So why do you need them? Well, what NetSuite does.
Speaker 1 (15:09):
Is help you do what all business owners want us
we business owners, and that's to make more profit.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
That's what they do.
Speaker 1 (15:17):
You get a snapshot of your business performance right now,
at this moment, so you know exactly inventory if you
deal with that.
Speaker 2 (15:25):
Finance is what you owe, what you have in the bank, what.
Speaker 1 (15:28):
You're looking at, and that helps you make a lot
of good decisions.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
Basically, you've got the information.
Speaker 1 (15:36):
They upgrade your accounting and finance and they've been doing
this for twenty five years and they have only thirty
seven thousand businesses that swear by them. So NetSuite dot
com is where I suggest you go. NetSuite and you
can download this for free to find out if they
can help you, which I'm sure they're going to help.
Net Suite suite as in office suites. NetSuite dot com
(16:01):
slash handle NetSuite dot com slash handle.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
This is Handle on the Law.
Speaker 9 (16:10):
You're listening to Bill Handle on Demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (16:16):
All here, Ron, Welcome to Handle on the Law.
Speaker 5 (16:19):
Hey Bill, good to talk to you. I'm as distinct
and fifty as possible. Okay, I know I figured you'd
say that. Listen I live in an area of southern
California where there are a number of vape shops and
liquor stores owned by a certain group of people that
are not from the United States. Time there you go, diplomatic.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
Okay, not that that matters, but sure, why not?
Speaker 5 (16:40):
Okay, okay, all right? And these areas are in predominantly
black areas, and I ask you to be a black man.
Now here's the question. These folks are selling, as you
probably know, Bill, last year, the state of California outlaw
the cell of men fall cigarettes. And there has been
years of study.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
So's yeah, the vaps. I didn't know.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
Yeah, yeah, ment cigarettes and there have been yeah, and
there have been a number of studies that showed that
they particularly target the health of black people. Okay, this
area where I am, these people that own these liquor
stores and vape shops are selling not only loose cigarettes,
which is a violation of federal law. You know, some
years ago, I forget the guy's name, but a guy
(17:27):
got killed for selling loose cigarettes by the police. I
forget the famous case. But not only are they doing that,
which is a clear violation of federal law, they're also
selling against state law or or violation in violation of
state law, the ment all cigarettes, and I wanted to
know if there is. You know, I've contacted the Attorney
(17:48):
General in the Public inquir Unit, I'm doing that stuff.
But I was thinking in terms of a class action lawsuit.
Speaker 2 (17:55):
Yeah, you know what you can argue. I mean I
don't know, uh, I mean the damages.
Speaker 1 (18:01):
Yeah, you can say that people buy loose cigarettes and
they can't and they're selling menthol and that's illegal. Yeah, yeah,
putting people in danger some kind or another. But based
on what you say, we'ren there may very well be
a class action lawsuit already there.
Speaker 2 (18:19):
And that's easy to figure out because all.
Speaker 1 (18:21):
You do is Google start throwing the search words class action,
menthol cigarettes, the law, African Americans targeted. And if it
turns out that there isn't a class action lawsuit based
on what you say, they may very well be. So
then you start looking at law firms class action and
(18:45):
just start calling them because I guarantee you law firms
like class action lawsuits. I mean they advertise like crazy.
I mean, if I watch cable and how many times
you see mesothelioma commercials or if.
Speaker 2 (19:00):
You've you know with this pelvic mess mesh or whatever.
I mean, it's constant.
Speaker 5 (19:06):
Bill, Can I ask you one real quick question, sure,
or comment on what you said. One of the reasons
that I think there probably isn't is because it's a
clear violation of law. And I'm gonna Bill, I'm not
a lawyer, but I do have a master's degree in
legal study, so I know enough to be dangerous. I'm
I'm I'm guessing that there may be even a reco
(19:26):
violation here because all of these as I mentioned, these
liquor stores and babe shops.
Speaker 2 (19:31):
Yeah, you know, but the rico part is there. They
have to talk to each other.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I mean there there basically has to improve that. But yeah,
you can't, I mean there, you know, I mean, what
do they say? You know, one calls another, goes any
let's sell, let's together sell these cigarettes.
Speaker 2 (19:47):
You know, I don't. I don't think so.
Speaker 1 (19:48):
But based on the fact there's a violation of law,
I mean, Ron, there's a you know, based on the
fact that there's a you know, per your argument, which
makes sense. And by the way, you don't know enough
to enough law to be dangerous. I know less than that.
Speaker 2 (20:02):
So you and I are going to out negatively law.
Speaker 1 (20:05):
Each other on this one, and that is violation of
law just helps the case. Then you don't have to
even have to prove liability. That's it, it's done.
Speaker 2 (20:16):
They violated the law. You're finished.
Speaker 5 (20:18):
So yes, that's why I don't think there's That's why
I don't think that there is a pending or existing
And you know what I.
Speaker 1 (20:24):
Know which I don't understand because if there is a
violation of law, you know, the case is basically done
for them.
Speaker 2 (20:31):
So I don't get that.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
So do your search. I was a good qushion too,
Do your search, Debbie. Hi, Debbie, welcome.
Speaker 2 (20:37):
To handle on the Law.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
Hi Bill, thank you. My husband was diagnosed with them
Alheimer's where he was under twenty four pour care at home.
He walked away when when night I called the police department.
They responded, took a report, took some photos, and she
said she'll call the sergeant. Then you know, let everybody no.
(21:00):
Unknown to me, they put it on social media. WHOA
for the public help?
Speaker 2 (21:06):
Okay? Hold on.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
They did it because they couldn't find your husband and
put it on social media.
Speaker 7 (21:12):
At the time that they took the report, they put
it out on Facebook, Instagram.
Speaker 1 (21:19):
Okay, and this is before, this is before finding your husband?
Speaker 2 (21:22):
Correct? Correct? Oo, okay, good question, by.
Speaker 1 (21:25):
The way, and you want to know who you wonder
know if they can do that? Yeah? Well, let me
ask you, uh, is this sort of common knowledge that
your usband has Alzheimer's?
Speaker 2 (21:36):
Are you keeping that quiet?
Speaker 7 (21:38):
That was just among the family, basically in my but
they put on there that he has allheimer Yeah, no.
Speaker 2 (21:44):
I understand, I get that.
Speaker 1 (21:45):
And did you, by the way, did you tell the
police that he has Alzheimer's?
Speaker 6 (21:49):
I did?
Speaker 7 (21:49):
Okay, I thought that was going to stay within the
police department.
Speaker 2 (21:52):
I let me ask you a question. Let me ask
you a question on this.
Speaker 1 (21:56):
Here is someone who has Alzheimer's who is out running
around on his own at this point, and there's a
real safety issue, I mean a real safety issue as
to your husband's well bottom line safety. And so you
call the police, legitimately so, and you ask for help.
You got to help me find my husband, which legitimately
they do, and they're going out of their way.
Speaker 2 (22:21):
To say, listen, we're gonna do everything we can.
Speaker 1 (22:23):
Let's put it up on social media to see if
anybody can see the husband. Now, did they release private
information medical information in terms of hippa? Are they let
me ask some man, I don't know the answer to this.
Are they required under HIP to not release information? Hip
(22:44):
has to do with medical providers, so technically.
Speaker 2 (22:48):
They may not.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
But the bottom line is, let me ask you a
question on this is, why would you be upset with
the police when they're doing everything they can to find
your husband who is out there and in danger, including
putting it on social media.
Speaker 7 (23:03):
I'm okay with that. I'm not feeling good about the
fact that they disclosed his confidential medical No.
Speaker 2 (23:10):
I understand. No, I completely understand critical. Yeah, yeah, no,
I get it.
Speaker 1 (23:15):
They may have crossed the line in not saying this
guy is out there and please help us find him.
And they could have stopped at that point and said,
and he has Alzheimer's?
Speaker 2 (23:28):
Is the line crossed?
Speaker 1 (23:29):
You can sure argue that, Debbie, you can sure argue that.
But now, what do you want to do about it?
Speaker 7 (23:36):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (23:37):
Yeah, I mean it's yeah.
Speaker 1 (23:38):
I mean, so, now, by the way, who out there
is on social media?
Speaker 2 (23:45):
I mean, how old are you, Debbie?
Speaker 7 (23:46):
I'm seventy, Okay.
Speaker 1 (23:48):
How many seventy year olds are friends of yours go
on social media, Oh I have the phone.
Speaker 7 (23:53):
Was ringing off the wall. There were people saying, I
never knew your husband had all.
Speaker 1 (23:56):
Oh okay, all right, so all right, all right, that
answers that answers the right fair enough. Uh yeah, I don't.
I don't know what you can do about it. You
can sue, But what are your damages? Now everybody knows
my husband has Alzheimer's. What is what is that you're
in violation.
Speaker 2 (24:11):
Of hip hop?
Speaker 5 (24:12):
Maybe?
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Okay, so you know, you know, let's say somehow this
ends up in court or somehow this ends up in
some kind of administrative hearing, and you're asking that either
you get money, which I don't think you're looking for,
or the police get punished for sharing that your husband
has Alzheimer's and asking people to help find your husband. Yeah. Much,
(24:37):
I understand where you're understand where I understand where you're
coming from.
Speaker 2 (24:40):
If I have I had a loved one, well i'd
go the other way.
Speaker 1 (24:43):
I would absolutely just advertise that they had Alzheimer's, you know,
and actually put up signs.
Speaker 2 (24:48):
But uh, you know, it's you know, it's a legitimate question.
Speaker 5 (24:52):
It really is.
Speaker 2 (24:54):
This is handle on the Law.
Speaker 9 (24:58):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from kf I
am six forty.
Speaker 2 (25:06):
Shelley. Hello, Shelly, welcome to Handle on the Law.
Speaker 3 (25:12):
Yeah with like.
Speaker 1 (25:16):
Okay, Shelley, Shelley, I don't understand you. Are you on
a speaker, phone base, chance of some kind of bluetooth.
Speaker 10 (25:24):
Pnie?
Speaker 1 (25:27):
Okay, Shelly, Shelly, you're not listening to me, Shelley, or
you can't hear me?
Speaker 2 (25:32):
Are you on a speaker, are you on bluetooth? Or
what's going on? Because the phone line is not particularly good.
Speaker 10 (25:39):
I can't hear you very well.
Speaker 2 (25:41):
Okay, then you got a call back. I'm going to
put you on. Let me do let me do this.
I'm going to drop you and just call right back
because this line really I'm sorry, go ahead, let's try it.
What can you hear me?
Speaker 1 (25:54):
Now?
Speaker 2 (25:54):
Yeah? Now I can? What did you do?
Speaker 5 (25:58):
Okay?
Speaker 10 (25:58):
So, the year old mother signed up for power of attorney,
having her niece and her husband the power of attorney
in March twenty twenty three. In November twenty twenty three,
the ninety two year old woman was diagnosed with dementia.
Speaker 2 (26:16):
By a doctor.
Speaker 10 (26:18):
At that time, the trustees of the Power of attorney
must have made changes and the ninety two year old
woman doesn't recall okay.
Speaker 2 (26:25):
Making changes. What does that mean? They must have made
changes changes in what.
Speaker 10 (26:31):
With the power of attorney where they became more powerful?
Speaker 2 (26:34):
Well, okay, where is Let me ask you this.
Speaker 1 (26:37):
Where is the copy that your ninety year old woman
should have had when a power of attorney was issued?
Speaker 7 (26:46):
I have one?
Speaker 2 (26:47):
Okay?
Speaker 1 (26:48):
And if it turns out and that's dated, and there
it is, and if they've taken more power than yours,
something is really wrong.
Speaker 2 (27:00):
And you go ahead, I don't.
Speaker 10 (27:01):
I don't have I don't have power of attorney.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
No, no, but you have a time you have the
copy of the power of attorney. Yes, And if they've
taken advantage, if they have changed it, that is out
and out fraud.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
And that is a problem.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
So someone probably has to go in, hold on, someone
has to go in and probably get a conservatorship over
the woman. It's probably the easiest way to do that,
and that overrides any power of attorney.
Speaker 2 (27:31):
Are you related to ninety year old woman?
Speaker 10 (27:34):
Boyfriend?
Speaker 5 (27:35):
Mother?
Speaker 1 (27:36):
Okay, Well, boyfriend can go in there as a son
and ask for a conservatorship.
Speaker 2 (27:43):
Does ninety year old woman have money.
Speaker 10 (27:46):
That's the problem. She can't get any money because the
people with the power of attorney sealed her out of
her bank account.
Speaker 2 (27:52):
Okay, does she have money? Does she have money?
Speaker 10 (27:57):
She had twenty two undred thousand.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Dollars, She had two hundred and twenty two hundred and
twenty thousand. And do you know if the power of
attorney folks stole that money or took it out.
Speaker 10 (28:10):
It looks like when she went to the bank, the
bank says, I can't deal with you anymore. You're done
to whom you're not on the They say that she's no,
that the account is no longer accessible to her. The
bank fit to whom to the ninety two year old
woman when she goes.
Speaker 2 (28:26):
Okay, you need a puta got it?
Speaker 1 (28:28):
And is she let me ask you, is she cognizant
you said she's early stage dementia.
Speaker 10 (28:34):
Yes, but she knows that she can't get her money,
and she knows she doesn't.
Speaker 1 (28:37):
Okay, then she has to What she has to do
is uh is, hopefully stay out of court, but walk
in and rescind the power of attorney, absolute recision of
the power of attorney, and that she can do she
rescinds it.
Speaker 2 (28:53):
She goes in front of a notary, she has it.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Notarized, and then goes to the bank and says, there
is no power of attorney. I want to see my
account and if it turned out, and if it turned
out they have taken the money, that is a theft charge.
And if it's a couple hundred thousand dollars, that's no
joke that one the DA gets involved in.
Speaker 10 (29:18):
How does she do the paperwork or rescind the power
of attorney? Where does she get that paperwork?
Speaker 1 (29:22):
It's on the internet. It's easy to get. Matter of fact,
any notary probably has it. They probably have it, and
they have access to it. And you call a notary
public matter of fact, you go to UPS and they
do notaries and maybe they'll help you, especially if you're
(29:43):
ninety two and you're you know, with a cane and
your you know, voice is croaking or whatever, and you say,
I'd like to rescind the power of attorney.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Where do I get the paperwork?
Speaker 1 (29:52):
They may pull it out for her, just because she's
ninety two and you know, someone feels sorry for her,
has half a heart, And then she notarizes it right
there and takes that to the bank the recision of
the power.
Speaker 3 (30:07):
All right, what about this?
Speaker 10 (30:08):
Okay, here's one other layer. As soon as the people
with power of attorney discovered that her son was trying
to help her do all this, they slapped the restraining
order on him.
Speaker 1 (30:19):
She cann't do that, and he instantly goes in and
has that removed, files the document with the court to
have that restraining order removed. And by the way, it
was a temporary restraining order? Was there a hearing on
the retaining order?
Speaker 10 (30:34):
At this point the other party keeps delaying.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Okay, he's got to go in.
Speaker 1 (30:39):
He's got to go in and ask X party to
speed it up, because the argument is going to be
the affidavit attached to it is all the bank information,
and they're looking at two hundred and twenty thousand dollars
that you believe is at risk.
Speaker 2 (30:52):
That's that's said. There's a lot of argument that.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
She makes to to get into the bank and to
he's got to rescind. He's got to go as far
as the restraining order. He has to unravel that, and
he can do that within a couple of days with
an ex partey motion.
Speaker 2 (31:10):
So you got a little complicated, and they want to
see a lawyer on this.
Speaker 1 (31:13):
You really may want to see a lawyer and spend
and spend a little bit of money on this because
it looks like, you know, it smells like someone's out
two hundred thousand dollars, which is a shame. Now I
want to tell you about Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints. This
is stuff that I absolutely love. That's my pack of
Zelman's right here. As a matter of fact, I have
two packs of Zelman's.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
See that's my second.
Speaker 1 (31:35):
Pack, well three packs, four packs, especially just one pack.
But this is radio so you can't see Zelman's Minty
Mouth Mints. It's far more than a mint. If you
have an issue with bad breath or just wanting to
have fresh, clean breath for hours and hours, let me
suggest Selman's minty mouth mints. First of all, the mint
(31:57):
that coats this little capsule makes your mouth feel great,
and then you swallow or you bite into the capsule,
it gets to work in your gut and that's where
the foods you eat sometimes cause you know, bad breath,
and Zelmans takes care of that for hours and hours.
Speaker 2 (32:11):
And how good are they? Well, they have a money
back guarantee.
Speaker 1 (32:15):
I've never seen anybody use multiple If you order multiple packs,
you get free shipping, and you probably will try to
get multiple packs or will get multiple packs. So go
to Zelmans z l M i N s zelmans dot
com fifteen percent off when you use the code handle
at check out. Take advantage of the fifteen percent. Go
(32:36):
to the website Zelman's z l M i N s
Zelmans dot com.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
This is Handle on the law. You've been listening to
the Bill Handle show.
Speaker 1 (32:47):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app
Popular Podcasts
1. Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
2. Start Here
A straightforward look at the day's top news in 20 minutes. Powered by ABC News. Hosted by Brad Mielke.
3. Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.