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

[Foolkiller]

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.

 

Chris is a lawyer Scott.

 

As to the ethical conflict I believe that it may present an issue, but isn't it only an issue really if Jan turns it into one? I mean this from a practical standpoint, not theoretical.

[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.

 

Chris is a lawyer Scott.

 

As to the ethical conflict I believe that it may present an issue, but isn't it only an issue really if Jan turns it into one? I mean this from a practical standpoint, not theoretical.

 

I don't know what the rule is in New York, but in California, a client cannot waive an actual conflict, only a potential conflict. I view this as an actual conflict of interest because he is stating up front that he plans to use the information he obtains while representing Jan to put Danny out of business. That places his motivation and personal interests in direct conflict with Jan's interests.

[Transplant]

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.

It's not necessarily a conflict of interest. She might not be interested just in the money, but in seeing that the truth comes out. She could certainly authorize Mark to do whatever with the information obtained. Further, unless the court agrees to seal the record, much of this will become discoverable by the public, regardless of what Mark does after the case concludes.

[Foolkiller]

Scott,

 

I think that's the issue of whether this is a real or potential conflict. From just a purely monday morning quarterback standpoint, I would not have revealed anything about my intent of what to do with the information, I simply would have stated that this case and investigation will reveal information about Danny's business practices etc. and other parties may use that information how they see fit.

 

I'd have to think about and look at NY law to determine whether a conflict actually exists and I certainly don't know what the ethics are for this situation. I think you raise an extremely significant and important point for Mark to consider though as he moves forward and it's something really other lawyers understand but potentially not those in the public at large.

[Designer Toast]

I appreciate your efforts, Mark, to help jan57 with her child support case, and I would love to see Danny's comic book business shut down, but with all due respect, I don't understand how increasing jan57's child support payments will put Danny out of business.

 

You are correct, increasing Jan's child support won't put him out of business.

 

But a legal case that allows me to pursue further discovery, depose and cross-exam him at trial, both under oath, will enable us to gain additional evidence of his financial undertakings, which is directly relevant to the child support, and expose what he has been doing.

 

That information will then be used to pursue further civil and criminal penalties, which will hopefully put him out of business. (thumbs u

 

Discovery into someone's finances could potentially expose them to civil and criminal tax liability. Don't ever under estimate what can come out of taking a deep look someone's finances. (thumbs u

[VintageComics]

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.

 

Let me see if I can understand this. You are asking if it's ethical to sue for child support in such a manner that DD might be put out of business if it can be proven that he indeed withheld evidence of income?

 

I think it's a win/win. The child gets nothing now. If after millions of dollars of illegal revenue are uncovered the courts find a percentage of that belongs to the child, that is a substantial amount of money that the child would not be able to access otherwise.

 

The other option is to allow DD to function as a fraudulent entity to continue to support the child from here on after but with no compensation for the past. That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

 

[Foolkiller]

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.

 

Let me see if I can understand this. You are asking if it's ethical to sue for child support in such a manner that DD might be put out of business if it can be proven that he indeed withheld evidence of income?

 

I think it's a win/win. The child gets nothing now. If after millions of dollars of illegal revenue auncovered the courts find a percentage of that belongs to the child, that is a substantial amount of money that the child would not be able to access otherwise.

 

The other option is to allow DD to function as a fraudulent entity to continue to support the child from here on after but with no compensation for the past. That doesn't make any sense to me.

 

 

 

Roy -- you misunderstand Scott. This is a question legal ethics because the actions Mark takes may end up working counter productively to Jan's interests. In essence, if you put DD out of business, he can't make any money moving forward. The fraudulent money may already be gone, so trying to uncover past amounts may not necessarily mean that it's all recoverable. Your last statement is incorrect, he can certainly look at past income, regardless of whether or not the activity is fraudulent, recover based on income statements alone, and then move forward with an accurate accounting of what's made.

 

The question of whether or not DD is operating and selling fraudulent books is not really one the court need to technically consider in this case.

[comicalgems]

The question of whether or not DD is operating and selling fraudulent books is not really one the court need to technically consider in this case.

 

I think if the court did consider it and it was determined to be money gained by fraud it would be forfeited (which would also result in no child support being gained).

 

However, IF it can be proven that Danny Dupcak has financial records indicating income of more than reported in consideration of his child support THEN he can be ordered to pay more.

 

IF during the course of reviewing his financial records also indicates fraud THEN someone else will have access to bring action in another court.

 

It's all geometry really.

[Foolkiller]

The question of whether or not DD is operating and selling fraudulent books is not really one the court need to technically consider in this case.

 

I think if the court did consider it and it was determined to be money gained by fraud it would be forfeited (which would also result in no child support being gained).

 

However, IF it can be proven that Danny Dupcak has financial records indicating income of more than reported in consideration of his child support THEN he can be ordered to pay more.

 

IF during the course of reviewing his financial records also indicates fraud THEN someone else will have access to bring action in another court.

 

It's all geometry really.

 

I think this is a pretty good summary, which all relates back to the fact that Scott is raising a very legitimate point on the ethical conflict.

[Mutant Manatee]

I think it's a win/win. The child gets nothing now.

 

Mark's statement from his original post would seem to indicate that the mother/child is indeed receiving child support payments currently:

 

with respect to child support. She is seeking an upward modification and he is seeking a downward modification.

[Spider-Variant]

Just curious as to what the CGC corporation is saying about all this?

[VintageComics]

Roy -- you misunderstand Scott.

 

Gotcha. I can see the conflict.

 

What if going forward with litigation uncovers past money owing. If DD indeed has massive amounts of income that has gone unchecked, there could be a large windfall.

 

I can't stand dead beat dads. They deserve to be shot and pizzed on.

 

No parental support for the child and no singificant real world financial support.

 

Shot and pizzed on.

 

 

[supapimp]

Just curious as to what the CGC corporation is saying about all this?

 

most likely nothing. and why should they?

[comix4fun]

Scott,

 

I think that's the issue of whether this is a real or potential conflict. From just a purely monday morning quarterback standpoint, I would not have revealed anything about my intent of what to do with the information, I simply would have stated that this case and investigation will reveal information about Danny's business practices etc. and other parties may use that information how they see fit.

 

I'd have to think about and look at NY law to determine whether a conflict actually exists and I certainly don't know what the ethics are for this situation. I think you raise an extremely significant and important point for Mark to consider though as he moves forward and it's something really other lawyers understand but potentially not those in the public at large.

 

 

I guess my question would be is there any conflict if, during the zealous investigation and cross examination of the party in question, Mark discovers proof, elicits responses, and uncovers evidence of dishonest income reporting on the record and in open court and that evidence, those admissions and that proof are then used (as part of a public court record) by the proper authorities to further investigate the matter for potential criminal violations?

 

I guess that question is more rhetorical than anything because, of course, the answer is no.

 

Every day in America there are thousands of divorce and child custody hearings occurring. In several of those cases, especially those with larger dollar amounts at stake, there may very well be forensic accounting, bank account investigation, and the potential to uncover fraud on several different levels.

 

The attorneys pursuing those cases for their clients do not know what they are going to uncover until they actually uncover it. It is possible that Mark, in the course of zealously representing his client, may uncover details and facts that would be detrimental to DD's comic business. If those details and facts are then used against DD by various governmental entities, which is prone to happen when money is hidden in large amounts, I don't see how that would be a conflict for Mark or for any other atty. for that reason.

 

That is how I read Mark's post anyway. Depending on what Mark uncovers, he may not need to do anything at all to DD. The revelation of details and amounts may be enough on its own to force drastic events.

 

Best,

Chris

[Spider-Variant]

Just curious as to what the CGC corporation is saying about all this?

 

most likely nothing. and why should they?

 

Let's see, the OP is using this platform to collect money with the intended desire to put someone out of business.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I guess if I were them, I'd at least want to have some passing knowledge of the situation.

 

 

[TheShadowKnows]

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.

At least how it works here in Oregon your support is based on both parties income.

[comicalgems]

I'm amazed that with all the money he's "allegedly" (protect myself on libel there) ripped people out of that no one has taken up a pool to hire a brute squad to beat the living daylights out of him.

 

[TheShadowKnows]

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?

Every phone call to your lawyer will cost you .2% of a hour.

[Mr. Zipper]

Good stuff... kudos, Mark!!

 

[gaz973]

Just curious as to what the CGC corporation is saying about all this?

 

most likely nothing. and why should they?

 

Let's see, the OP is using this platform to collect money with the intended desire to put someone out of business.

 

I'm no lawyer, but I guess if I were them, I'd at least want to have some passing knowledge of the situation.

 

 

As far as I know, this situation does nothing to break any rules and those who run CGC know that it's a good cause. I would guess that as long as there is no violation of rules that they will allow things to proceed.