• • • • All right.

It is Wednesday, April 13, 2022. That means it's Blitz Wednesday here at Lawyer Talk. That means we're going to interface with Loper and Randy over at 99 seven to Blitz and take all callers that are fortunate enough to get through. If you happen to be a caller that was not for fortunate enough to get through, no worries. Go to Lawyertalkpodcast.com and submit a question to me there. I'll cover it in my Q and A series. And, uh, we'll get your question answered one way or another. • • • Uh, and also, while you're there, you might as well check out our other episodes of Q and A roundtable Sessions and the Legal Breakdown. More of that stuff coming. Uh, so it looks like the Blitz is ready to go rather quickly today. So here we go. • • • • • • • All right.

It's Loper and Randy here, and Steve Palmer is joining us right now from Yavitch and Palmer. Steve, how are you?

Hey, doing great. How are you guys doing this morning?

Hey, Steve, have you watched any we're doing great. By the way, have, uh, you watched any of the Amber Heard Johnny Depp trial yet?

No, I heard about that, though. I heard they started yesterday and, uh, I meant to get brushed up on, uh, what was happening, but I have not seen it yet. •

So one of the things that I took away that I thought was kind of interesting is they had Johnny Depp dress as Johnny Depp, meaning he didn't wear like, a suit and take off all his rock and roll jewelry and all of that stuff. I will say he didn't do it, like over the top, like a Jack Sparrow type character, but he looked like what you think Johnny Depp would look like if you met him. But they said that Amber heard on the other hand, she had to dress up in • • • • complete business attire. • • • • • • Either wear like, a dress or pantsuit or something like that. What is the thinking behind all of that?

Well, here's my thinking, and this sort of applies. I have a general rule about this stuff. People ask all the time, what should I wear in court? Well, it's always a bad idea to wear like, a Budweiser T shirt to your DUI trial, right? That's dumb. But, • • uh, if you're not typically somebody who would wear a suit in, uh, a shirt and a tie in the full formal garb, well, then if you put that stuff on and go into a courtroom, you're not going to feel comfortable and you're not going to look comfortable. So I always want people to tell people, look, wear what you would wear when you want to dress up and look decent and nice, you don't need to get all formal about it. There are guys and gals who wear suits every day for a living, and that's what they're comfortable wearing. So they're very comfortable sitting in a courtroom setting wearing that outfit. But on the other hand, if you're not somebody that would do that regularly, then maybe a golf shirt and a sport coat, or maybe a golf shirt and slacks would be appropriate. So with the Johnny Depp thing, if he toned it down a little bit and he's wearing what he normally wears, • • • • I'd be fine with that. And frankly, that's how everybody is used to seeing him. So, um, it might look a little bit awkward if he showed up without, uh, all the stuff • • without the costume. • •

You know what's funny? • • • I mean, you nailed it without even me directing you. That's exactly the report that I heard yesterday, that the authenticity to the jury is so important. • •

Yeah. If you look like you're trying to be something you're not, then it doesn't take, • • uh, a PhD psychologist to know that we can all sense that when somebody's portraying something that they're not. And if I were representing Johnny, I would have told him, Look, let's not go over the top. We're not going to get, like you said, all Jack Sparrow, but • • you don't need to abandon all of it. And we're certainly not going to dress you up into something that you would never otherwise wear. • •

All right, let's go to line one. Here Tony standing by. Randy, we have a traffic ticket question here for Steve Palmer. • • • • • Hey, what's up, Tony? How are you? • • • •

Hi.

Good morning, Mr. Lopez. How are you doing, sir?

Good.

Manny bags? Yeah, you're live, man. Go ahead. • • • •

Hey, uh, Steve. Good morning, sir. Yes, this is my second • • • ticket without having license, sir, so, • • yeah, I just want to see how you can maybe help me out.

So, your second ticket without a driver, you didn't have a valid driver's license. Is that correct? • • • •

I'm 49 years old. I still don't have my license. • • • • • • •

Well, I mean, look, I'm not going to advise you specifically here on a case that's pending, but let me just talk. Generally speaking, • if, um, somebody's driving without a driver's license, they call that driving without a driver's license. We call it no Ops in Ohio. So you're driving without a valid operator's license. • And now, if somebody's driving with a suspended license, we call that Dus or driving under suspension. Usually when I represent folks on these types of charges, • • • the first order of business is to fix it. We want to fix the underlying problem. So if somebody doesn't have a valid operator's license, let's get them one. If somebody's under suspension, • • let's, uh, get through all those suspensions and try to settle up. So when I go back to court, I can tell the judge, look, we've done, um, everything we can here. This guy's valid. Or maybe he's only got one more reinstatement fee to pay, and that usually helps me negotiate the outcome of the case. That said, it always gets worse the more that we have. So the first time judges, uh, are going to be far more lenient than the second, 3rd, 4th, 5th. So my advice to anybody in a situation like this where they don't have a valid operator's license and they've been caught one or two times, is do whatever you can do to get a valid operator's license, because usually what happens? Another thing we should talk about something else that usually goes along with this is a suspension for not having insurance. We have something in Ohio called the Financial Responsibilities Act, or FRA. Sometimes you see it and on a ticket, anybody who's looked at tickets closely, there's a little box that says Fr shown, meaning it's financial responsibility or insurance been shown. And if you didn't, the Bureau Motor Vehicles is going to send you a notice of a suspension. That's just one more layer of trouble we got to hack through in order to get you valid. So, look, if you want help on it, give me a shout. 614-224-6142. All right, let's go to the text.

We have, uh, a text here. • Zach says, if I have a no contact order on me and I can't talk to someone, • • but if they reach out to me and contact me, does that void the order?

Well, no, there's the answer. It does not void the order, necessarily. And some of this first thing, we need to figure out what kind of order this is. Sometimes there's an actual statutory order based on Ohio law that says you can't have contact with somebody else that if you violate it, becomes a violation of a protection order. It's a crime, and every time it happens, you can go to jail, and it escalates to the point where it can be felonies. • The other, uh, type would be maybe a condition of bond. So a judge says, look, you've been charged with misdemeanors. • • • I'm going to release you on your own recognizance. Meaning you don't have to pay any money, but as a condition, you're not allowed to see this person. And if you violate that, you can still go to jail, but it may not be a separate crime. • • Um, • • now this sort of demands the next question. Which is, what happens if the other person contacts me and I have the order? Well, they don't have an order. There's nothing that says they can't have contact with me. It only goes one way. Is that fair? No, it's not fair. But that's welcome to the real world. I always tell people, if somebody is contacting you and they're the protected person, ignore it, save the communication, but do not reply. • • • • • • • • • • • • • You can maybe make a defense out of it, but it is really difficult. I would much rather go into court and say, look, this alleged, fearful, protected person has texted my client 20 times • • • • asking, uh, him to call. So that sort of negates some of the underlying basis for the order in the first place. And we can use it to our advantage rather than try to defend it as a disadvantage. • • •

All right, eight, 2199 seven. Eight, 2199 seven. We'll get also text messages at, • • • • • • • • • • uh, • • Rick, please don't call with your legal questions for thick Ricky Palmer. Yeah, that'd probably be the better option for you. So we'll gather some of these calls and text messages, and we'll get one more segment with Steve Palmer when we come back after this. • All right. We're getting free legal advice right now from Steve Palmer. Tons of awesome questions. And we do have a few text. Right? We have somebody on hold, so we'll do the full gambit of things here. Do you want to go to the phone first? Is that what you have?

Sounds good.

Who is it? • Oh, it's Andrew, all right. He has a parental • • • • • alienation question. • • • • • Trying to alienate somebody. That's apparent. • • • Andrew, what's happening here, man? •

Hey, • • so, uh, I had a question about that regarding • • • my, uh, ex wife. • • • We have a child together, four years old. • • • Um, • • • • • • • • I believe it's a whole jealous ex wife thing. • • • Um, my current girlfriend, • • she, um, has, uh, a nine year old, and • • my ex, uh, • • • • has a no contact order, • • • • um, • • regarding • • between my child and my girlfriend's kid. And, • • um, she got CPS involved. Cps said everything was fine, so she didn't like that. So she tried to get a new contact order against my child and my girlfriend. Cps said everything's fine. Now she's trying to say that I beat my own child. Cps has said everything's fine. • • • Is there any signs of trying, uh, to • • keep my kids away from me and my side of the family? And would that be parent alienation?

Well, it seems like, yes, I think on every level, that's exactly what's going on. I mean, I don't know the merits of the allegations. I'll take you for your word that everything is fine. And Child Protective Services • • • has verified, um, it • • • • generally speaking, parental rights are allocated by the courts and not Child Protective Services, at least in the context of a divorce. And what you want to do is get to go to, uh, court, and they will allocate parenting time. And • • once you get into court, once the court starts issuing orders and they're going to do so, by the way, with the benefit, uh, and input from people like Guardians at light them, lawyers on, uh, both sides, maybe psychologists and counselors. • • • • • It is a pain. I mean, it's an expensive pain, but • • • • • it is critical, I think, at least to make sure that you carve out your rights as a father or as a parent. And this would be true as a mother as well, if it was going the other way. • • • • Um, it is very common in divorce settings to try to alienate the other parent. And by parent alienation syndrome, really just broad swath ways to describe one parent, turning the children against the other. In other words, feeding them either subconsciously or directly unconsciously information to make them dislike the other side. And somehow that makes the parent feel good. It's almost like a Munch housing by proxy type thing. • • •

It's almost, um. Like that's become like part of divorce, right?

Yeah, it happens all too often. And any professional psychologist would say the kids need both parents, divorced or not. I mean, it preferably stay together. But the kids need, uh, both parents in their lives, and both parents, they need to know that both parents love them and they're different. And life is different now. But you really need that. And I strongly suggest getting professional help here, getting psychologists involved, family counselors involved, to try to solve this problem. And it's best done with the courts. You can't do this on your own. You're on a really slippery slope. It sounds like you're never going to gain any ground on this unless you get somebody who's, uh, got real authority to do something about it. And it's sad. It's awful. Get help. • If nothing else, get help for yourself on how you should interact with your child. Because that gets really dicey when your kid comes over and says, I hate you, dad, or • • • I, uh, hate, I hate your girlfriend or whatever it is. These are hard problems to solve, and obviously, • • we wish it were different, but it's not. So the best you can do is get the professionals involved, get the courts involved, and try to fix it.

All right, that's good advice. We do, uh, have a few, uh, texts that we wanted to get to.

I had a friend who was interested in buying my car. I gave him the key and left the registration in the car, but took the tags. I knew the guy, trusted him to pay me. After three months, he hadn't paid me, so I told him I was going to come pick up the car. He told me he was going to park the car on the street, leave the keys in it so it would get stolen. He lives an hour away. I checked the apartment. • • • •

Who does that?

I check the apartment he lives in, and the car is gone. He won't answer his door. The phone. I spoke to the police officers. They said that since I left the car with him, there was not much they could do.

Yeah, I don't know if the police are right about that. There's a, um, crime in Ohio called unauthorized use of property, or UUP, we would call it. • • And you've got two different levels. You've got actual theft of a motor vehicle, or, like, the old game goes grand theft auto, but • • • • you've got, uh, to actually stealing a car, and then you've got this unauthorized use of property, or joyriding is • • when somebody takes a car and goes for a joyride and comes back. •

I love the, uh, joyride. Hit them with the old joyride. That's awesome.

Yeah. That's not actually a law written in Ohio, but you get the point. So I think the police are wrong. Now, if the police aren't doing about it, you can just go sue this guy. He's stolen your car. He's taking your property. He's got a benefit. • Unjustly. Uh, we call that in law and unjust enrichment. It might be a breach of contract because he agreed to buy the car. But that gets dicey because auto sales require certain paperwork. Even, • • • • • • • uh, it might have to have a written contract, depending on how much. But as far as, uh, • • him getting, uh, the car, he's not allowed to have the car. You can't keep the car from you because he hasn't paid for it. He's not allowed to get that kind of windfall. So go to court, sue him. Small claims court is built for such problems and call the clerk, uh, of courts where you live and what in the county or city you live and ask them about small, uh, claims court. And most courts are really user friendly. They'll walk you through this. There's some filing fees. They're not exorbitant, though. And you go fill out, uh, complaints and paperwork. They'll serve the guy for you, and you're off to the races. Uh, let the courts work it out. It's like the old saying goes, Take him to court. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Is that it?

Yes. Don't take a long • • • • • • • • • • • time.

No, we have another Texas.

I thought we did.

My son and his girlfriend recently bought a mobile home from an acquaintance of theirs. They sort of jumped into things. They bought the mobile home with cash or given a sales receipt. No purchase agreement was signed. As it turns out, the acquaintance did not own the mobile home. It was owned by one of her parents. And now they are trying to evict my son. I'm pretty sure that this person is guilty of fraud. But are they also guilty of larcency? • • • • • • • • • • • Yeah, larceny, because there's a Y on it. Since money was accepted. • • •

Yeah, they're definitely, uh, • • here's the old saying. Back to the old sayings again. • • The person who dealt with the crook or the fraudster is the one responsible for that. So if I buy a motorhome from somebody who didn't really own it, legally speaking, um, I'm the one that dealt with the crook, so I've got to bear some responsibility there. It doesn't mean that it's all on me, though. It just means that you're the one who has to file suit against the crook and try to collect your money. That way, the parents are going to file a suit against you and try to • • here, in this, uh, situation, evict you. So what's happened is • • there's an intermediate third party here or intermediary third party here that's been, again, unjustly enriched? They've collected money. They didn't deserve it. They didn't have actual title. They represented that. They did. And now it, uh, needs to be sorted out in court. Hopefully, they have the money to pay it back. It sounds like it was a cash deal. This is going to get ugly. But your remedy, um, here would be to sue the person from whom you bought the item. And • • if that's the parents, children or child, then that's who you need to sue. You need to drag them all into court. • • • • I don't know how, um, much this transaction was. If it's enough, it's probably worth getting a lawyer involved. This get sort of complicated. It may go a little beyond what small claims court generally is good at doing, but even so, if you want to do a small claims court, you would probably have to file a lawsuit against everybody. I would sue not only the person from whom you purchase the trailer, but also the parents who are trying to evict you and get it to court and get it sorted out.

All right. Ladies and gentlemen, Steve Palmer, our lawyer on Wednesdays is yours and can be yours, actually, at any time just by calling the simple number. What is, uh, it, Steve?

Sure, 614-224-6142. Put it in your phone right now. That way you don't have to look for it when it's inconvenient to do so. •

Beautiful, my friend. Each and every Wednesday, Steve joins us at 830, and we appreciate it, man. Always helpful and always informative.

Awesome. Thanks, guys. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • All right, another great blitz session. • • • • The questions, uh, just keep on rolling into the blitz. I love that they get the text. Uh, I love that they get the calls, and as it turns out, they keep on rolling in here@lawyertalkpodcast.com. Last week, I came in the studio, uh, and just knocked out probably five or six Q and A's. So if you've had a question lingering out there and it's not answered yet, • • take heart. It's coming. It will soon drop. I think we try to drop them once a week. I don't want, uh, to flood the market. It will clog up the Internet. So many people would be listening. But no, don't worry. Your questions are getting answered. It's coming. I promise. In the meantime, if you have other questions or if somebody wants to ask their first question, I love it the most. Get involved. Get out there. Get to the website, lawyertalkpodcast.com, submit your question. You want your own podcast? No worries. We can help you out with that, too. Channel 511. Com. We'll get you in touch with Brett, um, over at Circle 270 Media. And we're back to the Round, uh, table shortly after I close this out. We got Norm, we got Bread, everybody's waiting here at the Roundtable for the big, long powerhouse, political • • news, • whatever discussions, it's coming. And if you like that stuff, there's lots in the bank. Again, Lawyer Talk Podcast.com. And there's a way you can subscribe there, too. You just click it'll, take you wherever you should get your podcast. I don't presume to know all that, but it is in, uh, there, as they say. So for now, this is Lawyer Talk Blitz, uh, Wednesday, off the record, on the edge. At least for today. Until now.