• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

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

Started by esquirecomics,

607 posts in this topic

drewincanada

drewincanada

Posted
Posted
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

 

Brian -- thanks for the additional insights. That's exactly the kind of info I was seeking.

 

Chris -- I certainly wasn't dismissing this effort, or ignoring that Mark was doing it for free. In fact, in my original post, I clearly said that I appreciate his efforts, and that I would love to see Danny shut down. But Mark's original post raised some legitimate questions, and I was simply looking for answers.

 

:foryou:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
500Club

500Club

Posted
Posted (edited)
Maybe you're not looking at the bigger picture...

 

Listen, it'll never get to that point, as Danny is a smart guy and will just pay the higher amount once he sees the firepower - he'd never allow this to get to the level that Mark states, as then he'd be opening up a whole new can of worms.

 

The scenario as I see it:

 

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.

 

To think that he'd let a child support case threaten his source of income is ludicrous, and no matter what you think of Danny, no one can say he's stupid.

 

 

 

I'm not a legal expert by any stretch of the imagination. Whether or not he wants Mark in his life, standing in front of the courts may not be anyone's jurisdiction but the courts and authorities to decide. If there is a child support issue (and from what Mark explains, it is evident that there is one), no investigation can tease out private financial information like a cross-examination under oath. I also understand the livelihood claim you bring up (and how this case can hurt it and the community) but if there is a bursary award in the amount that Mark is suggesting, IMHO the path Mark is taking is logical and well worth the risk.

 

Don't confuse jc with the facts. Just because some of you are lawyers doesn't mean you have more insight into legal matters than he does. :insane:

Edited by 500Club
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sal

Sal

Posted
Posted

wouldn't the potential ethical dilemma be moot if DD wasn't reporting his comic book sales as his primary source of income?

 

i honestly have no idea, but i do know a number of high-volume folks who use their comic book sales to supplement their other, "real world" incomes, and as such, putting DD out of business - so to speak - in the comic community might not even be the primary focus?

 

 

eh, who knows. good luck, Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites
comix4fun

comix4fun

Posted
Posted
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

 

Brian -- thanks for the additional insights. That's exactly the kind of info I was seeking.

 

Chris -- I certainly wasn't dismissing this effort, or ignoring that Mark was doing it for free. In fact, in my original post, I clearly said that I appreciate his efforts, and that I would love to see Danny shut down. But Mark's original post raised some legitimate questions, and I was simply looking for answers.

 

:foryou:

 

 

Hey Drew,

I actually wasn't referring to you when I mentioned people dismissing the effort. You did raise interesting questions that needed answers. A couple of other folks were misstating the law in broad brush strokes littered with unmitigated fail. You were not one of them. So no worries.

 

Best,

Chris

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mackenzie999

mackenzie999

Posted
Posted (edited)
Every phone call to your lawyer will cost you .2% of a hour.

 

Thanks, but what my real question boils down to is, assuming victory in court, is there any chance of Mark being compensated the actual value of his pro-bono work at DD's expense?

 

My interest is not so much in whether or not he actually receives compensation (he volunteered his time and I doubt he needs the money), I'm just curious if that is a technical possibility. On top of everything else DD stands to lose, having to pay for the privilege of a high-powered lawyer crushing you like a bug would be a sweet bit of piling-on.

Edited by Mackenzie999
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Green

Green

Posted
Posted

I have to wonder though if all goes well what will happen to the mother and child.

 

He wont be making any child support payments from jail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
supapimp

supapimp

Posted
Posted
I think we have to be careful we don't turn this into a "Danny Dupcak advice thread".. and all that implies

 

no effin duh. if you're not going to contribute, then STFU. be a part of the solution, not the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
auction_attorney-migration

auction_attorney-migration

Posted
Posted

S

Not to be overly pessimistic, but to think that you're going to generate enough money to cover all of expenditures necessary for a qualified attorney to bring Dupcak to justice here on these messages boards is insane. You're looking at a minimum of six figures, hours and hours of time spent and who's to say he doesn't deny it all, hire his own defense team and counter sue you right back?

 

Uh, no. I think you misunderstand the situation and the proceedings. First, it wouldn't cost six figures, as I believe Mark is simply retaining this attorney as specialized help. This isn't going to cost six figiures. I think Mark will be doing a great deal of the work, but as he mentioned, he may need oe help with respect to how family court works, issues about who the judge is, nuances with regards to child support

Second, this isn't a situation where he can counter sue. This is a child support hearing in family court. If he wanted to sue Jan, he'd have to do so in a separate action.

I haven't misunderstood anything. You are kidding youself if you don't think Dupcak if he feels he is wrongly accused wouldn't file suit against esquirecomics or anyone else whom he feels is ruining his buisness and public reputation. Simply bringing up what some feel are unethical buisness practices at a single custody hearing and to think that you're going to get the answers you're looking for isn't even realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
2 2
Go to topic listing