Speaker A: Alright.

Speaker B: It is 720 22 July 2022. For those who have kids, you realize that the summer is waning, schools about to start, life, uh, is about to go back to its normal routine. I always look at summer as sort of abnormal, but anyway, what isn't abnormal is the fact that it is Wednesday and it is a blitz Wednesday. And I momentarily here will be interfacing with Lopez and Randy over at 99 Seven to answer legal questions, give my thoughts on life, and hopefully provide some good listener benefit out there to the ether. Uh, it has been, uh, a decade or so of doing this, and those who followed my podcast and I have Lawyer Talk Podcast.com where I do something similar. I take answers and I know I say it every week. I promise, I promise, I promise I will get to a couple of questions that have been in the tank for a while. I, uh, planned on getting down here early today to do it and it just didn't happen. Uh, it turns out I do have another life that's upstairs in the law practice and I got to put food on the table. Unless, of course, you want to become a patreon and subsidize my podcast. I'll call it a habit. Uh, and that's easy. Just go to Lawyertalkpodcast.com and you'll see how you can do it. Uh, short of that, just keep tuning in. I don't mind. And it looks like, in fact, keep tuning in right now because it looks like the blitz is here and ready to rock and roll. Here we go.

Speaker A: All right. Steve Palmer is here to give us legal advice. Steve, how are you doing?

Speaker B: I'm doing great. How are you guys doing over there?

Speaker A: We're doing okay. Hey, uh, I got a question for you. So, Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck got married, and rumor has it that they didn't get a prenup. Now, we all on the show have speculated why and why not. Uh, but what do you think, man? What is the advantage of not getting a prenup when you're that rich?

Speaker B: Yeah, I don't know if there's an advantage or a disadvantage. As a rule, I think each individual circumstance will be different. So, generally speaking, when we talk about prenups or prenuptial agreement, or anti nuptial agreement, as we might call it in Ohio, really, uh, what you're talking about is defining what is premarital and what is not. And it very well could be that both of them have similar assets going into the marriage.

Speaker C: I can tell you she has 400 million, uh, and he has 100 million.

Speaker B: All right, so it benefits him, definitely, I suppose, not, uh, to have the innuptial agreement. So, I don't know, I'd be curious to, uh, understand why or what the decision making process was or what they were relying on. But what you do with a prenup is you define what's yours before. So there's no question now, you don't have to have a pre up to do that, though. So say I come into a marriage and I have a separate account that has a million dollars in it, and I never touch that account. It stays separate throughout the entirety of my marriage, and then I go get divorced. I can go into court and say, look, this is a separate premarital account. I can prove it because I've never touched it.

Speaker C: But you have to fight it in court. Otherwise, you could just have laid it all out, right?

Speaker B: Maybe it's not that difficult. So fighting in court isn't that difficult if I have the evidence now, if it gets trickier when I have things like business interests or, uh, things that aren't necessarily premarital assets that you want to still protect even though they're going to be commingled during the marriage, then you get into the individual states and what the rules are and how that is enforceable. So there's a lot of moving parts to it, generally, though, uh, a lot of times, I think these are emotional decisions where the couple just says, look, we trust each other. This is forever, even though every other marriage in Hollywood is not.

Speaker C: That's what JLo she did say that.

Speaker B: Yeah. She said this is forever.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: Yeah. Well, I mean, it wasn't forever the first time they were engaged, so hopefully it is this time.

Speaker C: All right.

Speaker A: Yeah. She's been around the block. That Jenny.

Speaker B: Yes. Jenny from the block.

Speaker A: That's right. All right, so, Steve, we have some questions here at 9009 700 that we're going to hop right into the text.

Speaker C: That's from Chat. I have a question for Steve or when he comes in. Sorry, I'm at work, and this is hold on. Steve wrote a lot, and then someone else just wrote, did you see that thing just come in? I'm sorry, guys. The text is going crazy. All right, I'm at work, and this is my break question. Reading the hero that stopped the shooting at the mall, Indiana. Since it seems like prosecutors will file charges on anything these days and turn someone's world upside down, what are the chances of this hero having, uh, charges filed against him for having a firearm in the area that's posted with the typical signs that say you can't have a firearm in that area, like inside the mall?

Speaker B: Yeah, that could happen, I guess, um, if, uh, it's a fact that he had a firearm in an area where he wasn't allowed to have a firearm, well, theoretically, there's some sort of violation there. I'd have to read their local law to see how that works. And I did see some commentators say something about, well, nobody told him he couldn't go in with a gun. I don't know if it was posted correctly or who knows what the local variant is of their law, but, uh, the chances who knows? It may be up to the political agenda of the local prosecutor or the pressure that the local prosecutor gets. It, um, wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutor exercise discretion not to charge this guy with committing that administer we'll call it a technical violation. Um, but, uh, I think on the bigger picture, it goes to show you that at, uh, least the bad guy who was there to kill people didn't follow the rules, and he had his gun there, no matter what.

Speaker A: Yeah. So does that include meeting force with force? Would that fall under that umbrella?

Speaker B: Well, you would wonder if the regulatory violation of having a gun at the mall or the shopping center when you're not allowed to, if self defense is a defense or defense of others, would be a defense against that regulatory crime. I'm, um, defending a crime right now where there was a shooting on a road, and my client had to use deadly force with a firearm. And the issue there is going to be it's, uh, a crime actually, to fire a gun on the road. And the issue there is whether the use of force or use of self defense is going to be a defense for that separate crime. Not the harm caused, but the actual regulatory offense of not being allowed to fire a gun on the road. I believe it or not, a high law for my research isn't necessarily clear on that, but our argument is that, yes, you had a necessity. Now, this case in Indianapolis is a little bit different, because it's not like, um, the crime wasn't firing within the mall. The crime is having a gun in the first place within the mall. So I don't know, I don't know Indiana law well enough. The argument, I guess, would be that both things could be true. He could be not guilty of committing any violent offenses against the person he shot, um, and guilty of the regulatory violation at the same time. That's not incongruent, necessarily.

Speaker A: Do you know what's going on they keep talking about, along, uh, with Roe versus Wade being overturned, could a gay, uh, marriage actually be overturned? Is it fragile enough to actually have the same fate?

Speaker B: Yeah, you're really asking two separate questions. Like, legally speaking, it sort of rests on the same logic that wrote it. Um, the Supreme Court in Bergfield, I think, uh, they found a constitutional right that isn't written in the Constitution, and they then, uh, basically declared it's a constitutional right to be married, and same sex marriage is a constitutional right, and deprived the states of the opportunity to regulate that or to decide what they want to do on their own. So you could say that based on Dobbs, the, uh, new Roe v. Wade decision, that the Supreme Court could extend that logic to a Bergfeld and same sex marriages. And I think even Clarence, um, thomas, one of the justices, actually hinted at that, if not expressly said he would. But I don't think they have the rest of the court? I don't think the court is going to go that far. Not anytime in the near future will the, uh, court do that. So the two questions are, could it happen? Yes. Logically speaking and legally speaking, it flows naturally from the Dobbs decision. But politically speaking, and as it is sort of a practical matter, I don't think the court is going to do it, at least not anytime soon. So I don't think it's as fragile as, uh, those who want it to make an issue of it would suggest.

Speaker A: Yes. I hope not.

Speaker C: Here, uh, is one coming in?

Speaker A: Good morning.

Speaker C: I'm writing in to ask Steve about my sister. I need advice. She currently lives in Indiana, has four children with her husband. For a while now, we have suspected abuse in the house, but now that he has been taking antibiotic steroids what is itabolic?

Speaker A: Steroids.

Speaker C: Antibiotic steroids. It has become extremely apparent that his attitude has gotten worse. My sister was able to visit us here in Ohio over the weekend, and she and I stayed up late talking. And while taking, uh, advantage of our time together, I explained to her she could tell me anything and I would be there for her if she needs me. She ended up fighting in me and telling me that he has gotten physical with her. She even has a photo of her back, completely bruised from him throwing her against the wall.

Speaker UNK: Jeez.

Speaker C: I'm asking Steve for advice on how to provide my sister with information that will protect her and her children. She's ready to leave him, but has no family or friends in the state they reside in. She's a stay at home mom, and all finances are run by the husband. Obviously, we want to help her, but she cannot leave the state with their kids, or at least she thinks she can't. At this point, we know it's unsafe. What legal protection does she have?

Speaker B: Well, she has all the protection that she wants to seek out. And I don't mean to be flipped about that, but, uh, I mean it. If she wants to go to the authorities and report the abuse, if she wants to go to the authorities and say she's not safe or the kids aren't safe or that she needs help, she will find help. The authorities will give her help. I mean, she could go to whatever local version of children's services. She could go to the local police department. There might even be some other county agencies that could offer her some help. Or if nothing else, she could go speak to a private lawyer and get some legal advice on how to handle such a situation. Just because you're married and have kids with somebody doesn't mean you can't take the kids out of state. In fact, it may mean quite the opposite. I wouldn't comment on Indiana law, but if she has parental rights, the same as the other. It means they both could do that. And until there's something filed, until there's a divorce action started in court, uh, everybody is equal. So what she could do is file for divorce what she could do is file for divorce and get a restraining order asking her for custody. I mean, there's lots of things she can do. The problem here is and I don't mean to this isn't a criticism uh, in fact, maybe the opposite. The problem is people are reticent to do these things out of fear. Um, there is a such thing as abused woman syndrome. There's a such thing as, like there's a psychological sort of beat down that people suffer in abusive relationships that makes them feel like they have no options, even though they do. So counseling, advice, help, uh, from the authorities it's all there. The hard part for the caller here is going to be convincing the person that they need to go do it.

Speaker A: Yeah. And also, I don't think anabolic steroids is going to make anybody a woman beater. You either are or you're not. It may make you more of a woman beater if you are.

Speaker C: That's what the email said or the text when she came in that he was already kind of yeah, but I'm.

Speaker A: Just saying, uh, what you're doing is like blaming it on something else. You know what I mean? Like, he's the ahole. You know what I mean? No matter if he's on steroids or not on steroids, it sounds like he is a jerk. I mean, anybody that would put their hands on a woman for no reason or for any reason, not a good person whatsoever, so I wouldn't make any excuses for him, steroids or not. Man, sounds like the guy is trash. So I got one for you here, Steve. Now, this is out of state. This has been a story in the news. This woman from Michigan, short is her name, she, uh, was stood up, like, uh, on a date, right. And so she just didn't complain about it on social media. She has decided to sue the guy who stood her up on a date for $10,000 in emotional distress damages. So I guess it was her mother's birthday, and her mom had just died. So I guess she's, uh, saying that all of that combined the guy standing her up on a date and her mother and everything, it caused this extreme emotional distress. How do you actually sue someone and prove that?

Speaker B: Yeah, that's a tough one. I mean, you could say that I had a date with somebody to meet, uh, at a certain place, and you could say that's a contract. Right. We both agreed to show up at that certain place. And if the other side breached that agreement, then in theory, they would be responsible for, uh, my damages as a result of that. The problem is, what are the damages? You could say, all right, I forgave or I didn't do something else that I would have done, or I could have been making money, I didn't left my job, or whatever it would be in reliance on this agreement and then try to sue outside contract, I guess. But here, uh, she's going a step farther and she's saying intentional infliction of emotional distress. Well, that is what it says. It's got to be intentional. So you would have to prove that the other side did it on purpose, um, with the intent to inflict emotional damage and trauma on this person. I think it's a long shot at best. I, um, love creative legal theories, though, so I'd be interested in seeing how it plays out.

Speaker C: All right, here's one. Our son works part time, and we gave him the opportunity to manage his money and do it independently. Uh, now my husband wants to control his spending to save for vehicles until the 17 soon. Our son states we cannot control his money and that it's illegal to do so. My husband says it's completely legal until he's 18, especially since we're only looking out for his best interests. And he also added that, as a matter of fact, since he's a minor, his income is part of the family income and we could make him pitch in for bills. I am unsure of all this and just want to make sure my husband's not overstepping.

Speaker B: Yeah, I think your husband's actually right. I had to double check and do the research, but I know when I was growing up, my dad I went out, uh, and earned some money one time, and my dad just said, hey, how much you got? I said, $5. He goes, Give it to me. And I think he was making a point. He gave it back. But it's like, you don't have anything until you're 18. It's all mine. And I think there's, uh, some truth to that. So I know that, um, if you wanted to do that, if you wanted to just take the bank account and make him contribute and etc, you could probably, uh, get away with that. Now, the kids recourse is going to be to try to emancipate from the household, which I doubt that he would want to do. Any teenager that thinks they can go live on their own and provide, um, for themselves, that's not easy to do. But, uh, it could happen. And I suppose you could say, I'm going to go, uh, live on my own. I'm not going to play by these house rules, but then you've cut that cord. So I would hope that maybe some reasonable family decision making might help resolve this problem and it doesn't escalate into something that gets permanently, uh, out of control. All right.

Speaker A: Steve Palmer, always informative, always helpful, and always out, uh, for Blitz Nation, man, if you guys ever need Steve, you can get in touch with them. He'll give you the number, but also check out his podcast. And you guys are actually doing it live right now?

Speaker B: Yeah, we're recording right now. And what we'll do is I've got, uh, my separate, um, section where people who, uh, aren't fortunate enough to get in and break through the blitz lines because they're so busy and crowded. Well, they can submit me a question at Lawyer Talking Podcast.com, and I try to answer them there. And, uh, obviously, if you need help with the law firm 614-224-6142, my man.

Speaker A: And my lawyer, Steve Palmer.

Speaker B: Thanks, guys. All right. Another really a host of great questions. I, um, like the creativity of the lawsuit up in Michigan. We'll try to follow that. I'll try to remember to keep track of that one, because it's interesting. My gut tells me that's going nowhere. The, um, family question about the kid and the income and the money, I'm sort of struggling with that, too, in my household, because my son is now working, and I went and got a bank account with him. And there's that fine line between teaching, uh, your child to balance his own budget, to be responsible and not blow all his money, but at the same time make sure he doesn't blow all his money. So how much control do parents want to have? I'll leave that to the individual authority of the household. Um, so with that, we'll wrap it up another, uh, blitz Wednesday on Lawyer Talk. And as always, if you got a question submitted separately at Lawyertalkpodcast, uh.com, I get those questions. I promise to answer them the best I can as soon as I can get to them. Also, check out the Round table. Did a great interview with a guy named Rob Cooperman last week. That's rob Cooperman at Stagerite Productions. He does theater, uh, productions focusing on what he calls natural theater. So it's great. I'll let you tune into the most recent roundtable to hear about that. And then I got Norm waiting in the wings here. We're going to do another roundtable today. So lots of stuff coming at Lawyer Talk off the record on the air, at least until now.