Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
The phone number here is eight hundred five two zero
one five three four.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Eight hundred five two zero one five three four.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is handle on the law marginal legal advice where
I tell you you have no case. Ooh, let me
tell you about what happened this past week. And this
has to do with the Menendez brothers. Remember the two
brothers that ended up killing their parents, and they were
(00:28):
I think nineteen and twenty one, and they have to well,
they got life in prison without possibility of parole, Lyle
and Eric Menendez.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
And there were two trials.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
The first one was a hung jury because the trial
lasted for months and months, over one hundred witnesses, and
a lot of the trial happened to be involved with
the abuse that Eric underwent by his father, and he
described in very specific detail what his father did to him,
(01:01):
just total sexual abuse and humiliation, I mean brutal stuff.
And his brother knew all about it and couldn't do anything.
And there was evidence that was produced over and over again,
and the jury deadlocked. The jury couldn't come to a
conclusion because of all that evidence of abuse, particularly at
(01:21):
least that's what the experts say. So the judge gets
really pissed off. Judges do not like mistrials. They do
not like sitting on these very long, very complex trials.
And in the end the jury says we can't decide,
so a retry and a.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Couple things happened.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
The judge doesn't allow a lot of this evidence regarding
the sexual abuse. And part of it was at that time,
when we're talking thirty five years ago, people didn't believe
that boys could get raped. There really wasn't sexual abuse
against boys. Well, obviously that's changed we now know very differently,
(02:06):
and so it was basically dead. There was no question
that it was going to be a conviction. The judge
effectively set it up. Also, the judge rule that there
were only two ways the jury could go first degree
murder or they walk.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well, considering the evidence that they admitted.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Doing this, killing their parents and arguing we were frightened
for our lives. If manslaughter had been part of the
decision that a jury could make, maybe they would have
gone for manslaughter.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
They admitted killing their.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Parents and they were lying in wait, I mean, it
hits all the elements of first degree murder except the
emotional destruction of their psyche because of the physical abuse,
the emotional abuse, the hitting, the sexual abuse. So they
were convicted, they got life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
(03:02):
So here we are thirty five years later, and a
letter that a judge would not introduce the judge was.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Basically brought forward.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
This is because there's been a Netflix documentary and a
docu drama and has brought this to the forefront. This
letter and this testimony from a friend of theirs were
six months before Eric talked about the abuse of his
father and he was frightened for his life. That changes everything,
and that could have really changed the course of the trial.
(03:36):
And so the DA in Los Angeles, George Gascon, who
is going to be tossed out because he's so way liberal,
he has decided to ask the judge to re sentence
the boys, in other words, effectively go back to manslaughter,
which means they're out because they have done thirty five years.
The problem is the judge has to say yes to that,
(03:57):
the parole board has to say yes to that, and
the governor has to agree to that, and any one
of those three can stop it cold. I'll tell you
what I think is going to happen. I think they're
going to be released as they should be, by the way,
because this kind of sexual abuse and this kind of
(04:18):
exploitation is so rampant.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
All right, let's do it. You got some fun phone calls? Mike, Hello, Mike, welcome.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Thank you Bill.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Yes, I have a question. I have a tenant with
six dogs in the house.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Why can I do to get them dogs out of
the house?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Okay, well, maybe got it?
Speaker 5 (04:41):
All right?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Question? Do you have a lease?
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Does it say anything about dogs?
Speaker 3 (04:48):
The lease says it they can only have one dog.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Oh, that's easy. They're on a breach of a lease.
So there's two ways you can go on this. You
can a victim on a couple of different ways. One,
they're breaching. They breach lease, that's simple, and that means
that they have a right to cure, which means they
have a right to fix that lease. And fixing that
lease means they have to get rid of five dogs,
which they're not.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Going to do.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, they're not going to do that unless they're of
that ilk where they cook the dogs and the barbecue,
and they probably aren't.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Very few people are.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
So the other basis for suing them is, uh, there
is a statutory basis. I don't know what city allows
six dogs in a facility?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
How big is the apartment house?
Speaker 3 (05:32):
That's that's what I will So.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah, it's easy to look up. It doesn't matter. You
got them on both. You got them on both.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
You have them on the law that says you can't
have more than X number of dogs.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I'm sure that six is too many. And the other
and the other one is breach of the lease. So
you're victim. You're gonna be fine. They breach the lease, and.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Not only that, they never pick up the dogs.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
That doesn't matter, that's their problem. They live with that. Yeah,
that's that's great. Just and you're not going to have
to pay relocation money if they breach the lease and
you tossed them out, So you know, get rid of
them and their dogs and enjoy yourself or let them
enjoy themselves.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Eva hi eva hi, yes ma'am hi.
Speaker 6 (06:18):
So I'm on disability, recovering from cancer, and California State
deposits my paycheck to Money Network banks. So in March
two of my payments were stolen. One of them they
approved as a fraud. Somebody withdraw it. The second one
sixty five hundred dollars. I'm fighting to get back. They
(06:40):
keep saying that I withdrew it, and they would not
give me any proof on that I've appealed. They denied
my appeal.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
I appealed the appeal.
Speaker 6 (06:51):
So I don't know what to do with this.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, I think you're gonna I think you're going to.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
And when you appeal that you appealed it within the bank, correct, Yes, Okay,
so you haven't gone to any authorities yet.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
It's all the.
Speaker 7 (07:05):
Did I did, right?
Speaker 6 (07:07):
I did file a police report.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
That's not that's not really no that that we're not
talking about the regulatory agencies. Uh. So the banks are
controlled by UH, state law and federal law, usually law,
the FDIC controls the banks, and there is probably and
I've never had that problem. So all I'm telling you
is what I know, which isn't much, is that there
(07:32):
probably is a complaint form with the fdi C as
to what they're doing. And you fd i C, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies that control the banking.
Does the FTC control I don't know, uh? And then
I know state regulations go. So you want to just
basically do a little research that is, look under regulations
(07:54):
regulate tours in banking, and then see whatever agencies have
anything to do with the banks, and then just ask
for complaint forms because that's all you got to do.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
To file a lawsuit for sixty five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
No lawyer is going to take it, and you're gonna
spend way way too much money and get out of
that bank obviously.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Oh good, good. So that's what you want to do.
Do a little bit of research, do what you can,
and yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Those are problems that I can't answer so much. You know,
it's so much easier when do you call and you go, hey,
you know someone killed my dog.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Do I have a case?
Speaker 5 (08:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yeah, you probably have a case. Somebody ran through my
front window.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
With their car. Do I have a case? Yeah? Probably?
Those are easy ones. This stuff is drives me nuts. Hey, Frank,
welcome to the show. What can I do for you?
Speaker 4 (08:47):
Thanks? Bill. I drive a major interstate here in Georgia
and Florida. It's Interstate seventy five, and there's a lot
of farm land on both sides of the highway, and
I have no skin in the game. I've just curious
some of the farmers. It appears like they've erected or
built these crudely built billboards, and it's usually a political sign,
(09:11):
or it might even be a political joke. And I
was just curious all these years that if you own
like a cornfield next to a major interstate, are you
free to just put up any kind of sign you want,
or are their ordinances or or well.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
The probably I probably ordinances. First of all, on your property,
you can put up whatever the hell sign you want. Now,
there may be ordinances and can't be limited.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
To political particularly political speech. Now are there ordinances? Sure,
one of them.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
May be the size of a billboard because they're going
to argue maybe a distraction. Maybe the size is too
big because it gets in the way, maybe it's gets
in the way of safety. But on your own property
you can pretty well do what you want to do,
and you can put up political signs.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
So you just live with it, you know, it's I mean,
jokes are fine. It just drives you crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
And when and they're usually political as opposed to we
sell berries here.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Well, those are really crude and alongside the highway, Like
I said, it's in both Georgia and Florida.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Yeah, and probably and probably they're illegal, but you know
who cares.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
You know, the authorities aren't going to deal with it.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
You got some poor guy who is selling berries by
the sidewalk and this is the way he feeds his family,
and the cops have a lot of other issues to
deal with. But they're probably illegal, but a sign probably
is legal.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Probably, Yes, that's what I thought. It just okay. It
had a president I won't say current or passed, and
he had a rocket launcher on his shoulder, and it had
a cutey political quote. Yeah, he's quite comical. But I
always wondered, wow, is that legal?
Speaker 2 (10:59):
But yeah, it is.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
I get what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, I know it is.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
It's legal for the most part unless there are restrictions
that restrict all signs for and it's hard to get
around First Amendment, but it can be done. Based on
what I said, John, Hello, John, welcome to handle on
the law.
Speaker 8 (11:19):
Good morning, sir, Yes, sir, okay, my wife and I
we're senior citizens. We've been employed by a property management
company managing the building for thirteen years. They turned around
and sold the building, didn't really give us one hundred
and twenty day notice. The new company led us to
believe that they would us continue working with us and
allowing us to manage since we've been there for thirteen years.
(11:41):
They turned around and they're threatening to have us removed.
They've also sent threatening text and we have copies of
all these things.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Okay, when you talk about threatening text, what kind of threats?
Speaker 8 (11:55):
They're saying that they're going to file a trespassing.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Their tresspassing even though you're there prior to any eviction
or prior to.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Any notice being given. That's interesting. Okay, where'd you get
one hundred and twenty day notice?
Speaker 8 (12:10):
By the way, I was looking researching and the LA
Department of Housing in different places. According to the information,
it seemed that the notice adequate notice because they're telling
us we want you out, and we're saying.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Now, I understand that clearly the owners want you out.
I get that.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
But where did you get that they have to give
you one hundred and twenty day notice?
Speaker 8 (12:33):
The information was on some website for the I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
But yeah, And the only reason I ask you because
I know there's sixty day notice. But there may be
an exception where someone is managing the property and rent is.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Part of it. Part of your pay.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
So I don't know about the one hundred and twenty
days relative to the sixty day notice, and it could
be longer.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
Than Now.
Speaker 8 (13:00):
Are we tenants?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Yeah, yes, you are tenants. Yeah, you are tenants.
Speaker 8 (13:05):
And we have a contract.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
U Well how long is the contract for.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
It's an at will contract.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Then you don't have a contract. Then you don't have
a contract.
Speaker 8 (13:13):
We we didn't receive any adequate notice.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Well, you have to receive sixty days and they're going
to have to evict you. And from my understand its
sixty days. But they can say, of course we want
you out, and you have to give me sixty days
and we want you out, We want you out, we
want you out, and effectively the first day they say
we want you out, that's notice.
Speaker 8 (13:35):
Even as senior citizens, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
They don't care. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
You don't get protection of senior citizens to stay in
to manage a property. No, well, we're paying rent, and
I understand they can what city are you in?
Speaker 8 (13:48):
Los Angeles?
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Okay, well then you got rent control. They can't just
throw you out. But there is also an issue of
you are in lieu of rent, you are managing, and
that's considered payment. So you've got a combination of the two,
but you're still considered tenants, and they can throw you
out as employees without notice at all.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
If it's looking as if the law looks at it.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
As an employment contract and if it's a straight tenancy,
depending on which way the law looks at it. And
I don't know, they just have to give you sixty
a notice and you're out on your ass. Now you
have no protection on this one unless you're in the
city of Los Angeles and you are a tenant, then
they can't throw you out. We are okay, Well, you
(14:31):
may not be. You may just be managers. And I
don't know the answer. And so you get to look
at the landlord tenancy. And the only question I have
is the one hundred and twenty day notice, which is
news to me. And the other issue is how are
you looked at tenant versus a paid employee?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
And again I don't know the answer to that one.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
How about that you call me and I give you
the answers, and you get to call I would call
the rent stabilization boards to the Los Angeles. Let me
tell you something I do know something about. And this
has to do with LifeLock. Now, some reports are calling
this one the mother of all data breaches. Recently, it
was reported that two point seven billion records were stolen
(15:13):
by cyber hackers from an entity known as National Public Data.
National Public Data is a company that provides background checks
to employers and other entities. And you have no idea
how big this company is. I mean, so many records
are stolen online. We are so vulnerable to our idy
on online identity. We have zero control over how it's
(15:35):
protected by companies like National Public Data. So how do
cybercrime work? How is identity theft affecting our lives? Let
me tell you a lot? So how do you protect yourself?
Let me suggest LifeLock. LifeLock monitors millions of data points
a second for risks.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Your online identity, alert you to potential.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Identity threats you may not even known are out there,
and when they do see something, they immediately get in
touch with you. And if you become a victim of
identity theft, a US based restoration specialist will fix it
and that's guaranteed or your money back terms apply. LifeLock,
say but to forty percent off your first year with
handle as your promo code LifeLock dot com. Promo code
(16:21):
handle call eight hundred LifeLock eight hundred LifeLock or LifeLock
dot com. Helena, Hello, Elena, Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Bill Sure.
Speaker 7 (16:36):
So in twenty twenty two, I purchased a condo in
an Hoa through attend to thirty one Exchange and.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
The HOA signed off.
Speaker 7 (16:44):
On the sale with no issues, and a couple of
weeks after ESTHRO closed, I was I received a letter
that stated that I needed to replace or paint the
window frames because they were the wrong color.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Okay, sent a letter and.
Speaker 7 (17:04):
I asked them to see if they had assessed any
fines to the previous owner who had passed away. This
was sold to a trust, and they sent me back
the same letter stating that I'd have to replace the.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Framekay, let me ask you they already so they've already
signed off on it when you bought, they said, okay,
and they didn't tell you the windows were the wrong cover.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
They did color, They did it after you closed.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Correct, that's correct?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
All right? So you can do one of two things.
Say no, thank you?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Painted? I mean, what is it going to cost you
to paint the window frames?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Well?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I don't.
Speaker 7 (17:42):
I just don't know how the paint is gonna hold
up on there. And and the other thing is, well,
hold on.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Wait wait wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. What
are the window frames made of? Would they're vinyl?
Speaker 8 (17:52):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (17:53):
And they're the wrong color, so you can't paint vinyl,
I don't think, because they have to replace those window frames. Okay,
you get to find out how much that costs, and
that probably is not inexpensive.
Speaker 7 (18:04):
Yeah, about twenty thousand. And the other thing is this
is an investment property. Why never have purchased it? I
already paid thirty thousand overasking, knowing that the HVAC was
going to need replacement.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Yeah, okay, you already know that you paid money. I mean,
that is all that is off the table. The other
the only issue is wrong color and you were never informed.
And when the HOA, if the HOA has to sign
off and agree to the purchase for whatever reason, and
(18:39):
they didn't tell you, and they did it two weeks afterwards,
you just say no, thank you. Now, let's get practical
for a moment. They're going to tell you to do it,
You're going to say no. They're going to hit you
with a violation. You're going to say no. They're going
to hit you with assessments. You're going to say no.
They're going to take you to court. Probably you're going
to say no. You're probably going to win. There's probably
a prevailing attorney's claw fees with the HOA agreement. I
(19:02):
mean that's I think you've got a good case. But
the problem is is that you still have to live there,
and you're dealing with an HOA that's going to hate you.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
So I don't live there. It's a rental, all right?
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Then you say, but you still own it, so that
doesn't matter. We're talking about an ongle issue with the HOA.
Speaker 7 (19:22):
Well, the rent wants to buy it, then sell it
and well but according to the HOA, now if I
sell it, I have to replace the windows.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Are you making money on it?
Speaker 3 (19:35):
Am? I? Am I making money on it now?
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Are you making a profit? You sell it now? If
you sell it now, are you making a profit?
Speaker 3 (19:45):
Probably?
Speaker 2 (19:48):
What does that mean?
Speaker 1 (19:49):
So if you don't know what to buy it, you haven't.
You haven't come up with a price yet.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
I haven't come up with a price.
Speaker 7 (19:56):
But I don't want to sell it right now because
it's in a ten to thirty one exchange and it's okay.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Then you don't sell it, So it's academic. You know,
you're saying the owner wants, you know, the render wants
to buy it. No, because you're not selling it. So
that argument doesn't work. So now the only issue is
the HOA says, change your windows.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
You say no, thank you. The HOA says you have to.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
They have a right to say your color has to
be the same as everybody else's.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Oh, by the way, is it the same.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
As everybody else's or is it way out of uh,
you know, way out of the normal colors of the
rest of the buildings.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
It's within it within their rules. It says they have
to be a neutral color. They're white.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
How about the other colors around the building.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
So right, there's one window next to us, and it's
a condo that is actually like a gold almond color.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
All right, So you're within you're basically within the parameter.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
So another reason you're saying is no, because you're discriminating
against me.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
This is neutral. So that one.
Speaker 7 (20:54):
Not only that they never assessed the owner who puts
them in ten years ago when they did the remodel.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
They never right, So.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
You've got a bunch of things, so there's probably an
arbitration clause there, Elena, and you file for arbitration and
you make those arguments and see what an arbitrator has
to say.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
That's all you can do and read.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
I'm sure there's an arbitration clause in your CCNRS.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
I get it. Oh, oh, here's one. Been there for
a while. Hey, Margie, welcome? Yes, yeah, Margie, yes, Hi.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
I'm calling you reference to someone rented some a space
for an RV on my property and they just basically
abandoned it.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
What can I do?
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (21:39):
What can you do? You do you have any address
for them? Can you hunt them.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
Down at all?
Speaker 7 (21:45):
Not?
Speaker 3 (21:45):
I'm not having any look yet.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Okay, So here's what you do.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
They've abandoned the property, and your duty is to find them,
first of all, and you have to make reasonable attempts
to find them.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You don't have to go crazy.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
It's not like you have to and thousands of dollars
with a p I uh looking for them, or you
hire someone that is a specialist in this.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
You don't have to.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
You just try to find you know, what address h
you write to, any previous address you write to neighbors
saying you know where they are, and then you can
publish you know, you know, any little newspaper looking for.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Just so you can.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Okay, So he tried, that's part of it. Okay, So
that's part of you looking for Okay. So that so
you now have tried looking for them. So now at
what point have they abandoned it? And you can do
whatever the hell you want with it.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
And the problem is he rents.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
For the space that he has any abandoned Okay?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Is this a rental park?
Speaker 3 (22:48):
No, no, no, it's just my I have a few
acres and.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
He's okay, and you rented you rented part of that
acreage to this guy who has an RV and he
just left.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Right right, Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
So here's the problem you're going to have as far
as getting the title to it is going to be
a real real problem because abandoning it and you have
to get rid of it.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
You're not gonna physically pick it up.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
You're gonna have some tow yard pick it up, and
towyards want to know who owns it, and.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
So you get you have to get titled to it.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
And this is where you work with the DMV and
you say this has been abandoned on my property.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
I want it towed out of here.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
I want to get title to this so a towyard
will be able to take it, and then you just
get you sell it for scrap or you can sell
it if it's in good shape, you just sell anybody
to buy it.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And you do the same thing with the DMV.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
No shape okay, then then a scrap okay, then it's
a piece of crap. Then all right, then all it
is is scrap metal, And but you have to get
titled to it.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So contact the DMV and saying for money for.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
No you have They're gone. No, I mean, where are
you gonna go if you can't reach him? What are
you gonna do spend money on?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
If I if I find him, can I still get
him on the back rent or.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yeah, yeah you can.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
But if you find him, then you can't toe it
off because it's his and so that's a whole different issue.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
So you're not going to find him, not based on
what you say.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Someone who abandons an r V is not going to
be out there and be found.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
Geo, Hi, Geo, good morning, Bill, Yes, sir, Yes, I
am calling concerning my pasty childhood over a sexual abuse?
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Who sexually abused you?
Speaker 5 (24:47):
Sadly?
Speaker 9 (24:48):
Priest?
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Priests?
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Well I've never heard that story before, all right, so
you uh yeah, I know. Unfortunately it happened to a
whole lot of people. Okay, So h what is your question?
Speaker 9 (25:04):
My question is number one is since it's unfold not
in California, but in another country.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Where Ethiopia, Ethiopia?
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Yes, sir, okay, So you want to know what recourse
you have against either the archdiocese or the Catholic Church
in general or the individual priest.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
How long ago did this happen?
Speaker 9 (25:29):
I was in my nine and I was born there.
It came perfect in my passport everything, Okay. Due to
the never ending civil war, Ethiopia has been always pretty
much like Palestina and israelso to say it never ending war.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Yeah, of course, of course. And I'm awhere that Okay.
How old are you now?
Speaker 9 (25:53):
I am now in my fifty nine.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Fifty nine okay, so this happened fifty years ago.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Okay, here's your problem. Okay, First of all, let's say
you have a lawsuit. There's no issue as to damages.
Of course, you were abused and in just a horrific situation.
Here are the people that you can sue. You can
sue the archdiocese, but that's in Ethiopia. Okay, good luck
suing the archdiocese in Ethiopia. Ethiopia for a priest that
(26:20):
molested you fifty years ago. You could sue the individual
priest who is probably long since dead and has no money.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Because he's a priest.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
You can try to sue the Catholic Church as an entity,
but each archdiocese is an entity onto itself.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
So when you talk about these.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Lawsuits for abuse that have been filed and have been
settled and have gone to trial where the jury and
or the judge has gone forward and nailed the archdiocese,
each one is different. There are a couple of arch
dioceses that have to go bankrupt. The arch dioceses had
to go bankrupt. The churches didn't because it the the
(27:06):
legal entity is your giocese.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
So unfortunately, GEO, there's no place to go. There is
no I'm sorry, there is no place to go. And
I know living with that is just horrific.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
We're just starting to understand how deeply dangerous and horrific
and the emotions that go with it how damaged people are.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
And you know, yeah, so I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Yeah, I was just an event last night as a
matter of fact, talking about this very topic. And that
is an organization that helps teams who have been abused
by uh these facilities, these centers that quote help teams
deal with their problems.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Good luck on that one. Let me see you, all right, Chris,
here you go, let's try you. Hey, Chris, welcome, Hey, good.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
More than dope. Okay, So years ago I bought shares
in the American Depository receipts traded on the you know,
on the New York Stack Exchange of a Russian company
called Luk Oile. You might see their stations on the
East coast. So anyway, so right now they're worth about
twenty one thousand dollars, and I missed out on about
(28:26):
four thousand dollars worth of dividends because and you know,
after the Russians invaded Ukraine, they ended up, you know,
the Biden administration put sanctions on Russia, and it made
my shares. You know, Americans could no longer trade Russian shares,
even though you know, I already you know, the Russians
(28:46):
already had the money, and they were paying me dividends,
so no cash was flowing to the Russians, nothing would
be helping them out. But needless to say, they put
the you know, the restrictions on the people who owned
these stacks, and then the other Russian stacks, and so
now the shares are basically worthless. I can't trade them.
So I'm wondering, what's my legal recourse.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yeah, you got an interesting one. Yeah, so what here
is the issue?
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Even if they're willing to pay, if under law, if
the president the Biden administration is allowed, which it is,
to put restrictions on trading and receiving dividends from a
Russian oil company that is considered part of trading, and
it's going to be a situation where I think it's
(29:34):
legal for your shares to effectively disappear in worth. For example,
let's say you have an Iranian company or an American
company doing business with Iran with a contract where money
is paid and goods are being shipped, and the government
stops it, cold stops it at the port, says nope,
(29:56):
well you're out your money because it's legal. You just
got caught up in it. The only hope you have
is that. Frankly, Trump gets elected. And if Trump gets
elected and uh, and Trump likes putin you know, Trump
likes Russia, the reinstate uh, the money flowing and reinstates
(30:17):
the ability for Russia in the United States to do business.
I don't think you have recourse at this point because
the government is able to sanction and you're you're basically
part of the sanction saying you're not allowed to do
business with Russian companies.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
It's that simple, right, So the money was flowing to.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Me, No, I understand, it doesn't matter. It's still doing business.
Does a matter which way the money goes?
Speaker 2 (30:44):
Is it still business?
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Well, then isn't it. Isn't that a legal seizure of
my property by the systemendment?
Speaker 6 (30:51):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
No, probably not, because if that was the case, no
sanction in the world would be effective none. Then the
whole concept, the fan of sanctions disappears.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
So it's not reasonable for me to ask, why wouldn't
they have done a nuance sanction because they didn't. Because
they didn't.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Yeah, but they didn't.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
I don't think they did.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, if you don't think they did, then you file
lawsuit about it against the federal government, which you can
and saying their policy, uh, in which you're out and
or out receiving the money is not under the sanctions,
and therefore you should receive the money and file a
lawsuit against the United States.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
And you're arguing it gets the Department of Justice. What
do you think that's going to cost?
Speaker 3 (31:41):
You could securities, class action, take up something.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
No one will do it. No one will file a
class action on your behalf on that one. You're on
your own.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
You're on your own government.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly it. You're because sanctions. You're screwed
by your own government. So it's every business doing business. Yeah,
that's it. Let's talk about bad breath for a moment.
You know, I suffer from bad breath. As a matter
of fact, I'm sitting here beside them behind the mic
(32:14):
and I actually see my breath affecting the metal of
the microphone. And so let me suggest what I can do.
And what I do do is Zelman's minty mouth mints.
These are the ones right here, and what they are
is a mint, at least a mint coding on the
outside of these capsules. And you take the mint off,
(32:34):
you suck them off, and then it goes down into
your gut, starts to work because so much bad breath
happens in your gut, and it just does what no
other mint does. That's Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints, and believe me,
I don't walk around without them. Zelman z e l
m i N s zelmans dot com. Use the code
K use the code handle at check out and get
(32:56):
fifteen percent off Zelman's Z l m i N s
zelmans dot com
The phone number here is eight hundred five two zero
one five three four.
Speaker 2 (00:04):
Eight hundred five two zero one five three four.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
This is handle on the law marginal legal advice where
I tell you you have no case. Ooh, let me
tell you about what happened this past week. And this
has to do with the Menendez brothers. Remember the two
brothers that ended up killing their parents, and they were
(00:28):
I think nineteen and twenty one, and they have to well,
they got life in prison without possibility of parole, Lyle
and Eric Menendez.
Speaker 2 (00:38):
And there were two trials.
Speaker 1 (00:39):
The first one was a hung jury because the trial
lasted for months and months, over one hundred witnesses, and
a lot of the trial happened to be involved with
the abuse that Eric underwent by his father, and he
described in very specific detail what his father did to him,
(01:01):
just total sexual abuse and humiliation, I mean brutal stuff.
And his brother knew all about it and couldn't do anything.
And there was evidence that was produced over and over again,
and the jury deadlocked. The jury couldn't come to a
conclusion because of all that evidence of abuse, particularly at
(01:21):
least that's what the experts say. So the judge gets
really pissed off. Judges do not like mistrials. They do
not like sitting on these very long, very complex trials.
And in the end the jury says we can't decide,
so a retry and a.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
Couple things happened.
Speaker 1 (01:43):
The judge doesn't allow a lot of this evidence regarding
the sexual abuse. And part of it was at that time,
when we're talking thirty five years ago, people didn't believe
that boys could get raped. There really wasn't sexual abuse
against boys. Well, obviously that's changed we now know very differently,
(02:06):
and so it was basically dead. There was no question
that it was going to be a conviction. The judge
effectively set it up. Also, the judge rule that there
were only two ways the jury could go first degree
murder or they walk.
Speaker 2 (02:25):
Well, considering the evidence that they admitted.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
Doing this, killing their parents and arguing we were frightened
for our lives. If manslaughter had been part of the
decision that a jury could make, maybe they would have
gone for manslaughter.
Speaker 2 (02:39):
They admitted killing their.
Speaker 1 (02:40):
Parents and they were lying in wait, I mean, it
hits all the elements of first degree murder except the
emotional destruction of their psyche because of the physical abuse,
the emotional abuse, the hitting, the sexual abuse. So they
were convicted, they got life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
(03:02):
So here we are thirty five years later, and a
letter that a judge would not introduce the judge was.
Speaker 2 (03:12):
Basically brought forward.
Speaker 1 (03:14):
This is because there's been a Netflix documentary and a
docu drama and has brought this to the forefront. This
letter and this testimony from a friend of theirs were
six months before Eric talked about the abuse of his
father and he was frightened for his life. That changes everything,
and that could have really changed the course of the trial.
(03:36):
And so the DA in Los Angeles, George Gascon, who
is going to be tossed out because he's so way liberal,
he has decided to ask the judge to re sentence
the boys, in other words, effectively go back to manslaughter,
which means they're out because they have done thirty five years.
The problem is the judge has to say yes to that,
(03:57):
the parole board has to say yes to that, and
the governor has to agree to that, and any one
of those three can stop it cold. I'll tell you
what I think is going to happen. I think they're
going to be released as they should be, by the way,
because this kind of sexual abuse and this kind of
(04:18):
exploitation is so rampant.
Speaker 2 (04:21):
All right, let's do it. You got some fun phone calls? Mike, Hello, Mike, welcome.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
Thank you Bill.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
Yes, I have a question. I have a tenant with
six dogs in the house.
Speaker 4 (04:35):
Why can I do to get them dogs out of
the house?
Speaker 2 (04:38):
Okay, well, maybe got it?
Speaker 5 (04:41):
All right?
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Question? Do you have a lease?
Speaker 3 (04:45):
Yes?
Speaker 2 (04:45):
Does it say anything about dogs?
Speaker 3 (04:48):
The lease says it they can only have one dog.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Oh, that's easy. They're on a breach of a lease.
So there's two ways you can go on this. You
can a victim on a couple of different ways. One,
they're breaching. They breach lease, that's simple, and that means
that they have a right to cure, which means they
have a right to fix that lease. And fixing that
lease means they have to get rid of five dogs,
which they're not.
Speaker 2 (05:11):
Going to do.
Speaker 1 (05:12):
Yeah, they're not going to do that unless they're of
that ilk where they cook the dogs and the barbecue,
and they probably aren't.
Speaker 2 (05:17):
Very few people are.
Speaker 1 (05:18):
So the other basis for suing them is, uh, there
is a statutory basis. I don't know what city allows
six dogs in a facility?
Speaker 2 (05:30):
How big is the apartment house?
Speaker 3 (05:32):
That's that's what I will So.
Speaker 2 (05:34):
Yeah, it's easy to look up. It doesn't matter. You
got them on both. You got them on both.
Speaker 1 (05:39):
You have them on the law that says you can't
have more than X number of dogs.
Speaker 2 (05:43):
I'm sure that six is too many. And the other
and the other one is breach of the lease. So
you're victim. You're gonna be fine. They breach the lease, and.
Speaker 4 (05:54):
Not only that, they never pick up the dogs.
Speaker 1 (05:57):
That doesn't matter, that's their problem. They live with that. Yeah,
that's that's great. Just and you're not going to have
to pay relocation money if they breach the lease and
you tossed them out, So you know, get rid of
them and their dogs and enjoy yourself or let them
enjoy themselves.
Speaker 2 (06:14):
Eva hi eva hi, yes ma'am hi.
Speaker 6 (06:18):
So I'm on disability, recovering from cancer, and California State
deposits my paycheck to Money Network banks. So in March
two of my payments were stolen. One of them they
approved as a fraud. Somebody withdraw it. The second one
sixty five hundred dollars. I'm fighting to get back. They
(06:40):
keep saying that I withdrew it, and they would not
give me any proof on that I've appealed. They denied
my appeal.
Speaker 3 (06:50):
I appealed the appeal.
Speaker 6 (06:51):
So I don't know what to do with this.
Speaker 2 (06:53):
Yeah, I think you're gonna I think you're going to.
Speaker 1 (06:57):
And when you appeal that you appealed it within the bank, correct, Yes, Okay,
so you haven't gone to any authorities yet.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
It's all the.
Speaker 7 (07:05):
Did I did, right?
Speaker 6 (07:07):
I did file a police report.
Speaker 1 (07:09):
That's not that's not really no that that we're not
talking about the regulatory agencies. Uh. So the banks are
controlled by UH, state law and federal law, usually law,
the FDIC controls the banks, and there is probably and
I've never had that problem. So all I'm telling you
is what I know, which isn't much, is that there
(07:32):
probably is a complaint form with the fdi C as
to what they're doing. And you fd i C, Federal
Deposit Insurance Corporation and other agencies that control the banking.
Does the FTC control I don't know, uh? And then
I know state regulations go. So you want to just
basically do a little research that is, look under regulations
(07:54):
regulate tours in banking, and then see whatever agencies have
anything to do with the banks, and then just ask
for complaint forms because that's all you got to do.
Speaker 2 (08:04):
To file a lawsuit for sixty five hundred dollars.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
No lawyer is going to take it, and you're gonna
spend way way too much money and get out of
that bank obviously.
Speaker 2 (08:14):
Oh good, good. So that's what you want to do.
Do a little bit of research, do what you can,
and yeah.
Speaker 1 (08:21):
Those are problems that I can't answer so much. You know,
it's so much easier when do you call and you go, hey,
you know someone killed my dog.
Speaker 2 (08:31):
Do I have a case?
Speaker 5 (08:31):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (08:32):
Yeah, you probably have a case. Somebody ran through my
front window.
Speaker 2 (08:37):
With their car. Do I have a case? Yeah? Probably?
Those are easy ones. This stuff is drives me nuts. Hey, Frank,
welcome to the show. What can I do for you?
Speaker 4 (08:47):
Thanks? Bill. I drive a major interstate here in Georgia
and Florida. It's Interstate seventy five, and there's a lot
of farm land on both sides of the highway, and
I have no skin in the game. I've just curious
some of the farmers. It appears like they've erected or
built these crudely built billboards, and it's usually a political sign,
(09:11):
or it might even be a political joke. And I
was just curious all these years that if you own
like a cornfield next to a major interstate, are you
free to just put up any kind of sign you want,
or are their ordinances or or well.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
The probably I probably ordinances. First of all, on your property,
you can put up whatever the hell sign you want. Now,
there may be ordinances and can't be limited.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
To political particularly political speech. Now are there ordinances? Sure,
one of them.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
May be the size of a billboard because they're going
to argue maybe a distraction. Maybe the size is too
big because it gets in the way, maybe it's gets
in the way of safety. But on your own property
you can pretty well do what you want to do,
and you can put up political signs.
Speaker 2 (10:02):
So you just live with it, you know, it's I mean,
jokes are fine. It just drives you crazy.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
And when and they're usually political as opposed to we
sell berries here.
Speaker 2 (10:13):
Kind of thing.
Speaker 4 (10:15):
Well, those are really crude and alongside the highway, Like
I said, it's in both Georgia and Florida.
Speaker 1 (10:21):
Yeah, and probably and probably they're illegal, but you know
who cares.
Speaker 2 (10:25):
You know, the authorities aren't going to deal with it.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
You got some poor guy who is selling berries by
the sidewalk and this is the way he feeds his family,
and the cops have a lot of other issues to
deal with. But they're probably illegal, but a sign probably
is legal.
Speaker 4 (10:40):
Probably, Yes, that's what I thought. It just okay. It
had a president I won't say current or passed, and
he had a rocket launcher on his shoulder, and it had
a cutey political quote. Yeah, he's quite comical. But I
always wondered, wow, is that legal?
Speaker 2 (10:59):
But yeah, it is.
Speaker 4 (11:00):
I get what you're saying.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
Yeah, I know it is.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
It's legal for the most part unless there are restrictions
that restrict all signs for and it's hard to get
around First Amendment, but it can be done. Based on
what I said, John, Hello, John, welcome to handle on
the law.
Speaker 8 (11:19):
Good morning, sir, Yes, sir, okay, my wife and I
we're senior citizens. We've been employed by a property management
company managing the building for thirteen years. They turned around
and sold the building, didn't really give us one hundred
and twenty day notice. The new company led us to
believe that they would us continue working with us and
allowing us to manage since we've been there for thirteen years.
(11:41):
They turned around and they're threatening to have us removed.
They've also sent threatening text and we have copies of
all these things.
Speaker 1 (11:50):
Okay, when you talk about threatening text, what kind of threats?
Speaker 8 (11:55):
They're saying that they're going to file a trespassing.
Speaker 1 (11:58):
Their tresspassing even though you're there prior to any eviction
or prior to.
Speaker 2 (12:04):
Any notice being given. That's interesting. Okay, where'd you get
one hundred and twenty day notice?
Speaker 8 (12:10):
By the way, I was looking researching and the LA
Department of Housing in different places. According to the information,
it seemed that the notice adequate notice because they're telling
us we want you out, and we're saying.
Speaker 2 (12:25):
Now, I understand that clearly the owners want you out.
I get that.
Speaker 1 (12:28):
But where did you get that they have to give
you one hundred and twenty day notice?
Speaker 8 (12:33):
The information was on some website for the I'm not sure.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
But yeah, And the only reason I ask you because
I know there's sixty day notice. But there may be
an exception where someone is managing the property and rent is.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
Part of it. Part of your pay.
Speaker 1 (12:51):
So I don't know about the one hundred and twenty
days relative to the sixty day notice, and it could
be longer.
Speaker 4 (12:57):
Than Now.
Speaker 8 (13:00):
Are we tenants?
Speaker 2 (13:01):
Yeah, yes, you are tenants. Yeah, you are tenants.
Speaker 8 (13:05):
And we have a contract.
Speaker 4 (13:06):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:06):
U Well how long is the contract for.
Speaker 8 (13:09):
It's an at will contract.
Speaker 2 (13:10):
Then you don't have a contract. Then you don't have
a contract.
Speaker 8 (13:13):
We we didn't receive any adequate notice.
Speaker 1 (13:16):
Well, you have to receive sixty days and they're going
to have to evict you. And from my understand its
sixty days. But they can say, of course we want
you out, and you have to give me sixty days
and we want you out, We want you out, we
want you out, and effectively the first day they say
we want you out, that's notice.
Speaker 8 (13:35):
Even as senior citizens, Yeah.
Speaker 2 (13:37):
They don't care. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1 (13:39):
You don't get protection of senior citizens to stay in
to manage a property. No, well, we're paying rent, and
I understand they can what city are you in?
Speaker 8 (13:48):
Los Angeles?
Speaker 1 (13:49):
Okay, well then you got rent control. They can't just
throw you out. But there is also an issue of
you are in lieu of rent, you are managing, and
that's considered payment. So you've got a combination of the two,
but you're still considered tenants, and they can throw you
out as employees without notice at all.
Speaker 2 (14:07):
If it's looking as if the law looks at it.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
As an employment contract and if it's a straight tenancy,
depending on which way the law looks at it. And
I don't know, they just have to give you sixty
a notice and you're out on your ass. Now you
have no protection on this one unless you're in the
city of Los Angeles and you are a tenant, then
they can't throw you out. We are okay, Well, you
(14:31):
may not be. You may just be managers. And I
don't know the answer. And so you get to look
at the landlord tenancy. And the only question I have
is the one hundred and twenty day notice, which is
news to me. And the other issue is how are
you looked at tenant versus a paid employee?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
And again I don't know the answer to that one.
Speaker 1 (14:50):
How about that you call me and I give you
the answers, and you get to call I would call
the rent stabilization boards to the Los Angeles. Let me
tell you something I do know something about. And this
has to do with LifeLock. Now, some reports are calling
this one the mother of all data breaches. Recently, it
was reported that two point seven billion records were stolen
(15:13):
by cyber hackers from an entity known as National Public Data.
National Public Data is a company that provides background checks
to employers and other entities. And you have no idea
how big this company is. I mean, so many records
are stolen online. We are so vulnerable to our idy
on online identity. We have zero control over how it's
(15:35):
protected by companies like National Public Data. So how do
cybercrime work? How is identity theft affecting our lives? Let
me tell you a lot? So how do you protect yourself?
Let me suggest LifeLock. LifeLock monitors millions of data points
a second for risks.
Speaker 2 (15:54):
Your online identity, alert you to potential.
Speaker 1 (15:57):
Identity threats you may not even known are out there,
and when they do see something, they immediately get in
touch with you. And if you become a victim of
identity theft, a US based restoration specialist will fix it
and that's guaranteed or your money back terms apply. LifeLock,
say but to forty percent off your first year with
handle as your promo code LifeLock dot com. Promo code
(16:21):
handle call eight hundred LifeLock eight hundred LifeLock or LifeLock
dot com. Helena, Hello, Elena, Hey, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 3 (16:33):
Bill Sure.
Speaker 7 (16:36):
So in twenty twenty two, I purchased a condo in
an Hoa through attend to thirty one Exchange and.
Speaker 3 (16:43):
The HOA signed off.
Speaker 7 (16:44):
On the sale with no issues, and a couple of
weeks after ESTHRO closed, I was I received a letter
that stated that I needed to replace or paint the
window frames because they were the wrong color.
Speaker 3 (17:02):
Okay, sent a letter and.
Speaker 7 (17:04):
I asked them to see if they had assessed any
fines to the previous owner who had passed away. This
was sold to a trust, and they sent me back
the same letter stating that I'd have to replace the.
Speaker 1 (17:16):
Framekay, let me ask you they already so they've already
signed off on it when you bought, they said, okay,
and they didn't tell you the windows were the wrong cover.
Speaker 2 (17:24):
They did color, They did it after you closed.
Speaker 3 (17:26):
Correct, that's correct?
Speaker 2 (17:28):
All right? So you can do one of two things.
Say no, thank you?
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Uh?
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Painted? I mean, what is it going to cost you
to paint the window frames?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Well?
Speaker 3 (17:40):
I don't.
Speaker 7 (17:42):
I just don't know how the paint is gonna hold
up on there. And and the other thing is, well,
hold on.
Speaker 2 (17:47):
Wait wait wait, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. What
are the window frames made of? Would they're vinyl?
Speaker 8 (17:52):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (17:53):
And they're the wrong color, so you can't paint vinyl,
I don't think, because they have to replace those window frames. Okay,
you get to find out how much that costs, and
that probably is not inexpensive.
Speaker 7 (18:04):
Yeah, about twenty thousand. And the other thing is this
is an investment property. Why never have purchased it? I
already paid thirty thousand overasking, knowing that the HVAC was
going to need replacement.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Yeah, okay, you already know that you paid money. I mean,
that is all that is off the table. The other
the only issue is wrong color and you were never informed.
And when the HOA, if the HOA has to sign
off and agree to the purchase for whatever reason, and
(18:39):
they didn't tell you, and they did it two weeks afterwards,
you just say no, thank you. Now, let's get practical
for a moment. They're going to tell you to do it,
You're going to say no. They're going to hit you
with a violation. You're going to say no. They're going
to hit you with assessments. You're going to say no.
They're going to take you to court. Probably you're going
to say no. You're probably going to win. There's probably
a prevailing attorney's claw fees with the HOA agreement. I
(19:02):
mean that's I think you've got a good case. But
the problem is is that you still have to live there,
and you're dealing with an HOA that's going to hate you.
Speaker 3 (19:13):
So I don't live there. It's a rental, all right?
Speaker 1 (19:16):
Then you say, but you still own it, so that
doesn't matter. We're talking about an ongle issue with the HOA.
Speaker 7 (19:22):
Well, the rent wants to buy it, then sell it
and well but according to the HOA, now if I
sell it, I have to replace the windows.
Speaker 1 (19:32):
Are you making money on it?
Speaker 3 (19:35):
Am? I? Am I making money on it now?
Speaker 1 (19:38):
Are you making a profit? You sell it now? If
you sell it now, are you making a profit?
Speaker 3 (19:45):
Probably?
Speaker 2 (19:48):
What does that mean?
Speaker 1 (19:49):
So if you don't know what to buy it, you haven't.
You haven't come up with a price yet.
Speaker 3 (19:54):
I haven't come up with a price.
Speaker 7 (19:56):
But I don't want to sell it right now because
it's in a ten to thirty one exchange and it's okay.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
Then you don't sell it, So it's academic. You know,
you're saying the owner wants, you know, the render wants
to buy it. No, because you're not selling it. So
that argument doesn't work. So now the only issue is
the HOA says, change your windows.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
You say no, thank you. The HOA says you have to.
Speaker 1 (20:16):
They have a right to say your color has to
be the same as everybody else's.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
Oh, by the way, is it the same.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
As everybody else's or is it way out of uh,
you know, way out of the normal colors of the
rest of the buildings.
Speaker 3 (20:29):
It's within it within their rules. It says they have
to be a neutral color. They're white.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
How about the other colors around the building.
Speaker 7 (20:39):
So right, there's one window next to us, and it's
a condo that is actually like a gold almond color.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
All right, So you're within you're basically within the parameter.
Speaker 1 (20:48):
So another reason you're saying is no, because you're discriminating
against me.
Speaker 2 (20:52):
This is neutral. So that one.
Speaker 7 (20:54):
Not only that they never assessed the owner who puts
them in ten years ago when they did the remodel.
Speaker 3 (21:00):
They never right, So.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
You've got a bunch of things, so there's probably an
arbitration clause there, Elena, and you file for arbitration and
you make those arguments and see what an arbitrator has
to say.
Speaker 2 (21:11):
That's all you can do and read.
Speaker 1 (21:13):
I'm sure there's an arbitration clause in your CCNRS.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
I get it. Oh, oh, here's one. Been there for
a while. Hey, Margie, welcome? Yes, yeah, Margie, yes, Hi.
Speaker 3 (21:28):
I'm calling you reference to someone rented some a space
for an RV on my property and they just basically
abandoned it.
Speaker 2 (21:37):
What can I do?
Speaker 4 (21:39):
Oh?
Speaker 2 (21:39):
What can you do? You do you have any address
for them? Can you hunt them.
Speaker 5 (21:43):
Down at all?
Speaker 7 (21:45):
Not?
Speaker 3 (21:45):
I'm not having any look yet.
Speaker 2 (21:47):
Okay, So here's what you do.
Speaker 1 (21:49):
They've abandoned the property, and your duty is to find them,
first of all, and you have to make reasonable attempts
to find them.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
You don't have to go crazy.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
It's not like you have to and thousands of dollars
with a p I uh looking for them, or you
hire someone that is a specialist in this.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
You don't have to.
Speaker 1 (22:08):
You just try to find you know, what address h
you write to, any previous address you write to neighbors
saying you know where they are, and then you can
publish you know, you know, any little newspaper looking for.
Speaker 2 (22:22):
Just so you can.
Speaker 1 (22:24):
Okay, So he tried, that's part of it. Okay, So
that's part of you looking for Okay. So that so
you now have tried looking for them. So now at
what point have they abandoned it? And you can do
whatever the hell you want with it.
Speaker 2 (22:38):
And the problem is he rents.
Speaker 3 (22:41):
For the space that he has any abandoned Okay?
Speaker 2 (22:44):
Is this a rental park?
Speaker 3 (22:48):
No, no, no, it's just my I have a few
acres and.
Speaker 1 (22:51):
He's okay, and you rented you rented part of that
acreage to this guy who has an RV and he
just left.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Right right, Okay.
Speaker 1 (22:59):
So here's the problem you're going to have as far
as getting the title to it is going to be
a real real problem because abandoning it and you have
to get rid of it.
Speaker 2 (23:12):
You're not gonna physically pick it up.
Speaker 1 (23:13):
You're gonna have some tow yard pick it up, and
towyards want to know who owns it, and.
Speaker 2 (23:20):
So you get you have to get titled to it.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
And this is where you work with the DMV and
you say this has been abandoned on my property.
Speaker 2 (23:29):
I want it towed out of here.
Speaker 1 (23:31):
I want to get title to this so a towyard
will be able to take it, and then you just
get you sell it for scrap or you can sell
it if it's in good shape, you just sell anybody
to buy it.
Speaker 2 (23:42):
And you do the same thing with the DMV.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
No shape okay, then then a scrap okay, then it's
a piece of crap. Then all right, then all it
is is scrap metal, And but you have to get
titled to it.
Speaker 2 (23:54):
So contact the DMV and saying for money for.
Speaker 1 (23:59):
No you have They're gone. No, I mean, where are
you gonna go if you can't reach him? What are
you gonna do spend money on?
Speaker 3 (24:06):
If I if I find him, can I still get
him on the back rent or.
Speaker 2 (24:10):
Yeah, yeah you can.
Speaker 1 (24:11):
But if you find him, then you can't toe it
off because it's his and so that's a whole different issue.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
So you're not going to find him, not based on
what you say.
Speaker 1 (24:23):
Someone who abandons an r V is not going to
be out there and be found.
Speaker 5 (24:28):
Geo, Hi, Geo, good morning, Bill, Yes, sir, Yes, I
am calling concerning my pasty childhood over a sexual abuse?
Speaker 2 (24:44):
Who sexually abused you?
Speaker 5 (24:47):
Sadly?
Speaker 9 (24:48):
Priest?
Speaker 2 (24:49):
Priests?
Speaker 1 (24:50):
Well I've never heard that story before, all right, so
you uh yeah, I know. Unfortunately it happened to a
whole lot of people. Okay, So h what is your question?
Speaker 9 (25:04):
My question is number one is since it's unfold not
in California, but in another country.
Speaker 2 (25:09):
Where Ethiopia, Ethiopia?
Speaker 1 (25:14):
Yes, sir, okay, So you want to know what recourse
you have against either the archdiocese or the Catholic Church
in general or the individual priest.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
How long ago did this happen?
Speaker 9 (25:29):
I was in my nine and I was born there.
It came perfect in my passport everything, Okay. Due to
the never ending civil war, Ethiopia has been always pretty
much like Palestina and israelso to say it never ending war.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Yeah, of course, of course. And I'm awhere that Okay.
How old are you now?
Speaker 9 (25:53):
I am now in my fifty nine.
Speaker 2 (25:55):
Fifty nine okay, so this happened fifty years ago.
Speaker 1 (25:58):
Okay, here's your problem. Okay, First of all, let's say
you have a lawsuit. There's no issue as to damages.
Of course, you were abused and in just a horrific situation.
Here are the people that you can sue. You can
sue the archdiocese, but that's in Ethiopia. Okay, good luck
suing the archdiocese in Ethiopia. Ethiopia for a priest that
(26:20):
molested you fifty years ago. You could sue the individual
priest who is probably long since dead and has no money.
Speaker 2 (26:28):
Because he's a priest.
Speaker 1 (26:30):
You can try to sue the Catholic Church as an entity,
but each archdiocese is an entity onto itself.
Speaker 2 (26:39):
So when you talk about these.
Speaker 1 (26:41):
Lawsuits for abuse that have been filed and have been
settled and have gone to trial where the jury and
or the judge has gone forward and nailed the archdiocese,
each one is different. There are a couple of arch
dioceses that have to go bankrupt. The arch dioceses had
to go bankrupt. The churches didn't because it the the
(27:06):
legal entity is your giocese.
Speaker 2 (27:07):
So unfortunately, GEO, there's no place to go. There is
no I'm sorry, there is no place to go. And
I know living with that is just horrific.
Speaker 1 (27:17):
We're just starting to understand how deeply dangerous and horrific
and the emotions that go with it how damaged people are.
Speaker 2 (27:29):
And you know, yeah, so I'm sorry about that.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
Yeah, I was just an event last night as a
matter of fact, talking about this very topic. And that
is an organization that helps teams who have been abused
by uh these facilities, these centers that quote help teams
deal with their problems.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Good luck on that one. Let me see you, all right, Chris,
here you go, let's try you. Hey, Chris, welcome, Hey, good.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
More than dope. Okay, So years ago I bought shares
in the American Depository receipts traded on the you know,
on the New York Stack Exchange of a Russian company
called Luk Oile. You might see their stations on the
East coast. So anyway, so right now they're worth about
twenty one thousand dollars, and I missed out on about
(28:26):
four thousand dollars worth of dividends because and you know,
after the Russians invaded Ukraine, they ended up, you know,
the Biden administration put sanctions on Russia, and it made
my shares. You know, Americans could no longer trade Russian shares,
even though you know, I already you know, the Russians
(28:46):
already had the money, and they were paying me dividends,
so no cash was flowing to the Russians, nothing would
be helping them out. But needless to say, they put
the you know, the restrictions on the people who owned
these stacks, and then the other Russian stacks, and so
now the shares are basically worthless. I can't trade them.
So I'm wondering, what's my legal recourse.
Speaker 2 (29:05):
Yeah, you got an interesting one. Yeah, so what here
is the issue?
Speaker 1 (29:11):
Even if they're willing to pay, if under law, if
the president the Biden administration is allowed, which it is,
to put restrictions on trading and receiving dividends from a
Russian oil company that is considered part of trading, and
it's going to be a situation where I think it's
(29:34):
legal for your shares to effectively disappear in worth. For example,
let's say you have an Iranian company or an American
company doing business with Iran with a contract where money
is paid and goods are being shipped, and the government
stops it, cold stops it at the port, says nope,
(29:56):
well you're out your money because it's legal. You just
got caught up in it. The only hope you have
is that. Frankly, Trump gets elected. And if Trump gets
elected and uh, and Trump likes putin you know, Trump
likes Russia, the reinstate uh, the money flowing and reinstates
(30:17):
the ability for Russia in the United States to do business.
I don't think you have recourse at this point because
the government is able to sanction and you're you're basically
part of the sanction saying you're not allowed to do
business with Russian companies.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
It's that simple, right, So the money was flowing to.
Speaker 1 (30:37):
Me, No, I understand, it doesn't matter. It's still doing business.
Does a matter which way the money goes?
Speaker 2 (30:44):
Is it still business?
Speaker 3 (30:46):
Well, then isn't it. Isn't that a legal seizure of
my property by the systemendment?
Speaker 6 (30:51):
Uh?
Speaker 1 (30:51):
No, probably not, because if that was the case, no
sanction in the world would be effective none. Then the
whole concept, the fan of sanctions disappears.
Speaker 3 (31:03):
So it's not reasonable for me to ask, why wouldn't
they have done a nuance sanction because they didn't. Because
they didn't.
Speaker 2 (31:12):
Yeah, but they didn't.
Speaker 3 (31:12):
I don't think they did.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Well, if you don't think they did, then you file
lawsuit about it against the federal government, which you can
and saying their policy, uh, in which you're out and
or out receiving the money is not under the sanctions,
and therefore you should receive the money and file a
lawsuit against the United States.
Speaker 2 (31:36):
And you're arguing it gets the Department of Justice. What
do you think that's going to cost?
Speaker 3 (31:41):
You could securities, class action, take up something.
Speaker 2 (31:45):
No one will do it. No one will file a
class action on your behalf on that one. You're on
your own.
Speaker 3 (31:51):
You're on your own government.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
Yeah, yeah, that's exactly it. You're because sanctions. You're screwed
by your own government. So it's every business doing business. Yeah,
that's it. Let's talk about bad breath for a moment.
You know, I suffer from bad breath. As a matter
of fact, I'm sitting here beside them behind the mic
(32:14):
and I actually see my breath affecting the metal of
the microphone. And so let me suggest what I can do.
And what I do do is Zelman's minty mouth mints.
These are the ones right here, and what they are
is a mint, at least a mint coding on the
outside of these capsules. And you take the mint off,
(32:34):
you suck them off, and then it goes down into
your gut, starts to work because so much bad breath
happens in your gut, and it just does what no
other mint does. That's Zelman's Minty Mouth Mints, and believe me,
I don't walk around without them. Zelman z e l
m i N s zelmans dot com. Use the code
K use the code handle at check out and get
(32:56):
fifteen percent off Zelman's Z l m i N s
zelmans dot com
Popular Podcasts
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.
Monster: BTK
'Monster: BTK', the newest installment in the 'Monster' franchise, reveals the true story of the Wichita, Kansas serial killer who murdered at least 10 people between 1974 and 1991. Known by the moniker, BTK – Bind Torture Kill, his notoriety was bolstered by the taunting letters he sent to police, and the chilling phone calls he made to media outlets. BTK's identity was finally revealed in 2005 to the shock of his family, his community, and the world. He was the serial killer next door. From Tenderfoot TV & iHeartPodcasts, this is 'Monster: BTK'.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.