It's finally time to put Danny Dupcak out of business auction FUNDRAISER 2 2

[mackenzie999]

 

1) Danny finds out about potential legal challenge.

2) Danny relents to higher child support since he does NOT want to let Mark inside his life.

3) Danny lists 30% more hidden-resto books to pay the bills.

 

These were my initial thoughts as well, but (a) I have no experience in this area so what do I know? (b) even if the chances are small, any chance to hurt DD is a worthy one; and ©, not to get all sappy but seeing the board come together like this, as it has recently, is a pretty cool thing.

 

Go Mark!

[drbanner]

I'd like to donate this book to the auction, along with free shipping! (thumbs u

 

Tales to Astonish 96 CGC 8.5 OW/W High Evolutionary appearance.

 

[rob_react]

Can everyone please just stop arguing with JC? It's just noise. There's no cash bonus for convincing him, so let him have his opinion and leave it at that.

 

I sent a donation earlier today. I'll see if I can find some time over the weekend to dig up a couple of books (I have a house guest, so the odds are not good.)

[Foolkiller]

I honestly don't know how child support cases work, but if jan57 has filed for a specific amount of child support, could Danny not just agree to pay the amount she's seeking in order to avoid revealing his financial info? If he doesn't contest it, it wouldn't go to court. At least that's how it works with small claims court.

 

This is a little different Drew. While I don't have any of the specifics, there's not an amount that's specified in controversy, i.e. a specific demand. What generally happens is that child support is based somewhat on the income of the father. If the income is being fraudulently reported, the mother can go back to court and demand more payment. In order to do this though, the family court will hold a hearing to determine what the father does/doesn't make.

 

Mark's banking on having some latitude in order to explore this and to be able to have access in discovery to certain financial records etc. Also, Mark has the ability to track what is already public record and do some math on his own. That being said, a bright defense attorney will be able to dodge some of these bullets. Since Mark is an extremely aggressive litigator, I would expect that unless Danny is willing to expend some serious cash on a lawyer, he's going to find himself in a poor position during these proceedings. Taking the step to also retain counsel who is experienced and knowledgeable in this area is also a very wise move.

[joe_collector]

Fine. You've been heard. Now can it and quit ting on this thread.

 

Well, since you asked so nicely and without resorting to childish swearing.

[ashrael]

Good luck with the case!

[hockey&comicsguy]

Fine. You've been heard. Now can it and quit ting on this thread.

 

Well, since you asked so nicely and without resorting to childish swearing.

 

swearing

[comix4fun]

I honestly don't know how child support cases work, but if jan57 has filed for a specific amount of child support, could Danny not just agree to pay the amount she's seeking in order to avoid revealing his financial info? If he doesn't contest it, it wouldn't go to court. At least that's how it works with small claims court.

 

This is a little different Drew. While I don't have any of the specifics, there's not an amount that's specified in controversy, i.e. a specific demand. What generally happens is that child support is based somewhat on the income of the father. If the income is being fraudulently reported, the mother can go back to court and demand more payment. In order to do this though, the family court will hold a hearing to determine what the father does/doesn't make.

 

Mark's banking on having some latitude in order to explore this and to be able to have access in discovery to certain financial records etc. Also, Mark has the ability to track what is already public record and do some math on his own. That being said, a bright defense attorney will be able to dodge some of these bullets. Since Mark is an extremely aggressive litigator, I would expect that unless Danny is willing to expend some serious cash on a lawyer, he's going to find himself in a poor position during these proceedings. Taking the step to also retain counsel who is experienced and knowledgeable in this area is also a very wise move.

 

 

Exactly Brian,

And through all of this I wonder what's going to happen if the numbers don't add up for DD. There are several agencies that would love to hear about that, especially with 7 figures being the potential total.

 

Also if, after the investigation is complete, fraud is determined in the reporting of income a backwards adjustment (back child support payments) can be made due and payable to the party defrauded on behalf of the child. This isn't just about cash going forward this can be for a significant amount of cash retroactive to the time the alleged fraud ensued.

 

I can't believe some people are dismissing this, or ignoring that Mark is doing his part for free, or rampantly overestimating the cost of proceedings. It makes no sense.

 

Best,

Chris

[ivegotneatstuff]

ahhh....memories

 

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/22/nyregion/memorabilia-sale-helps-victims-of-store-swindle.html?scp=1&sq=daniel+dupcak&st=nyt)

 

 

[seank]

I honestly don't know how child support cases work, but if jan57 has filed for a specific amount of child support, could Danny not just agree to pay the amount she's seeking in order to avoid revealing his financial info? If he doesn't contest it, it wouldn't go to court. At least that's how it works with small claims court.

 

This is a little different Drew. While I don't have any of the specifics, there's not an amount that's specified in controversy, i.e. a specific demand. What generally happens is that child support is based somewhat on the income of the father. If the income is being fraudulently reported, the mother can go back to court and demand more payment. In order to do this though, the family court will hold a hearing to determine what the father does/doesn't make.

 

Mark's banking on having some latitude in order to explore this and to be able to have access in discovery to certain financial records etc. Also, Mark has the ability to track what is already public record and do some math on his own. That being said, a bright defense attorney will be able to dodge some of these bullets. Since Mark is an extremely aggressive litigator, I would expect that unless Danny is willing to expend some serious cash on a lawyer, he's going to find himself in a poor position during these proceedings. Taking the step to also retain counsel who is experienced and knowledgeable in this area is also a very wise move.

 

 

Exactly Brian,

And through all of this I wonder what's going to happen if the numbers don't add up for DD. There are several agencies that would love to hear about that, especially with 7 figures being the potential total.

 

Also if, after the investigation is complete, fraud is determined in the reporting of income a backwards adjustment (back child support payments) can be made due and payable to the party defrauded on behalf of the child. This isn't just about cash going forward this can be for a significant amount of cash retroactive to the time the alleged fraud ensued.

 

I can't believe some people are dismissing this, or ignoring that Mark is doing his part for free, or rampantly overestimating the cost of proceedings. It makes no sense.

 

Best,

Chris

 

if DD (and I consider this a slander on Daredevil), is misrepresenting his income to a significant extent, I imagine the IRS and NY tax authorities might be interested in all that financial information, too. Increased child support may be an annoyance, but the IRS will bend him over and do you-know-what. I've always said you don't *spoon* with Disney or the IRS.

[comix4fun]

I honestly don't know how child support cases work, but if jan57 has filed for a specific amount of child support, could Danny not just agree to pay the amount she's seeking in order to avoid revealing his financial info? If he doesn't contest it, it wouldn't go to court. At least that's how it works with small claims court.

 

This is a little different Drew. While I don't have any of the specifics, there's not an amount that's specified in controversy, i.e. a specific demand. What generally happens is that child support is based somewhat on the income of the father. If the income is being fraudulently reported, the mother can go back to court and demand more payment. In order to do this though, the family court will hold a hearing to determine what the father does/doesn't make.

 

Mark's banking on having some latitude in order to explore this and to be able to have access in discovery to certain financial records etc. Also, Mark has the ability to track what is already public record and do some math on his own. That being said, a bright defense attorney will be able to dodge some of these bullets. Since Mark is an extremely aggressive litigator, I would expect that unless Danny is willing to expend some serious cash on a lawyer, he's going to find himself in a poor position during these proceedings. Taking the step to also retain counsel who is experienced and knowledgeable in this area is also a very wise move.

 

 

Exactly Brian,

And through all of this I wonder what's going to happen if the numbers don't add up for DD. There are several agencies that would love to hear about that, especially with 7 figures being the potential total.

 

Also if, after the investigation is complete, fraud is determined in the reporting of income a backwards adjustment (back child support payments) can be made due and payable to the party defrauded on behalf of the child. This isn't just about cash going forward this can be for a significant amount of cash retroactive to the time the alleged fraud ensued.

 

I can't believe some people are dismissing this, or ignoring that Mark is doing his part for free, or rampantly overestimating the cost of proceedings. It makes no sense.

 

Best,

Chris

 

if DD (and I consider this a slander on Daredevil), is misrepresenting his income to a significant extent, I imagine the IRS and NY tax authorities might be interested in all that financial information, too. Increased child support may be an annoyance, but the IRS will bend him over and do you-know-what. I've always said you don't *spoon* with Disney or the IRS.

 

 

 

It wasn't murder that brought down Capone...it was tax evasion.

[Dano]

Here's my bit... JUMBO #46 3.5 rusted staples (not too bad) Nice eye appeal : ) Start her at $10 - Free shipping U.S., Split ya international.

 

 

Dan

[mackenzie999]

Here's a question for you legally-informed types:

 

I believe that when suing someone, sometimes you are able to add on legal fees as part of what you pursue, or perhaps the judge adds them after the fact. If this is the case, could DD end up paying Mark's fees as well (I believe lawyers keep track of their time in 6-minute increments)?

 

Granted, he is not charging for his time, but doesn't that ultimately help DD, assuming he has his butt handed to him in court? Why should his wife's good fortune (receiving pro bono counsel) be DD's good luck?

 

For example: I find an Action 1 at a yard sale for a dollar, and you destroy it. Can I only sue you for a dollar? Maybe that's apples/oranges, but it seems like if DD loses, he loses less because of the wife's good fortune. Is Mark then able to pursue DD to cover his fees?

Edited January 8, 2010 by Mackenzie999

[FFB]

What I don't get is this: if you represent Jan in the child support proceedings, then you have an ethical obligation to act in her best interests. That means that you can't ethically do anything that would make it unlikely that she could collect child support from Danny once you obtain a higher award for her.

 

If you are planning to go after Danny by using the information you obtain while representing Jan, and you try to use that information to put him out of business, you will be acting in a manner adverse to your client's (Jan's) interests because you'll be interfering with Danny's ability to pay the child support. That is a conflict of interest and a real ethical dilemma. Have you given this any consideration? If so, what is the answer?

[hockey&comicsguy]

What I don't get is this: if you represent Jan in the child support proceedings, then you have an ethical obligation to act in her best interests. That means that you can't ethically do anything that would make it unlikely that she could collect child support from Danny, once you obtain a higher award for her.

 

If you are planning to go after Danny by using the information you obtain while representing Jan, and you try to use that information to put him out of business, you will be acting in a manner adverse to your client's (Jan's) interests because you'll be interfering with Danny's ability to pay the child support. That is a conflict of interest and a real ethical dilemma. Have you given this any consideration? If so, what is the answer?

 

 

Would it be any different if Danny was robbing banks to get his unclaimed income? I get why you're asking though. Perhaps when it's all said and done poor old Danny will just have to stick with selling legit books.

[supapimp]

i'll donate this book. danny boy scammed me out of $150 when this came back from CGC:

 

[supapimp]

 

Would it be any different if Danny was robbing banks to get his unclaimed income? I get why you're asking though. Perhaps when it's all said and done poor old Danny will just have to stick with selling legit books.

 

it'll be after he gets out of prison. so it won't be for awhile.

[ivegotneatstuff]

i'll donate this book. danny boy scammed me out of $150 when this came back from CGC:

 

 

- perfect source of funds for a donation!

[comix4fun]

What I don't get is this: if you represent Jan in the child support proceedings, then you have an ethical obligation to act in her best interests. That means that you can't ethically do anything that would make it unlikely that she could collect child support from Danny, once you obtain a higher award for her.

 

If you are planning to go after Danny by using the information you obtain while representing Jan, and you try to use that information to put him out of business, you will be acting in a manner adverse to your client's (Jan's) interests because you'll be interfering with Danny's ability to pay the child support. That is a conflict of interest and a real ethical dilemma. Have you given this any consideration? If so, what is the answer?

 

 

 

Mark will probably answer on his own, but from what Mark has posted it is the contention that DD is hiding the income he makes from comics as a means to defraud the mother of his child (probably amongst many parties that would be entitled to some of the money as well).

 

Mark said he hope this puts DD out of his comic business, we don't know that this is his only business or source of income or how that income is distributed to his child at this time. All we know is that Jan is not getting it now and if you don't take DD to court she stands zero chance of getting it at all.

 

If, as a result of the proceedings, DD winds up in dutch with the IRS, NY Dept. of Revenue, or various other creditors it is not the fault of Mark, Jan, or anyone other than himself.

 

It is not uncommon in cases such as these that the party seeking to hide their income from the other party to do so illegally. That is also not the fault of the party seeking compensation. The party entitled to compensation has little choice in the matter. Either they allow the fraud to continue and they are uncompensated or they attempt to attain their rightful share of the income in the courts. If, through that court action the party they are against incriminates himself that is not the fault of the innocent party.

 

Everything that DD has done or has coming he has done to himself. Mark bringing it to light in an attempt to prevent further fraud and to get Jan what she is due is not a negative. The negatives are on the other side of the ledger in my opinion.

 

Best,

Chris

[FFB]

What I don't get is this: if you represent Jan in the child support proceedings, then you have an ethical obligation to act in her best interests. That means that you can't ethically do anything that would make it unlikely that she could collect child support from Danny, once you obtain a higher award for her.

 

If you are planning to go after Danny by using the information you obtain while representing Jan, and you try to use that information to put him out of business, you will be acting in a manner adverse to your client's (Jan's) interests because you'll be interfering with Danny's ability to pay the child support. That is a conflict of interest and a real ethical dilemma. Have you given this any consideration? If so, what is the answer?

 

 

 

Mark will probably answer on his own, but from what Mark has posted it is the contention that DD is hiding the income he makes from comics as a means to defraud the mother of his child (probably amongst many parties that would be entitled to some of the money as well).

 

Mark said he hope this puts DD out of his comic business, we don't know that this is his only business or source of income or how that income is distributed to his child at this time. All we know is that Jan is not getting it now and if you don't take DD to court she stands zero chance of getting it at all.

 

If, as a result of the proceedings, DD winds up in dutch with the IRS, NY Dept. of Revenue, or various other creditors it is not the fault of Mark, Jan, or anyone other than himself.

 

It is not uncommon in cases such as these that the party seeking to hide their income from the other party to do so illegally. That is also not the fault of the party seeking compensation. The party entitled to compensation has little choice in the matter. Either they allow the fraud to continue and they are uncompensated or they attempt to attain their rightful share of the income in the courts. If, through that court action the party they are against incriminates himself that is not the fault of the innocent party.

 

Everything that DD has done or has coming he has done to himself. Mark bringing it to light in an attempt to prevent further fraud and to get Jan what she is due is not a negative. The negatives are on the other side of the ledger in my opinion.

 

Best,

Chris

 

I think you need to re-read Mark's post from last night where he talks about what he plans to do with the information he gets in discovery after Jan's case is finished. I don't know if you're a lawyer or not, but I am and I was very troubled from an ethical perspective by what I read in that post. While I think both causes are noble (not to mention long overdue), I don't see a way around the obvious conflict of interest here. Maybe someone will enlighten me.