No wonder there are so many jokes about them. My son was served with
some papers last weekend. He is being sued along with the company he
supposedly works or worked for as a result of a car accident in the city
of Hamilton in May of 2013 and he was supposedly driving a Subaru.
There is something in the paperwork about a Hamilton address. He has
never lived in Hamilton, has never driven a Subaru and he was not
involved in a collision in that city.

He contacted the lawyer's office by email to let them know that they had
screwed up, that he was not the XXXX Smith that they were suing. He
told them that he wanted a letter from them acknowledging that it was a
delivery error. Otherwise, he was going to have to retain a lawyer to
defend himself, in which case he would counter sue for costs and damages
to his reputation. He pointed out that he had used Google and LinkedIn
to locate the XXXX Smith they want. The lawyer did not take him
seriously. He called and spoke to her directly. She asked him how he
found the guy. He said he was not going to tell her how to do her job.
She got ****ed off and said they didn't have anymore to talk about and
hung up.

The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
to get the right XXXX Smith. Then, after the case against him gets
tossed, he will have his suit against her. Even better, he will contact
the lawyer's client to let him know that he had contacted the lawyer in
a timely manner and explained the error and her refusal to correct the
situation so he can sue her for her incompetent handling of his case.

On 4/17/2015 7:25 PM, Dave Smith wrote:


>
> He contacted the lawyer's office by email to let them know that they had
> screwed up, that he was not the XXXX Smith that they were suing. He
> told them that he wanted a letter from them acknowledging that it was a
> delivery error. Otherwise, he was going to have to retain a lawyer to
> defend himself, in which case he would counter sue for costs and damages
> to his reputation. He pointed out that he had used Google and LinkedIn
> to locate the XXXX Smith they want. The lawyer did not take him
> seriously. He called and spoke to her directly. She asked him how he
> found the guy. He said he was not going to tell her how to do her job.
> She got ****ed off and said they didn't have anymore to talk about and
> hung up.
>
> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
> fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
> services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
> is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
> and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
> served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
> of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
> to get the right XXXX Smith.

Her arrogance has served her well! Looking forward to an update.

On 2015-04-17 8:18 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/17/2015 7:25 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
>
>
>>
>> He contacted the lawyer's office by email to let them know that they had
>> screwed up, that he was not the XXXX Smith that they were suing. He
>> told them that he wanted a letter from them acknowledging that it was a
>> delivery error. Otherwise, he was going to have to retain a lawyer to
>> defend himself, in which case he would counter sue for costs and damages
>> to his reputation. He pointed out that he had used Google and LinkedIn
>> to locate the XXXX Smith they want. The lawyer did not take him
>> seriously. He called and spoke to her directly. She asked him how he
>> found the guy. He said he was not going to tell her how to do her job.
>> She got ****ed off and said they didn't have anymore to talk about and
>> hung up.
>>
>> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
>> fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
>> services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
>> is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
>> and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
>> served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
>> of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
>> to get the right XXXX Smith.
>
> Her arrogance has served her well! Looking forward to an update.

It's going to look good on her when my son and her client sue her over
her incompetence. My son called her in time for her to realize her
error and to try again with the right person. He did not tell her his
middle name of date of birth because he did not want to give her the
opportunity to alter her stuff to his disadvantage. Since she insists
on going ahead with it she is going to lose the case when it turns out
that the person served is not the person who was involved in the
accident. Then she will end up being sued by my son and probably by her
client.

My son called the city's police department to get a copy of the police
report for the collision. They won't give him a copy because he is not
one of the parties involved in the collision.

>

I feel for your son, having worked for law firms for the last 25 years or so of my
working life. And I understand how frustrating it is to be at the wrong end of a
mistake. But sometimes, karma says to take the high road.

For one thing, judges don't look kindly on having their dockets filled with frivolous suits when a simple
conversation or two with the right person would get things cleared up in a timely manner. And
depending on the assigned judge, your son may not have the satisfaction of having his
legal fees and expenses reimbursed, as that would be for the judge to decide. (I am speaking
of my experience with the US judicial system, of course.)

I'm just sayin'....

N.

"Nancy2" > wrote in message
...
>
> I feel for your son, having worked for law firms for the last 25 years or
> so of my
> working life. And I understand how frustrating it is to be at the wrong
> end of a
> mistake. But sometimes, karma says to take the high road.
>
> For one thing, judges don't look kindly on having their dockets filled
> with frivolous suits when a simple
> conversation or two with the right person would get things cleared up in a
> timely manner. And
> depending on the assigned judge, your son may not have the satisfaction of
> having his
> legal fees and expenses reimbursed, as that would be for the judge to
> decide. (I am speaking
> of my experience with the US judicial system, of course.)
>
> I'm just sayin'....
>
> N.

But what about the "damage to his reputation"? What about his sleepless
nights? What about his righteous indignation? Surely that must be worth
millions!

When you have a name like Smith, you must get used to a few mistakes. Take
the high road and get over yourself.

Jeez, this is what the world has time to worry about?

The attorney responded to your son's ****y attitude. Sounds like it may be
the process server who fouled up.

On 2015-04-17 20:40, Nancy2 wrote:
>
> I feel for your son, having worked for law firms for the last 25 years or so of my
> working life. And I understand how frustrating it is to be at the wrong end of a
> mistake. But sometimes, karma says to take the high road.
>
> For one thing, judges don't look kindly on having their dockets filled with frivolous suits when a simple
> conversation or two with the right person would get things cleared up in a timely manner. And
> depending on the assigned judge, your son may not have the satisfaction of having his
> legal fees and expenses reimbursed, as that would be for the judge to decide. (I am speaking
> of my experience with the US judicial system, of course.)

AAMOF his email to the lawyer you is after him was advised that he had
contacted her in a timely manner and that she refused to accept his non
involvement in the case.
>
> I'm just sayin'....

Yes. I have spent enough time in court to have seen that cases do not
always turn out at they should.

On 2015-04-17 21:06, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> I feel for your son, having worked for law firms for the last 25 years or
>> so of my
>> working life. And I understand how frustrating it is to be at the wrong
>> end of a
>> mistake. But sometimes, karma says to take the high road.
>>
>> For one thing, judges don't look kindly on having their dockets filled
>> with frivolous suits when a simple
>> conversation or two with the right person would get things cleared up in a
>> timely manner. And
>> depending on the assigned judge, your son may not have the satisfaction of
>> having his
>> legal fees and expenses reimbursed, as that would be for the judge to
>> decide. (I am speaking
>> of my experience with the US judicial system, of course.)
>>
>> I'm just sayin'....
>>
>> N.
>
> But what about the "damage to his reputation"? What about his sleepless
> nights? What about his righteous indignation? Surely that must be worth
> millions!
>
> When you have a name like Smith, you must get used to a few mistakes. Take
> the high road and get over yourself.
>
> Jeez, this is what the world has time to worry about?
>
> The attorney responded to your son's ****y attitude. Sounds like it may be
> the process server who fouled up.
>


He acknowledged that there could have been a problem of mistaken
identity and gave her the chance to acknowledge that. She refused. She
asked him how he located the other person with the same name.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-04-17 21:06, taxed and spent wrote:
>> "Nancy2" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> I feel for your son, having worked for law firms for the last 25 years
>>> or
>>> so of my
>>> working life. And I understand how frustrating it is to be at the wrong
>>> end of a
>>> mistake. But sometimes, karma says to take the high road.
>>>
>>> For one thing, judges don't look kindly on having their dockets filled
>>> with frivolous suits when a simple
>>> conversation or two with the right person would get things cleared up in
>>> a
>>> timely manner. And
>>> depending on the assigned judge, your son may not have the satisfaction
>>> of
>>> having his
>>> legal fees and expenses reimbursed, as that would be for the judge to
>>> decide. (I am speaking
>>> of my experience with the US judicial system, of course.)
>>>
>>> I'm just sayin'....
>>>
>>> N.
>>
>> But what about the "damage to his reputation"? What about his sleepless
>> nights? What about his righteous indignation? Surely that must be worth
>> millions!
>>
>> When you have a name like Smith, you must get used to a few mistakes.
>> Take
>> the high road and get over yourself.
>>
>> Jeez, this is what the world has time to worry about?
>>
>> The attorney responded to your son's ****y attitude. Sounds like it may
>> be
>> the process server who fouled up.
>>
>
>
> He acknowledged that there could have been a problem of mistaken identity
> and gave her the chance to acknowledge that. She refused. She asked him
> how he located the other person with the same name.
>

and he refused.

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 4:25:06 PM UTC-7, Dave Smith wrote:
> No wonder there are so many jokes about them. My son was served with
> some papers last weekend. He is being sued along with the company he
> supposedly works or worked for as a result of a car accident in the city
> of Hamilton in May of 2013 and he was supposedly driving a Subaru.
> There is something in the paperwork about a Hamilton address. He has
> never lived in Hamilton, has never driven a Subaru and he was not
> involved in a collision in that city.
>
> He contacted the lawyer's office by email to let them know that they had
> screwed up, that he was not the XXXX Smith that they were suing. He
> told them that he wanted a letter from them acknowledging that it was a
> delivery error. Otherwise, he was going to have to retain a lawyer to
> defend himself, in which case he would counter sue for costs and damages
> to his reputation. He pointed out that he had used Google and LinkedIn
> to locate the XXXX Smith they want. The lawyer did not take him
> seriously. He called and spoke to her directly. She asked him how he
> found the guy. He said he was not going to tell her how to do her job.
> She got ****ed off and said they didn't have anymore to talk about and
> hung up.
>
> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
> fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
> services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
> is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
> and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
> served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
> of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
> to get the right XXXX Smith. Then, after the case against him gets
> tossed, he will have his suit against her. Even better, he will contact
> the lawyer's client to let him know that he had contacted the lawyer in
> a timely manner and explained the error and her refusal to correct the
> situation so he can sue her for her incompetent handling of his case.

Your son is being a dick. The driver who is suing was presumably injured.
He cannot help that he has a nitwit for a lawyer. In trying to punish the
lawyer by letting the statute of limitations expire, he hurts mostly the
client.

In article >,
says...

> The lad has legal assistance through his union

"assistance" can be a weasel term. He should take a close look at the
small print for which situations and legal expenses are covered or
excluded.

Janet UK

On 2015-04-18 4:00 AM, wrote:

>> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
>> fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
>> services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
>> is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
>> and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
>> served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
>> of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
>> to get the right XXXX Smith. Then, after the case against him gets
>> tossed, he will have his suit against her. Even better, he will contact
>> the lawyer's client to let him know that he had contacted the lawyer in
>> a timely manner and explained the error and her refusal to correct the
>> situation so he can sue her for her incompetent handling of his case.
>
> Your son is being a dick. The driver who is suing was presumably injured.
> He cannot help that he has a nitwit for a lawyer. In trying to punish the
> lawyer by letting the statute of limitations expire, he hurts mostly the
> client.
>


He sent her a very reasonable email informing here that that there had
been a delivery error and asked her for a letter acknowledging that, but
that if he was the target of the suit for an incident he had nothing to
do with he was going to have to retain a lawyer. She got all snotty with
him and refused to accept that he in not the party who was involved in a
collision with her client.

Thanks to she or her process server his current address is now attached
to a claim. He is under no obligation to tell her how to find the person
is suing. He has a job with access to government records that he might
be suspected of accessing... which he did not. Never the less, he has
legitimate concerns about privacy issues. He did advise her in a very
timely manner about the mistake she had made but she refused to accept
that he is the wrong guy, and she is charging her client for her expertise.

Her client won't be totally out of luck. He might be for the shafted on
the accident claim, but he will have a green light for suing his lawyer
for the negligence in the handling of his case.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
news
> On 2015-04-18 4:00 AM, wrote:
>
>>> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
>>> fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
>>> services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
>>> is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
>>> and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
>>> served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
>>> of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
>>> to get the right XXXX Smith. Then, after the case against him gets
>>> tossed, he will have his suit against her. Even better, he will contact
>>> the lawyer's client to let him know that he had contacted the lawyer in
>>> a timely manner and explained the error and her refusal to correct the
>>> situation so he can sue her for her incompetent handling of his case.
>>
>> Your son is being a dick. The driver who is suing was presumably injured.
>> He cannot help that he has a nitwit for a lawyer. In trying to punish the
>> lawyer by letting the statute of limitations expire, he hurts mostly the
>> client.
>>
>
>
> He sent her a very reasonable email informing here that that there had
> been a delivery error and asked her for a letter acknowledging that, but
> that if he was the target of the suit for an incident he had nothing to do
> with he was going to have to retain a lawyer. She got all snotty with him
> and refused to accept that he in not the party who was involved in a
> collision with her client.

"I'm not the guy. I know who it is, but I am not going to tell you. Nyah,
Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah Nyah" Now jsut who is being snotty?


>
> Thanks to she or her process server his current address is now attached to
> a claim. He is under no obligation to tell her how to find the person is
> suing. He has a job with access to government records that he might be
> suspected of accessing... which he did not.

BULLCRAP. You said he found it by google and linkedin. Give that info to
the attorney and there is no issue about his "access to government records"
and stop being a snot.

What a foolish society we live in.

On 4/18/2015 9:08 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-04-18 4:00 AM, wrote:
>
>>> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some
>>> fun with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal
>>> services to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there
>>> is no hurry for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated
>>> and the defendant be served within two years of the incident. They
>>> served him... in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute
>>> of limitation. He does not want anything to happen until it is too late
>>> to get the right XXXX Smith. Then, after the case against him gets
>>> tossed, he will have his suit against her. Even better, he will contact
>>> the lawyer's client to let him know that he had contacted the lawyer in
>>> a timely manner and explained the error and her refusal to correct the
>>> situation so he can sue her for her incompetent handling of his case.
>>
>> Your son is being a dick. The driver who is suing was presumably injured.
>> He cannot help that he has a nitwit for a lawyer. In trying to punish the
>> lawyer by letting the statute of limitations expire, he hurts mostly the
>> client.
>>
>
>
> He sent her a very reasonable email informing here that that there had
> been a delivery error and asked her for a letter acknowledging that, but
> that if he was the target of the suit for an incident he had nothing to
> do with he was going to have to retain a lawyer. She got all snotty with
> him and refused to accept that he in not the party who was involved in a
> collision with her client.
>
> Thanks to she or her process server his current address is now attached
> to a claim. He is under no obligation to tell her how to find the person
> is suing. He has a job with access to government records that he might
> be suspected of accessing... which he did not. Never the less, he has
> legitimate concerns about privacy issues. He did advise her in a very
> timely manner about the mistake she had made but she refused to accept
> that he is the wrong guy, and she is charging her client for her expertise.
>
> Her client won't be totally out of luck. He might be for the shafted on
> the accident claim, but he will have a green light for suing his lawyer
> for the negligence in the handling of his case.

That will just wind up costing the client more money in the long run.
Your son will wind up being dragged into court (or at least for a
deposition) as a witness/party to the action, too. Meanwhile, the
claimant/plaintiff has who knows what other ongoing problems resulting
from this collision. It seems like it must have been pretty severe.

Of course your son is not obligated to tell the lawyer how to find the
right person. But it's not the client's fault he hired a lawyer who
doesn't know her ass from a hole in the ground. Perhaps your son should
talk to the client, not the lawyer, and explain what is going on. I'm
no expert but it seems like the claimants name should be in the
paperwork he was served.

Jill

On 2015-04-18 9:12 AM, taxed and spent wrote:

>> Something like "You have the wrong guy. I know who you're looking for, but
>> I'm not telling you who it is."
>>
>> lol
>
> And that is exactly what the "right guys" try to tell such attorneys all the
> time. Of course the lawyer didn't believe this clown.

We all know that they hear lies like that all the time. My son contacted
the lawyer to let her know there was an error. She has been told. The
process from here will be for my son to get in touch with a lawyer who
will then contact the other lawyer. There will be a request for
disclosure.These things take time. The disclosure will include the
accident report and the full names, addresses and dates of birth of the
parties involved. He can then get back to her and, using client
confidentiality, assure her that she has the wrong person. By that time,
it may be too late to serve the person who should have been served long
ago.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
news
> On 2015-04-18 9:12 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
>>> Something like "You have the wrong guy. I know who you're looking for,
>>> but
>>> I'm not telling you who it is."
>>>
>>> lol
>>
>> And that is exactly what the "right guys" try to tell such attorneys all
>> the
>> time. Of course the lawyer didn't believe this clown.
>
> We all know that they hear lies like that all the time. My son contacted
> the lawyer to let her know there was an error. She has been told. The
> process from here will be for my son to get in touch with a lawyer who
> will then contact the other lawyer. There will be a request for
> disclosure.These things take time. The disclosure will include the
> accident report and the full names, addresses and dates of birth of the
> parties involved. He can then get back to her and, using client
> confidentiality, assure her that she has the wrong person. By that time,
> it may be too late to serve the person who should have been served long
> ago.
>
>

Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
info. Easy peasy.

With you defending your son at every step of the way, it is no wonder he
grew up to be a jerk.

No do-overs for you. Sad.

On 2015-04-18 9:16 AM, taxed and spent wrote:

> "I'm not the guy. I know who it is, but I am not going to tell you. Nyah,
> Nyah, Nyah, Nyah, Nyah Nyah" Now jsut who is being snotty?


There is always the chance that he could be wrong, but he used the
original address on the papers and Google Street View. He also used
LinkedIn and the guy is listed as working at the business that is also
being sued. It will be interesting if they contact the lawyer and want
to know why they are being sued but their co-accused has not been served.




>>
>> Thanks to she or her process server his current address is now attached to
>> a claim. He is under no obligation to tell her how to find the person is
>> suing. He has a job with access to government records that he might be
>> suspected of accessing... which he did not.
>
> BULLCRAP. You said he found it by google and linkedin. Give that info to
> the attorney and there is no issue about his "access to government records"
> and stop being a snot.

There could be the suspicion that he did. Given the number of scandals
and lawsuits over freedom of information, smart people are reluctant to
take a chance but when you have a job involving a security clearance you
have to be especially careful. His only obligation is to inform her
that he is not the party who was involved in a collision with her
client. She is a professional. She hires other professionals to do the
leg work.

Some might think he could send her his full name, date of birth,
addresses and car registration, but that would be giving them
information about him, and if they are lacking information about him
they could try to use it against him.

On 2015-04-18 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:

>> We all know that they hear lies like that all the time. My son contacted
>> the lawyer to let her know there was an error. She has been told. The
>> process from here will be for my son to get in touch with a lawyer who
>> will then contact the other lawyer. There will be a request for
>> disclosure.These things take time. The disclosure will include the
>> accident report and the full names, addresses and dates of birth of the
>> parties involved. He can then get back to her and, using client
>> confidentiality, assure her that she has the wrong person. By that time,
>> it may be too late to serve the person who should have been served long
>> ago.
>>
>>
>
> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
> info. Easy peasy.

Why should he have to tell the lawyer the address of someone he doesn't
know in regard to an incident he had nothing to do with? He told her
in a timely manner that he was not the person he was looking for. She as
much as called him a liar.

> With you defending your son at every step of the way, it is no wonder he
> grew up to be a jerk.


I guess you have never been on the shitty end of a law suit or been
falsely accused of something. I have been subjected to both and I have
seen the depths to which lawyers will sink to make themselves look
right. He did tell them Google and Linkedin.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-04-18 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
>>> We all know that they hear lies like that all the time. My son contacted
>>> the lawyer to let her know there was an error. She has been told. The
>>> process from here will be for my son to get in touch with a lawyer who
>>> will then contact the other lawyer. There will be a request for
>>> disclosure.These things take time. The disclosure will include the
>>> accident report and the full names, addresses and dates of birth of the
>>> parties involved. He can then get back to her and, using client
>>> confidentiality, assure her that she has the wrong person. By that time,
>>> it may be too late to serve the person who should have been served long
>>> ago.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
>> info. Easy peasy.
>
> Why should he have to tell the lawyer the address of someone he doesn't
> know in regard to an incident he had nothing to do with? He told her in
> a timely manner that he was not the person he was looking for. She as much
> as called him a liar.
>
>> With you defending your son at every step of the way, it is no wonder he
>> grew up to be a jerk.
>
>
> I guess you have never been on the shitty end of a law suit or been
> falsely accused of something. I have been subjected to both and I have
> seen the depths to which lawyers will sink to make themselves look right.
> He did tell them Google and Linkedin.

I have, and I handled them like a mature adult. Problems solved, even
though the other attorneys were each a bit of a dim bulb. I didn't concoct
oddball retribution scenarios in my head.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:25:28 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:



>That will just wind up costing the client more money in the long run.
>Your son will wind up being dragged into court (or at least for a
>deposition) as a witness/party to the action, too. Meanwhile, the
>claimant/plaintiff has who knows what other ongoing problems resulting
>from this collision. It seems like it must have been pretty severe.

One option, if he has the time and inclination, is to show up in court
and ask why he was served. Sure would make the lawyer look dumb in
the court.

On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 10:46:00 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>
>> The lad has legal assistance through his union
>
> "assistance" can be a weasel term. He should take a close look at the
>small print for which situations and legal expenses are covered or
>excluded.
>
> Janet UK

Part of the assistance would be to advise him to proceed or drop it I
would think.

On 4/18/2015 10:49 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:25:28 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> That will just wind up costing the client more money in the long run.
>> Your son will wind up being dragged into court (or at least for a
>> deposition) as a witness/party to the action, too. Meanwhile, the
>> claimant/plaintiff has who knows what other ongoing problems resulting
>>from this collision. It seems like it must have been pretty severe.
>
> One option, if he has the time and inclination, is to show up in court
> and ask why he was served. Sure would make the lawyer look dumb in
> the court.
>
>
That's a great idea, Ed! I don't know how things work in Canada but in
the US it might even be enough for a judge to start disbarrment proceedings.

Jill

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 18 Apr 2015 09:25:28 -0400, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>That will just wind up costing the client more money in the long run.
>>Your son will wind up being dragged into court (or at least for a
>>deposition) as a witness/party to the action, too. Meanwhile, the
>>claimant/plaintiff has who knows what other ongoing problems resulting
>>from this collision. It seems like it must have been pretty severe.
>
> One option, if he has the time and inclination, is to show up in court
> and ask why he was served. Sure would make the lawyer look dumb in
> the court.
>
>

if he REALLY wants the lawyer to look dumb, he should take the papers and
serve them on the RIGHT guy, and send in the proof of service.

On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:

>
> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
> info. Easy peasy.
>

He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
that.

I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
to see him show up in court.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
>>
>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
>> info. Easy peasy.
>>
>
> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
> that.
>
> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
> to see him show up in court.
>

She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real guy
trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?

"taxed and spent" wrote:
>"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
>>jmcquown wrote:
>>
>>>That will just wind up costing the client more money in the long run.
>>>Your son will wind up being dragged into court (or at least for a
>>>deposition) as a witness/party to the action, too. Meanwhile, the
>>>claimant/plaintiff has who knows what other ongoing problems resulting
>>>from this collision. It seems like it must have been pretty severe.
>>
>> One option, if he has the time and inclination, is to show up in court
>> and ask why he was served. Sure would make the lawyer look dumb in
>> the court.
>
>if he REALLY wants the lawyer to look dumb, he should take the papers and
>serve them on the RIGHT guy, and send in the proof of service.

If the papers don't name the son as respondant then he wasn't served.
Nailing papers to the door of an incorrect address is not proper
service to the person named therein. I'd scratch out the incorrect
address and nail those papers to the lawyer's door. In the US a
process server must ask if you are the person named therein and when
answered affirmatively place the papers in that person's hand and say
you've been served, even if the person lies and denies they are that
person they can still be served when they match the photo that the
process server has to make ID... process servers are almost always
given a photo of the person being served, the lawyer will typically
obtain a copy from the MVD... in some jurisdictions they may after
several documented attempts leave the papers at the door but if the
person named therein does not reside there then it's not a true
service... no lawyer that values their membership to the Bar will have
a judge sign off on a subpena to the wrong person. The person named
in the document must be personally served, the address is
inconsequential... the named person can be served anywhere they are
found, often when people are difficult to locate they are served where
they are employed, in NY the lawyer pays the Sheriff to serve papers
at the named person's place of employment, may be embarrassing but
it's a true service. A lawyer can also have the police issue a
warrant for arrest. Maybe in Canada a maple tree or a loon can be
served in lieu of the correct human.

On 2015-04-18 12:05 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>> if he REALLY wants the lawyer to look dumb, he should take the papers and
>> serve them on the RIGHT guy, and send in the proof of service.
>
> If the papers don't name the son as respondant then he wasn't served.


He shares the first and last names of the person named in the suit. A
Statement of Claim must be served personally to the person named in a
suit. It is not like Provincial Offenses summons which can be served on
any person at the last known residence of the accused. A Provincial
Offences summons to a company outside of the province is deemed to have
been served 10 days after it was sent out by registered mail.



> Nailing papers to the door of an incorrect address is not proper
> service to the person named therein. I'd scratch out the incorrect
> address and nail those papers to the lawyer's door. In the US a
> process server must ask if you are the person named therein and when
> answered affirmatively place the papers in that person's hand and say
> you've been served, even if the person lies and denies they are that
> person they can still be served when they match the photo that the
> process server has to make ID... process servers are almost always
> given a photo of the person being served, the lawyer will typically
> obtain a copy from the MVD... in some jurisdictions they may after
> several documented attempts leave the papers at the door but if the
> person named therein does not reside there then it's not a true
> service... no lawyer that values their membership to the Bar will have
> a judge sign off on a subpena to the wrong person. The person named
> in the document must be personally served, the address is
> inconsequential... the named person can be served anywhere they are
> found, often when people are difficult to locate they are served where
> they are employed, in NY the lawyer pays the Sheriff to serve papers
> at the named person's place of employment, may be embarrassing but
> it's a true service. A lawyer can also have the police issue a
> warrant for arrest.

I served a lot of summons over the years.





> Maybe in Canada a maple tree or a loon can be
> served in lieu of the correct human.
>
We sent most of our loons to NY ;-)

On 2015-04-18 11:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
>>
>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
>> info. Easy peasy.
>>
>
> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after that.
>
> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
> to see him show up in court.


Exactly. He notified her office in a timely manner that he had been
served with papers over an incident in which he had had no involvement
and wanted her to acknowledge in writing that he had been served in error.

If I were that lawyer I would be concerned. Apparently,the collision
referenced in the Statement of Claim was May 30, 2013, which means that
she has 6 weeks to find the real XXXX Smith. If she insists on pursuing
my son he will be forced to retain council. He can then take his time
to request disclosure and apply client confidentiality to prove she
served the wrong person. Since she had dragged this out for so long it
looks like she is going to run out of time to serve the right party.

She is a personal injury lawyer and she seems hell bent on prosecuting
my son over an incident that he had nothing at all to do with. I am all
for letting her hang herself and watching her swing.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-04-18 11:54 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
>>> info. Easy peasy.
>>>
>>
>> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
>> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
>> that.
>>
>> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
>> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
>> to see him show up in court.
>
>
> Exactly. He notified her office in a timely manner that he had been
> served with papers over an incident in which he had had no involvement and
> wanted her to acknowledge in writing that he had been served in error.
>
> If I were that lawyer I would be concerned. Apparently,the collision
> referenced in the Statement of Claim was May 30, 2013, which means that
> she has 6 weeks to find the real XXXX Smith. If she insists on pursuing my
> son he will be forced to retain council. He can then take his time to
> request disclosure and apply client confidentiality to prove she served
> the wrong person. Since she had dragged this out for so long it looks like
> she is going to run out of time to serve the right party.
>
> She is a personal injury lawyer and she seems hell bent on prosecuting my
> son over an incident that he had nothing at all to do with. I am all for
> letting her hang herself and watching her swing.
>

The statute of limitations pertains to the time for filing suit, not for
serving the defendant.

There is no reason in the world she should take some guy's word for it that
"I'm not the real guy". And he childishly refused to provide publicly
available information he had at his disposal. I would not give him a dime.

However, with a name like Smith, the lawyer should be concerned she served
the right guy.

On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and linkedin
>>> info. Easy peasy.
>>>
>>
>> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
>> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
>> that.
>>
>> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
>> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
>> to see him show up in court.
>>
>
> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real guy
> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>
>

Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and
>>>> linkedin
>>>> info. Easy peasy.
>>>>
>>>
>>> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
>>> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
>>> that.
>>>
>>> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
>>> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
>>> to see him show up in court.
>>>
>>
>> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real
>> guy
>> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
>> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>>
>>
>
> Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
> said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....

Since Dave is undoubtedly trying to put his son in the best possible light,
it is clear that the young Smith is a childish jerk. That much is certain.
And he doesn't understand the concept of "mitigation of damages". Instead,
he plots childish revenge scenarios and is hoping for a check. Clown.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
>.
>
> She is a personal injury lawyer and she seems hell bent on prosecuting my
> son over an incident that he had nothing at all to do with.

you and your son are total loons!

On 2015-04-18 12:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>
>>
>> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real
>> guy
>> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
>> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>>
>>
>
> Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
> said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....


It's getting better every day. She has made allegations of a criminal
record, claiming that he has been convicted of drinking and driving and
that he had been drinking at the time of the collision.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-04-18 12:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real
>>> guy
>>> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
>>> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
>> said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....
>
>
> It's getting better every day. She has made allegations of a criminal
> record, claiming that he has been convicted of drinking and driving and
> that he had been drinking at the time of the collision.
>

She is obviously talking about the other guy.

On 2015-04-18 12:50 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and
>>>>> linkedin
>>>>> info. Easy peasy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
>>>> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down, you are
>>>> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd like
>>>> to see him show up in court.
>>>>
>>>
>>> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real
>>> guy
>>> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
>>> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
>> said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....
>
> Since Dave is undoubtedly trying to put his son in the best possible light,
> it is clear that the young Smith is a childish jerk. That much is certain.
> And he doesn't understand the concept of "mitigation of damages". Instead,
> he plots childish revenge scenarios and is hoping for a check. Clown.
>



I have seen copies of the emails he said. They were very well written
and very clear about him not having been involved in the incident,
giving them to acknowledge that they had served him in error. He sent
them another one two days later, having given them enough time to
confirm their error and to correct the situation. Then he phoned and
spoke to the lawyer. She as much as called him a liar. She also
referenced convictions for drinking and driving and said he had been
drinking at the time of the collision.


Revenge? Sure. He and his name are being dragged through the court
system because of her incompetence and her refusal to admit that she is
wrong. His name and address are now connected to a law suit, plus the
allegation of drinking and driving.

On 2015-04-18 1:01 PM, taxed and spent wrote:

>> It is not just mistaken identity. The lawyer is representing a client in
>> regards to personal injuries in a car accident. My son shares the first
>> and last names of the person they hope to sue. He has contacted the lawyer
>> to let her know he has no knowledge of the incident and has never lived at
>> the address shown on the Statement of Claim or even in that city. Her
>> refusal to acknowledge that error means it may be too late to launch a
>> suit.
>
> uh, the suit is already "launched".
>
>

Against an innocent party. If it goes to court with him as the defendant
it will be tossed and they will not be able to initiate a new one.

On 2015-04-18 2:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2015-04-18 12:48 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real
>>>> guy
>>>> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
>>>> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
>>> said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....
>>
>>
>> It's getting better every day. She has made allegations of a criminal
>> record, claiming that he has been convicted of drinking and driving and
>> that he had been drinking at the time of the collision.
>>
>
> She is obviously talking about the other guy.
>

His name and address are attached to the allegations.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2015-04-18 1:01 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>
>>> It is not just mistaken identity. The lawyer is representing a client in
>>> regards to personal injuries in a car accident. My son shares the first
>>> and last names of the person they hope to sue. He has contacted the
>>> lawyer
>>> to let her know he has no knowledge of the incident and has never lived
>>> at
>>> the address shown on the Statement of Claim or even in that city. Her
>>> refusal to acknowledge that error means it may be too late to launch a
>>> suit.
>>
>> uh, the suit is already "launched".
>>
>>
>
> Against an innocent party. If it goes to court with him as the defendant
> it will be tossed and they will not be able to initiate a new one.
>

no, it is against XXXX Smith. That is the right guy. It also happens to be
your son's name. All they need to do is serve the right guy. Maybe they
have, you don't know.

We often used Sheriff deputies as servers, and they never had a photo from us of what
the person looked like. They did the service for a fee, at their convenience.

N.

"Dave Smith" > wrote in message
...
> No wonder there are so many jokes about them. My son was served with some
> papers last weekend. He is being sued along with the company he supposedly
> works or worked for as a result of a car accident in the city of Hamilton
> in May of 2013 and he was supposedly driving a Subaru.
> There is something in the paperwork about a Hamilton address. He has never
> lived in Hamilton, has never driven a Subaru and he was not involved in a
> collision in that city.
>
> He contacted the lawyer's office by email to let them know that they had
> screwed up, that he was not the XXXX Smith that they were suing. He told
> them that he wanted a letter from them acknowledging that it was a
> delivery error. Otherwise, he was going to have to retain a lawyer to
> defend himself, in which case he would counter sue for costs and damages
> to his reputation. He pointed out that he had used Google and LinkedIn to
> locate the XXXX Smith they want. The lawyer did not take him seriously.
> He called and spoke to her directly. She asked him how he found the guy.
> He said he was not going to tell her how to do her job. She got ****ed off
> and said they didn't have anymore to talk about and hung up.
>
> The lad has legal assistance through his union and plans to have some fun
> with her and her incompetence. The plan is to use his free legal services
> to retain a lawyer who will them ask for disclosure, but there is no hurry
> for that. The law requires a that the action be initiated and the
> defendant be served within two years of the incident. They served him...
> in error, a month short of the expiration of the statute of limitation. He
> does not want anything to happen until it is too late to get the right
> XXXX Smith. Then, after the case against him gets tossed, he will have
> his suit against her. Even better, he will contact the lawyer's client to
> let him know that he had contacted the lawyer in a timely manner and
> explained the error and her refusal to correct the situation so he can sue
> her for her incompetent handling of his case.


The other possibility is he gets stuck with 10 grand in legal fees. Just
because you counter sue for costs does not mean you get them. Just letting
it play out, smugly thinking everyone gets theirs in the end could have
unexpected consequences. I'd counsel your kid not being so arrogant and
call the lawyer and just answer her perfectly reasonable question and save
himself some potential grief and a lot of money.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

On 18/04/2015 12:07 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2015-04-18 12:50 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 4/18/2015 12:02 PM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 4/18/2015 9:56 AM, taxed and spent wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or your jerk of a son could provide the attorney the google and
>>>>>> linkedin
>>>>>> info. Easy peasy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> He did try to help her but she was arrogant and refused to listen,
>>>>> according to Dave. I'd certainly let her swing in the air too, after
>>>>> that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to help anyone at any time, but if you turn me down,
>>>>> you are
>>>>> on your own, be that good or bad. As I stated in another post, I'd
>>>>> like
>>>>> to see him show up in court.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> She asked him for the info on the other guy to show he wasn't the real
>>>> guy
>>>> trying to con her, a reasonable request. And he refused in a childlike
>>>> manner. Why do parents stick up for their kids bad behavior?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since neither of us witnessed the exchange, hard to say what was really
>>> said . Could go either way, but she sounds like an arrogant b....
>>
>> Since Dave is undoubtedly trying to put his son in the best possible
>> light,
>> it is clear that the young Smith is a childish jerk. That much is
>> certain.
>> And he doesn't understand the concept of "mitigation of damages".
>> Instead,
>> he plots childish revenge scenarios and is hoping for a check. Clown.
>>
>
>
>
> I have seen copies of the emails he said. They were very well written
> and very clear about him not having been involved in the incident,
> giving them to acknowledge that they had served him in error. He sent
> them another one two days later, having given them enough time to
> confirm their error and to correct the situation. Then he phoned and
> spoke to the lawyer. She as much as called him a liar. She also
> referenced convictions for drinking and driving and said he had been
> drinking at the time of the collision.
>
>
> Revenge? Sure. He and his name are being dragged through the court
> system because of her incompetence and her refusal to admit that she is
> wrong. His name and address are now connected to a law suit, plus the
> allegation of drinking and driving.
>
>
Maybe he should inform his insurance company.
Graham

--