CASE EXPERIENCE
I would like nothing more than to list the name of every attorney I
have worked with or for. But as you may know, Indiana attorney's
are barred from advertising or posting information regarding past performance or statistics. Therefore, in the spirit of the law, names
of attorney's have been withheld due to these restrictions. If you would like the name of an attorney I assisted in a specific case, please contact me and I will provide it to you so that you may discuss my work with them at your discretion.
The information contained in my case experience has been summarized to some extent. If you would like to discuss any case for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of my background or for reference purposes, please contact me. You may do so by telephone or email and I will answer any questions you may have or furnish you with the contact information of the particular attorney's that I assisted. I welcome the opportunity to verify or confirm all of the information contained on this page.
Be advised that some of my attorney/law firm associations are due to personal and philosophical alignments. There are some companies and attorney's I will not work for if it means I will be asked to work against my long standing associations. For example, I receive requests occasionally from insurance companies to work on their behalf along with their local attorney. In cases where the opposition attorney or firm is a regular client, I will generally pass on those requests at my own financial hardship.
I have worked numerous criminal and civil cases over the years. From time to time I will exchange the cases with others to keep my site fresh and interesting. I will also tell non-case related stories from other personal and professional experiences on occasion.
As a former probation officer, criminal investigator and legal coordinator, I have many relevant and/or interesting stories to share, depending on your perspective.
___________________________________________________
Recent Results
* 2010 - Highly sensitive area. Due Diligence and Background Investigation:
We specialize in investigations targeting political candidates. We are unable
to disclose more specific details for the obvious reasons. However, after November 2010, we will provide more details as is appropriate and authorized.
* 2010 - Surveillance: The case involved a man involved in a divorce from a woman he had been married to for less than 1 year. She was a scam artist with a history of seducing men into relationships then bilking their savings, ruining thiner credit, then employing various tactics to destroy them. This woman came to the very short relationship without disclosing that she had several children by different people who had either been taken away from her or that she gave up voluntarily. She also failed to disclose that she had no credit to speak of, and that she earned a living profiting from bogus law suits, and fraudulent claims of disability. At the time we were brought in to the case by the three sisters of the husband without his knowledge, he had been removed from his house because of a false claim of assault and because the wife informed the court that she had "medical" issues for 6 months. The woman with no legal interest in the residence other than through marriage, but subject to a court order barring her from entertaining any significant others in the home, repeatedly violated terms of the order. We were able to obtain video and still photography evidence of men entering the home. We also obtained covert video of the woman who had asserted a cancer related medical problem, drinking and smoking in a bar. The proof we obtained was used to end the womans occupancy of the home, and the husband regained possession. By the end of our assignment, the woman was close to a nervous breakdown because of our documentation of her various scams and overall conduct. Our investigator did not even meet the husband until our evidence and report were ready to submit to his attorney. Our behind the scenes activity were necessary due to mutual restraining orders that were in place. Without the husband's personal knowledge of us, he did not violate the spirit and intent of the restraining order.
* 2010 -1 Source PI was retained by another investigation company to locate 2 jet aircraft. We successfully located the aircraft valued at $10 millions. Ironically, the aircraft in question were in the possession of an individual who is considered to be one of the most notorious aircraft repo-men in the business.
* 2010 - Pressure Surveillance: We were hired by grandparents when their grandson was snatched by bio-mother. Their son and the grandchilds mother had not yet goine through the courts to establish visitation and/or custody. Indiana law states that in these instances custody is 50/50 with the parent in possession having the lawful right to retain custody. The other parent may take the child any time the parent in possession does not have physical contact with the child. The child had lived with the father since 3 months of age. During a Friday visit at a park, the bio-mother arranged a ruse and while playing with the child ran to a waiting vehcile and left the area. She had indicated on Facebook that she intended to flee the state to Florida. The grandparents retained 1 Source PI to maintain constant around the clock surveillance of the mother until they could get into court the following Monday, and if she attempted to leave the state for 1 Source agents to follow her via any means of transportation. 1 Source camped out at her residence for 78 hours, following the mother whenever she left the residence. By Monday afternoon the pressure became unbearable for the mother and her family, and she capitualted entered into a written stipulated custody and visitation agreement. During this case, the Sheriff's department were called some 25 times, and actually came to the location 4 times to question 1 Source agents at the scene. However, the professionalism, knowledge and lawful conduct of our investigators prevented law enforcement from intervening with our activities and ceased inteference.
* Small Claims Law Suit: April 2010 - Local attorney hired 1 Source PI to do surveillance on an individual who claimed to have a permanent limp as a result
of an accident with his client/defendant. We performed the work, and obtained surveillance video showing the plaintiff walking normally with no sign of a limp. Three months went by after submitting the invoice, and numerous duplicate invoices, however, the attorney refused to pay. 1SPI was forced to file a Small Claims Suit, which was settled with full payment. This case is included here for the sole purpose of demonstrating why insurance/plaintiff defense cases are not our favorite type of work. The moral of the story is: if you hire us and do not pay, you will end up in court to explain why, and you will pay the bill anyway.
* Locate: March 2010 - Double locate for Gary, Indiana retiree/landlord. Nice
man rented newer house to couple. They tore up the house, got behind on rent, and had to be evicted. Client obtained a judgment in the amount of $5,000.00
for back rents and damages to the property. They never paid a penny of the judgment, went underground, and of course the local court could not serve subsequent summonses on the jerks to enforce the judgment. I was hired to locate the couple who had went their separate ways. I found them both within
a few days.
* Locate: February 2010 - Located deadbeat dad in 4 days that La Porte County could not find for 4 years. Mom and kids will get their child support now.
* Investigation: January 2010 - Uncovered substantial assets husband hid from my client (his wife) during marriage. Also got to the truth of why he left in
the first place; he had a new girlfriend, imagine that.
* Surveillance - December 2009: 1 Source PI successfully obtained video surveillance of an individual who claimed to have a permanent limp as part of a personal injury claim. Our video proved this person does not have a limp or any other readily apparent problem walking.
* Locate - December 2009: 1 Source Private Investigations was hired to locate a dead-beat parent's home address and place of employment. The State of Indiana and Lake County were unable to locate the individual for 8 years. I received the first call on a Sunday, met with the client on Monday, and completed the locate by Tuesday.
*********NEWS RELEASE: October 21, 2009*********
* Personal Injury Trial - October 2009: Northern District of Indiana, US Federal Court: Motor Vehicle vs Pedestriancase. I assisted Plaintiff's Attorneys at three day trial in US Magistrate Judge Paul Cherry's court. During the run-up to the case I located a potential witnesses in the case missing for more than four years that another investigation firm attempted to locate for more than a year. Just prior to the trial; attorney's arranged a focus group (mock trial). My responsibilities were to interface with the jurors, perform the evidence reading, video recording, assisting in the evaluation of juror probabilities, and the division of jurors into two groups or juries. I also participated in the evaluation of juror questionnaires, and the final verdict form at the conclusion of each of the juries deliberations. During the trial I assisted in jury selection/evaluation, and provided overall support and assistance during the proceedings. The trial resulted in a jury verdict for our client, and an award of $200,000.00.
* Wrongful Death Case: While working for the defense, located and interviewed adverse material witness to clients case. This would have benefited the plaintiff
had their attorneys reviewed it in discovery material.
* Personal Injury Case: Located material witness to a drowning which occurred
four years earlier. Information to go on about the witness was a single newspaper article with her name in it. Witness had married, changed her name, and moved
out of the area. Walking door to door in Michigan City, Indiana, on a cold canvas,
I initially located the witnesses grand parents who put me in touch with the witness who came forward to offer information germain to the case.
* Criminal Case: Client charged with Robbery, Unlawful Confinement, and Kidnapping. Interviewed victim; obtained recorded and written statement from
him recanting his sworn statement to police and prosecutors. Update: After
more than 2 months of my clients confinement, he plead to criminal recklessness, and time served.
* Infidelity Case: Performed surveillance of husband for wife; obtained
photographic documentation of his sexual interlude with female in broad daylight
at a public park.
* Dead Beat Parent: Located Indiana man (in 1 day) who refused to provide his
address to a California Court in child support and custody case.
* Long Lost College Roommate: Located clients college roommate after more
than 20 years. Roommate had moved to different state and changed name.
* Divorce Case: Uncovered husbands substantial hidden assets in messy
divorce case.
* Employee Frolic: Performed surveillance for employer. Provided photographic documentation of employee golfing when he should have been working.
* Suspicious Wife: Performed surveillance of husband at strip-club when he
said he was working.
______________________________________________________
CHAPTER 7 BANKRUPTCY
CASE SUMMARY:
As a Legal Coordinator, for a major mortgage company with 6.5 billion dollars
in mobile home loans, I handled foreclosure, replevin, and bankruptcy cases.
Bankruptcy cases for the most part are usually routine, and rather boring.
Normally I would just make sure the right papers were filed before a deadline,
while my outside attorney handled all of the particulars.
However, one in particular is worth mentioning.
To those of you who are not familiar with mobile homes and/or the perfection of liens; here is some important information: Mobile homes are titled like cars,
trucks, and motorcycles. If a person secures a loan for a mobile home, and then
titles it in their name, the Mortgagee's lien does not become clear or "perfected"
for 90 days from the date the title was applied for. This means that the collateral
that was given in exchange for the mortgage is in a sort of legal limbo until perfection occurs.
Our mortgagor held a Construction loan that he secured in the month of June for $187,000.00 to purchase real estate and a double-wide mobile home. He then filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy 2 months later in August. After receiving the
Bankruptcy filing notice, I filed our Notice of Claim. I then called the mortgagors attorney to inquire if his client intended to Reaffirm his mortgage?
The attorney's reply was: "Reaffirm hell, the Bankruptcy Trustee intends to seize
the home because your lien is not perfected. you are not getting a penny or the home back". I then contacted the Bankruptcy Trustee to find out what his intentions were on our collateral. I was informed that in fact his intention was to seize the home.After reviewing the circumstances with my legal department attorney; wedetermined that in fact, we were screwed out of $187,000.00.
As I worked the case over the next week, I received an invoice from a trucking company. The trucking company had been hired by our Mortgagor to deliver
several thousand dollars in gravel for his driveway. Remember, this was a "Construction Loan," and in these types of loans the mortgagor has a certain
amount of funds available to pay vendors during construction. Our policy was
that the mortgagor hired the vendor, and the vendor sent us the invoice to be
paid.
In reviewing the invoice, I noticed that the date of the purchase and delivery were
both after the bankruptcy had been filed. If you know anything about bankruptcy,
you know that when the Stay is in place, it prevents creditors from engaging in collection activities, but it also acts as an Order directing the bankruptcy filer from taking on anymore debt.
I brought this information to my legal department supervisor (an attorney), but was told that my legal angle was flawed, and to just ride it out.
But being the stubborn Paralegal I was, the thought of "riding it out" did not sink
into my head. This was partly out of principle, and partly because I received a
monthly bonus based on the total dollar amount of all of my accounts at the end of the month. And I knew that this account would prevent me from receiving a bonus that month.
So I went around my supervisor and my outside attorney, and called the
mortgagors attorney again. I informed him of the invoice I received, that we
intended to notify the bankruptcy court, and trustee that his client had committed bankruptcy fraud, and that he violated the Order the court issued related to
taking on more debt.
He immediately asked me how we could resolve this issue? I advised him that he
had one option, and one option only, which was to request a Voluntary Dismissal
and not re-file until our lien was perfected. He agreed, and obtained the Voluntary Dismissal.
As soon as I received the Order of Dismissal, I took the title for the mobile home
to the department of motor vehicles and rushed it through. Two months later,
the bankruptcy was re-filed, our mortgagor Reaffirmed, and all was well.
___________________________________________________
PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL
Motor vehicle accident - Negligence Causing Personal Injury
Lake County Indiana - Jury trial - August of 2006.
I assisted Plaintiff's Attorney in a 2-day jury trial. My activity included making copious notes on errors I noticed in testimony, opposing counsel's mistakes,
general observations about jury attentions, and errors or clarifications I felt we
needed to make for the benefit of the jury or to recall a witness for purposes of clarification. During the trial I made an outline of everything that transpired,
including order of occurrence and time of occurrence. This was a useful tool for recalling how and when a witness said something, and what it was in response
to during recesses.
The case involved our 75 yr old client being injured while driving his car (veh. #1)
by another motorist who pulled out in front of him (veh.#2).
Vehicle #1 was traveling northbound on Calumet Avenue, Hammond, Indiana approaching 174th St. Vehicle #2 was on 174th St. beside a gas station at the stopsign pointed West attempting to pull out onto Calumet Avenue to travel Southbound.
Key Witnesses
The first key witness was the Hammond Policeman who responded to investigate
the accident. This witness was also an accident reconstructionist. During his examination and review of the accident report, the officer testified that a box
truck parked at the curb in front of the gas station obstructed the view of vehicle #2's ability to see on-coming traffic traveling Northbound. He also testified he found no skid marks on the pavement that could have been attributed to vehicle #1. In the officer's opinion; vehicle #1 made contact with vehicle #2 without applying his brakes.
The second witness was the defendant/driver of vehicle #2. During her examination she admitted the presence of the box truck at the curb, and that it prevented her from being able to see Northbound traffic. During a period of
intense examination she admitted that she had waited at the stop sign for a period of time she felt was adequate, and had to get to her work. She admitted she pulled out onto Calumet Avenue into the path of oncoming traffic without knowing whether it was safe to do so.
The third witness was our client, the driver of vehicle #1. He testified he was
traveling at approximately 30-35 miles per hour. As a result of the accident he suffered a shoulder injury for which he received extensive rehabilitative treatment. And that after more than a year since the accident he still suffered pain, stiffness,
and intermittent limited range of motion. In spite of his age, he still did his own
handy-man work such as carpentry, plumbing, and yard work. And that since
the accident, the remodeling of an apartment buildinghe had been working on
had slowed to a halt because of his limited shoulder use.
Other witnesses included: the attending physician, and the orthopedic doctor
who treated the shoulder injury.
The final witness was an expert doctor who was asked to review the findings of the orthopedic doctor and attending physician. The testimony of the expert
doctor washotly contested by defendants counsel because his testimony supported the earlier medical findings. Those findings were that our client was suffering pain attributed to the injury to the shoulder caused during the accident. And that it was unlikely that surgery could provide a remedy to the continuance
of chronic pain. And that due to the nature of the injury, and age of our client, surgery was contraindicated.The diagnosis, treatment, and overall assessment were concurred with by the expert doctor.
During the recess before closing arguments were made, The attorney and I discussed the final statement to the jury. I had made an outline of bullet points
covering the key points I felt the jury needed to hear explanations for.
The last bullet point was: "For 50 years our client has helped anybody and
everybody who ever needed help, and now it's time that someone helped him." The attorney incorporated some of my outline into his final statement to the jury which included that last bullet point.
The jury was out for a scant 90 minutes before returning a verdict in our favor,
with a monetary award in the amount of $70,000.00.
