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 and legal coordinator, I have many relevant and/or interesting stories to share, depending on your perspective.
___________________________________________________
Recent Results
* 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 witnessin the case missing for more than four years that another investigation firmattempted 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 orjuries. 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.
______________________________________________________
STATE OF TENNESSEE VS. NGUYEN KHAN HUYNH
CASE SUMMARY:
Aggravated Robbery and Kidnapping
Huynh was accused of forcibly entering an apartment with another individual, and
that after entering he terrorized, bound and gagged a baby sitter and small child.
The two then ransacked the apartment and took $20,000.00 from a safe.
It should be noted that Huynh, a resident of California, was a 24 yr old naturalized American citizen from Viet Nam who came to the US as an infant during the evacuation of South Viet Nam in 1975. Also, the baby sitter was a 66 yr old
Vietnamese woman, and did not speak English. The apartment and building was
owned by a Vietnamese business man who operated a chain f nail salons.
In reading the file of Huynh’s case, I learned that he had been extradited from
Garden City, California based on a single eye witness statement. And that the
PD’s office had not had the opportunity to question the identifying witness. In the
mean time, Huynh had spent more than a year in jail, during which time he picked
up several criminal charges due to altercations with other inmates and jail staff.
Through my “night job” as head of security at a night club on the campus of the University of Tennessee, I was able to secure the services of an expert interpreter
who was a well known leader in the local Vietnamese community. He was also a Professor of Foreign Language, fluent in Vietnamese. He was able to get the
reluctant eye witness to agree to a meeting.
We received permission to interview the witness.
Coincidentally, the following facts became known:
1. The photograph the eye witness baby sitter made her initial ID from was of a wedding party which included fourteen people; 6 bridesmaids, 6 groomsmen’s,
bride, and groom. Huynh was a groomsman, and was pictured fourth on the right.
2. The original interpreter who assisted police in obtaining the initial statement
was a tenant in the building where the robbery occurred. He was also an employeeof the apartment, building, and salon owner, and was the Groom in the photograph.
3. Huynh was at that time married to the Bride in the photograph, the former wife
of the original interpreter.
Did you have to read the previous facts - 1, 2, 3 again? Was it confusing?
When I learned that our client was at the time of his wrongful arrest married to
the former wife of the person who acted as the interpreter between the police and
the victim, I was mortified. But I also knew at that moment how and why Huynh
came to be arrested.
I continued on with the interview...
I produced six photographs of Vietnamese men, one of which included Huynh’s,
which I took that morning. The eye witness was unable to identify Huynh in a photo line-up, and when I pointed him out, she stated that she had never seen him before.
She went on to say through our interpreter that the original interpreter told her
to point Huynh out for police. Since the initial identification was done from the wedding photograph of the suspect (Huynh), I showed the wedding photo to the
witness, and she could not identify him.
The new information was included in a motion to the court requesting dismissal of
all charges based on these developments, the Attorney General’s office concurred, and the court granted the motion after a 15 minute tongue lashing.
To clear up the pending charges Huynh had picked up while in jail, he agreed to
leave the state immediately and not to return for at least three years. I drove him
to the airport to catch a flight home.
____________________________________________________
STATE OF TENNESSEE VS. WITHHELD FOR PRIVACY
CASE SUMMARY:
Possession of marijuana with intent to distribute
Our client was traveling South on I 75, North of the SR 25 (Clinton, TN exit). To
the South of the SR 25 exit on I 75, police were conducting a drug interdiction checkpoint. When our client saw the checkpoint ahead he abruptly changed from
the center lane to the exit ramp to leave the expressway. He was stopped by
sheriff’s police on the exit ramp.
A search of his vehicle revealed that he had three pounds of marijuana concealed inside. Police cited probable cause for the stop was his failure to activate his turn signal prior to changing lanes and exiting the expressway.
During research I found a case where the court found that in the absence of
“...actual intelligence, reliable information, or a confidential informant, police must rely on the prevailing statute for guidance in establishing probable cause"
The motor vehicle statute in Tennessee at the time read as follows: ”any person operating a motor vehicle must activate their turn signal at least 200 feet prior to
any maneuver that may affect other traffic…”
I interviewed police officers who were involved in the arrest, and all stated that
there was no other traffic near or within sight of our clients vehicle before he
changed lanes and left the expressway.
By statute; since there were no other vehicles near or within sight, our client
was not required to activate his turn signal. All the evidence was suppressed
because police lacked probable cause to execute the stop.
All charges were dismissed.
___________________________________________________
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.
