Mechanics Lien Challenge

I've read this four times and still have no idea what it says.

THE ONLY ETHICAL way for a lawyer to THREATEN to take you to court in a situation where it is clearly a frivolous lawsuit is if it is against you, is to bring the lawsuit.

Take out the mixed up phrases in the middle: THE ONLY ETHICAL WAY FOR A LAWYER TO THREATEN TO TAKE YOU TO COURT (then you repeat blah IF IT IS AGAINST YOU--you already said "threaten to take you to court") is to bring the lawsuit.

So, the ONLY ETHICAL WAY FOR A LAWYER TO THREATEN TO TAKE YOU TO COURT IS TO BRING THE LAWSUIT.

Allrighty then. ONLY ethical way to threaten to take people to court for frivolous lawsuits is to bring the lawsuit. SO If he threatens a frivolous lawsuit, it is UNETHICAL TO THEN NOT BRING THE LAWSUIT??

LMAO you are nuttier than a squirrel. You realize you are WRONG so you write this HUGE irrelevant posting trying to sound like you know something but again your efforts are pitifully laughable!
AH, but I am just getting started. Lets consider these two special statements--word for word. Shall we?

This is SO your MO. Make a statement, and suggest I said to the contrary. I did not.
So, since I apparently MISREAD something, please quote it for us and explain what I misread.

YOU said, There is a significant difference between being named in a lawsuit and being party to the CAUSE of the action.
I actually agree. WHERE DID I SAY SHE WAS SIMPLY NAMED IN A LAWSUIT?? SHE IS NOT JUST NAMED IN A LAWSUIT.

SHE SAID (her quote)"........actually bringing my firm in as a party to the suit ...." Copy and paste where I said she is simply NAMED in a lawsuit. I did not say that. SHE did not say that.
She isn't just NAMED IN a lawsuit. SHE IS (are you ready?) NAMED AS A PARTY. THIS means she is the PLAINTIFF (if she brought the cause of action--which in this case she did not) OR she is the DEFENDANT (If she is the one being sued--which in this case she is)
She understood---I understood and neither of us questioned the difference between merely mentioned in the course of a lawsuit and actually being named as a PARTY?

Apparently YOU were the only one that needed clarification as evidenced by this little gem:
BLAH BLAH. WRONG. STILL WRONG.
Interesting how you slip in another "fudged" nearly correct but completely wrong statement in things you are attempting at least to make sound 1. truthful and 2. as though I said them. NEITHER is the case.

WHO said her testimony is going to be attacked because she can GAIN financially from the lien? MILLIONS of people give testimony in court DAILY and it is attacked for things such as their testifying because the person is a friend, or family member, or neighbor, or coworker---and none of those people "GAIN" from testifying. AND you can BET their testimony will come under attack. Why is it you picked ONE of the dozens of possibilities to tell her she cannot be attacked for when there are dozens? They may attack her credentials, her education, her morals, her track record, etc. Sure, they may not attack her for "gaining financially" but who said they would?

YOU said previously,
If you do not stand to gain by the lien, you are not party to the cause of action. This is just a phrase Grace learned but didn't tell you how it applies or if it does apply.
SHE HERSELF said 1. she does not stand to gain from the lien and 2. that she HAS been named as a party.
Apparently you 1. know nothing about liens and 2. didn't READ (lmao) where SHE SAID she already WAS threatened to be sued as a PARTY.
Stop trying to save face. You have none left to salvage---it is a travesty what you are doing to posters. Shame on you in your self absorbed mediocrity that you bring to a law forum when you have no education, or training or even legitimate sources to back up your mindless rants.

You said I did not read correctly but you did not pinpoint exactly what I misread and WHY I presumably misread. Then you just added a bunch more misstatements to clearly incorrect and meaningless rhetoric.

You are the only one who apparently (judging from the misstatements you have made) does not understand how and why you are and can be named as a party---very embarrassed for you.

Here you go again. My comments are based on what she needs to know to give testimony. She is not PARTY (HAS NO BENEFIT) TO THE PROCEEDINGS. That has meaning for those of us who don't pretend to be lawyers... just like it will have meaning for the judge and any jury brought. But perhaps you haven't attended civil court yet.

And ethically, lawyers are not supposed to threaten to use the power of the court to punish people who oppose their clients. Obviously they do when they bring the suit, but then they CAN be sanctioned for frivolous litigation and their client will have to pay the piper. If this turns out to be a wondrously acclaimed counterclaim and gets paid by court order, they can ALSO demand that the GENERAL PAY THEIR LEGAL BILLS for having brought a suit against them for putting a LEGAL LIEN on the property. THAT is where my comments were going, but in terms of THIS accountant, there is NO damage claim that can be brought because witnesses can say anything... but LAWYERS CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR FRIVOLOUS LITIGATION... The damage then becomes legal fees to protect the accountant and she might pursue that avenue as a defendant in this lawsuit as HER counterclaim.

It is usually much more expensive but more controllable if the lien holder is the plaintiff... but it can be worked out even this way.

SHE didn't ASK you how to give testimony.

YOU are misusing words then faulting everyone else for not understanding the nuances of your fictional definitions.

"SHE IS NOT PARTY TO THE PROCEEDING---then You helpfully and erroneously add "DOES NOT BENEFIT FROM" the proceedings.

ONE QUESTION .

WHO SAID being a PARTY means she BENEFITS FROM the proceedings? Well--besides YOU......who uses the word in that context?

SHE SAID ( and I quote----again!) "bringing my firm in as a party to the suit "
Where does it say she is to gain? No one implied or suggested that. ONLY YOU, my dear. ONLY YOU. She said she does NOT GAIN. PERIOD.

SHE SAYS she is being named as a party.

BUT YOU (erroneously) say "She is not PARTY (HAS NO BENEFIT) TO THE PROCEEDINGS. "
SHOW ME THE DEFINITION OF PARTY THAT YOU ARE USING THAT USES THE TERM PARTY TO MEAN THE SAME THING AS 'THEY BENEFIT'.

HERE is what it means to be a PARTY in a lawsuit:
Black’s Law Dictionary: “.....the formal allegations by the parties to a lawsuit of their respective claims and defenses, with the intended purpose being to provide notice of what is to be expected at trial.” For the party filing the lawsuit, known as the plaintiff, the complaint is the operative pleading that it files to set forth its allegations as to the case.
The party that is being sued, the defendant, sets forth its response to the complaint in the answer.
Anatomy of a Lawsuit

Now........ given that factual definition of what it means to be a PARTY in a lawsuit, lets consider YOUR erroneous statements again:

If you do not stand to gain by the lien, you are not party to the cause of action.
She is not PARTY (HAS NO BENEFIT) TO THE PROCEEDINGS.
I honestly have NO idea what your point is---you've tried repeatedly to correct your machinations about what it means to be a party, but clearly, (and not according to ME but according to LEGAL definition) She IS A PARTY---as I stated a party in a lawsuit has nothing to do with benefit. It has to do with who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant. PERIOD. YOU are a party if YOU ARE NAMED as either plaintiff OR defendant. BOTTOM LINE.

MILLION DOLLAR question you will NOT answer:

WHERE is YOUR definition of what it means to be a party in a lawsuit and SHOW where REMOTELY references BENEFIT.

It does not.

YOU cannot.

Well, it seemed to me that she wanted someone to tell her more than the typical lawyer is willing to say. I've been there, and they prefer not to second guess what will happen... because if it really gets rough, they will not have given their client enough explanation... and usually they want to lead into what is likely WELL AFTER they collect their first fee.

So MY point in discussing what is likely and how she wants to testify and conduct herself during these trying times, is that she needs to get a bird's eye view of how civil suits progress... the typical civil court lawyer will attack the defendant in a lawsuit if they get on the stand. That lawyer will attempt to make the defendant uncomfortable at the very least, but angry is the most profitable demeanor he wants to produce. Angry people forget where they are going and what is important.

But she needs support from an everyday point of view. She needs to know that she is a part of the proper use of the law to get a judgement for payment of monies due. She needs to know that while the courtroom has its downside given that lots of nasty things can be said with no means to counter someone in retribution, the courtroom also has the juice to stop unethical lawyers and general contractors from smearing those who don't let them take their profit... and sometimes try to steal their work and their business ... from lack of prosecution of claims by the sub to be paid for their labor. And she needs to KNOW that if she is named in this lawsuit, she can get her lawyer's fees paid if the sub wins.... and probably even if he doesn't... because SHE has nothing to gain and never did create a reasonable
CAUSE OF ACTION for them to sue her.

If she is NOT named in the lawsuit, it will cost her money that she cannot be compensated for... because she is NOT the defendant.

It is NOT Grace's legalese that she asked about.

It is "What is going to happen? How can I protect myself? Can HE SAY THAT? Will I regret being there?"

All of these questions depend on the kind of person she is. How much is she willing to withstand in order to protect her client's business interest? Can she sustain her job in a climate where lawyers come after the accountants?

These are the questions she needs answers to.

NOT the legalese definitions. NOT Grace's dictionary. And since Grace doesn't have civil courtroom litigation experience, NOT GRACE.

REFER TO THE ORIGINAL POSTING ( NOT mine) :

"...............actually bringing my firm in as a party to the suit for fraud as well."
Honey, do you KNOW what "as a party" means? "as a party" means she is 1. the defendant, or 2. the PLAINTIFF.

YOU just stated she is NOT a defendant. That leaves ONE possibility. C'mon, this isn't jelly bean counting. She is the PLAINTIFF??

SHE IS GOING to be NAMED AS A PARTY. (SHE said so, NOT me).

REFER TO BLACKS LAW DEFINITION of what it means to "BE A PARTY" in a lawsuit ( Not "graces legalese")
If she is not named as a party, she does not have to show UP to court even unless she is called as a witness. And that shouldn't cost her money per se--maybe a day off work.
Your inadequacy is secondly only to your ignorance.

AND.............. you said:

SHE has nothing to gain and never did create a reasonable
CAUSE OF ACTION for them to sue her.

Who said she had something to gain? No one even RAISED this possibility--well, besides YOU.

AND who said she created a reasonable cause of action ? No one.

Is there a reason you are even rambling on about this?
YOU YOURSELF called this a frivilous lawsuit.

It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE ( you said so) for someone to bring a lawsuit against her without basis.

NOW you say she "never did create a reasonable
CAUSE OF ACTION for them to sue her." Well, that may be the case.

BUT that doesn't change the fact that (HER WORDS) that they are "bringing my firm in as a party to the suit".

Is it necessary to tell ME she did nothing wrong? Who said she did? Just rambling irrelevant dialogue meant to cover up your horrible misstatements. What you think is irrelevant.

YOU said "and they prefer not to second guess what will happen..." and you proceed to GUESS what will happen and THEN offensively, in your final machinations call it "legal advice".

You sit and speculate hours upon end about everything about me from my HAIR color to the exact number of hours I have spend in law school. Honestly--you CALCULATED IT.

Now you arrived at the startling conclusion that I have NEVER been in a civil courtroom. I can assure you of this---I have been in the civil courtroom more times than years you have been alive.

Do you make this up as you go along?

I say clearly you have no legal education and judging from your OWN CLEARLY INCORRECT STATEMENT, no experience either.

Amazingly you feel free to make such blanket statements about something I have never specifically addressed---until now. Do you know what they call that kind of speculation? LIES.

YOU, my dear, LIE.

Now, how about you stop thinking about ME and answer the questions asked of you. Another thread with NO answers to your insipidly wrong statements. PAR for YOUR course.

I suggest you carry along my words if you can't remember what I said in what context when you create garbage to refute what YOU SAID... not I.

I said IF she is not a defendant... She doesn't have to be the Plaintiff, she might just be a witness for the defense.

Like I said before, SHE DIDN'T need your legalese definitions to understand that her part in this suit depends on whether she has any INTEREST in the outcome... except as a law abiding citizen.

I've actually seen unscrupulous lawyers back off of naming a disinterested party that they think has damaging evidence to give... because their lawyer pointed out the fact that the lawyer can be sanctioned and his client forced to pay. They KNOW it, but sometimes they just can't help themselves. They have nothing else they can do, so they attempt to damage the witnesses.

YES, as Poster said, this smacks of racketeering. But when a $MILLION is at stake, those who are in the case are likely to find their legal bills unconscionable. So let's hope he is stupid enough to name her as defendant.

And, frankly I don't get the idea that this case has actually been filed YET. I think this lawyer is still in the threatening stage. He doesn't have to violate his ethical duties to the court, but it looks like it is a toss up.

YOUR overreaching on rebuttal is poor.

Okay you two, stop fighting. I wasn't clear enough I guess. I have not been named in the lawsuit YET, I have only recieved an email from this bully lawyer threatening to include me with the subcontractor for filing a frivolous or fraudulent lien. I have spoken to three lawyers on the phone today, all who have stated unconditionally that the general contractor's attorney can basically do whatever he wants whether it's legal or not, but by taking that step to include a non-related third party auditor as a defendant in a lien case would presume evidence that the auditor was forging or committing fraudulent acts to adjust the numbers, something that is virtually impossible in this situation, since the auditor based the numbers and the reconciliation on the general contractors contract sums to date on each pay application. There were also change orders involved that were also based on signed authorizations and were in agreement with what the gc paid. The lien was filed for non-payment of approved change orders, retainage, and the profit balance on the contract when the work was completed, and yes, the gc is in a position to have to explain their non-payment, and they also two weeks before the end of the project tried to pull non-performance issues that were not valid in any way. The burden of proof is supposedly on the gc's attorney to prove I did something wrong in performing this audit, I am still scratching my head on this because I know my numbers are right, they are in agreement with the gc's contract sums to date, so my head scratch is what this guy is going to do to add me as a party when he has absolutely no proof whatsoever that there's wrongdoing, and he's now sounding like a big fat bully. I suppose he would be in a serious amount of trouble by adding me as a defendant and then not having any evidence to back it up? I am also very familiar with my subcontractor's attorney having testified before on an audit for the company over an embezzlement issue with a former employee, we won that one also because I am a strong witness, I don't intimidate very easily and my numbers are right. I wouldn't think of going into a courtroom in front of a judge and testifying on any numbers unless I knew them backwards and forwards. I feel better about what I heard today, and I will probably retain an attorney just in case I need one, if this bozo is dumb enough to include me as a defendant. Thanks you guys, glad to provide argument food, I'll send another one your way here shortly.

SHE SAID she has been notified she is GOING TO BE A DEFENDANT. So, tell me again---why are we speculating as to IF she is or is not?

AND HER part in this suit has NOTHING TO DO with if she has any INTEREST in the OUTCOME".

What does "interest" mean? What is YOUR definition of "benefit"??

WRONG WRONG WRONG. You were wrong then, you are wrong now.

Pitiful.

Seems I was not so far off the mark as you, drucilla.

Comes from being a general contractor myself.... and having borne some unequivocably unethical attempts by two lawyers to steal a business and stop my people from competing in their own IT profession... Been there, don't want to go back, would never let them take MY company... they were RICO crooks... Their disbarment can't come too soon for me. This year.

Funny how I seem to get the accurate message when others don't. That is just age and reading skills.