View Full Version : Rachell Canning: The 18-year-old woman who wants to be "unempanicapted"
Blackrook
03-06-2014, 12:52 AM
Perhaps you've heard of Rachel Canning, the cheerleader who is suing her parents for kicking her out of their home?
She is staying at a friend's home, and the friend's father is a lawyer, who is representing her in this action.
She is suing for private school high school tuition, college tuition, and support.
She wants to be "unemancipated" -- which basically means she wants a judge to order that she is no longer an adult but still a child, with a child's right to be supported by its parents.
I thought I'd seen insane lawsuits, but this one is ten times as insane as the last insane lawsuit I have heard of, which was a lawsuit against the United States for bombing Libya in the 1980's.
Fortunately, the judge was not buying it and refused to order this adult woman returned to child status.
What think you?
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/04/nj-students-lawsuit-against-parents-headed-to-court/
Peter1469
03-06-2014, 01:05 AM
The court should slap sanctions on her and her lawyer for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
Blackrook
03-06-2014, 01:12 AM
Apparently the facts are pretty horrible and maybe these parents are as bad as she claims they are.
But the old adage is still true, "Bad cases make bad law."
This attorney should not have been swayed by sympathy to file what he knew was a completely unsupported claim for child support for an adult child.
He (not the girl) should be forced to pay all of the parents' legal fees with additional sanctions imposed as a warning to others.
keymanjim
03-06-2014, 01:14 AM
I would like to see the judge rule that the father of the friend she is living with and talked her into this (a lawyer himself) is now financially responsible for her.
Blackrook
03-06-2014, 01:25 AM
I read the story and it looks like this family is pretty dysfunctional, with the mother being the number one fruit loop of the bunch. The father seems to be a reasonable guy, but I don't he's wearing the man-pants in the family, but crazy, loopy mom is. If this girl were still a minor a family court could intervene, but now that she is a legal adult there is no longer any jurisdiction for a court to intervene. An 18-year-old is not a "child" in the eyes of the law, so family courts cannot order their parents to support them, even with the most egregious facts. The fact is, at the age of 18, parents have the right to kick their children out the door, and I believe it was our liberal friends who made that the law during the Vietnam War, when they lowered the age of adulthood from 21 to 18. I think 21 is a more reasonable age of adulthood, but that's water under bridge, and there's no turning back the clock.
I know Walter Ng and his son Kelly Ng.
Kelly is going to jail for 18 months and his dad gets 5 years probation.
Stole 700 million dollars so if you plan to steal, steal millions.
You can read the Ng story by seeking news on him.
Back in the late 80s, Walt and I were on the RE Board's budget committee. I recall him as an outstanding businessman who came to this country from Vietnam.
But enough about this. I am pleased a judge resolved the young lady's issues.
Common
03-06-2014, 05:16 AM
The court should slap sanctions on her and her lawyer for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
Its things like this Pete that make it so difficult for people to warm to lawyers and for many to have respect for the profession.
For every lawyer that does good theres one that does things for a buck or to make a name for themselves. This guy just sounds like
a tard.
patrickt
03-06-2014, 06:40 AM
The court should slap sanctions on her and her lawyer for bringing a frivolous lawsuit.
Let me know when a judge sanctions a lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Hell, I'll settle for you letting me know when a judge sanctions a lawyer for fraud in a lawsuit. It's an incredible industry and the judges aren't going to screw with a money machine.
Peter1469
03-06-2014, 07:00 AM
It happens. That lawyer bringing the birther claims against Obama had sanctions leveled against her at least once. Prosecutors have lost their law licenses over violations of defendants' rights during trial.
Here is a case of sanctions. (http://lwwlaw.com/rule-11-violation-–-frivolous-and-groundless-lawsuit-attorney-fee-sanction-against-attorney-marc-bendinelli) 9-11
Thruthers hit with sanctions. (http://www.bna.com/attorneys-filed-911-n12884904017/)
There are rules in place for sanctions. Both at the federal and state level. Judges don't like to use them out of fear of intimidating real plaintiffs from filing suit when they have a real case with a questionable outcome.
Let me know when a judge sanctions a lawyer for filing a frivolous lawsuit. Hell, I'll settle for you letting me know when a judge sanctions a lawyer for fraud in a lawsuit. It's an incredible industry and the judges aren't going to screw with a money machine.
patrickt
03-06-2014, 07:19 AM
Fine, Peter. The one example is political rather than frivolous.
We see fairly often news about attorneys being given a really serious slap on the wrist for misconduct in criminal trials. The two federal prosecutors in the case involving Senator Stevens. His conviction was overturned and the attorneys are pursing their careers as lawyers.
In my city, a man convicted of murder was released when the convicting was reversed. Two prosecuting attorneys, who has since become judges, were found to have committed prosecutorial misconduct. A police detective was charged with numerous felonies and the attorneys...nothing. Unfortunately, for them a retention vote was pending and both lost their seat on the bench. So, they're in private practice.
Sadly, District Attorney Nifong's actions weren't what got him in trouble. It was the publicity. His actions were fairly routine for prosecuting attorneys.
But that criminal case. I hired two employees out of a few hundred applicants. One applicant sued saying I was guilty of discrimination. She claimed I didn't hire her because she was a female. One of the two I hired was a female. I thought that was a pretty good reason to consider the lawsuit frivolous. I was wrong. We spent tens of thousands on attorneys, spent most of a week in federal court, and the judge found in our favor citing the fact that a woman was hired as a significant factor. Even more significant was a bunch of attorneys made money.
Another lawyer gave notice of intent to sue me and the department for an arrest I'd made at a wedding party. The chief met with the plaintiff and his attorney and had me there. The chief asked for the reason for the lawsuit and the lawyer ranted about civil rights. Then the chief said, "What did Pat do that prompted this claim?" The lawyer looked at the plaintiff who shrugged and the lawyer said, "That remains to be seen."
I was involved in an automobile accident in which my brand-new car was totally. I was nailed from the rear on an interstate. A week later I get a letter from an attorney. I thought I was being sued. No, he was soliciting my business to sue the other guy for my permanently disabling injury. I had no injury but his letter said he had a chiropractor who was an expert at finding permanent injuries that people don't even know they had. The highlight of the lefter was, in double-sized bright red print, "You might never have to work again."
Sorry, Peter. It's a corrupt money-making business. The judges are, first and foremost, members of the bar. They protect their own.
Peter1469
03-06-2014, 07:34 AM
I gave you three examples, not one. And I provided an explanation as to why sanctions are rarely used. I am sure that you and others can provide examples where attorneys should have been disciplined, yet were not, all day.
If you have access to any state bar journal, there are pages and pages of disciplinary proceedings that you would enjoy reading.
Cigar
03-06-2014, 08:10 AM
I think Rachell needs a really good spanking ... :grin:
http://www.everyjoe.com/wp-content/gallery/rachel-canning/rachel-canning-photos-7.jpg
patrickt
03-07-2014, 07:55 AM
Soap operas don't interest me a great deal so I hadn't read all the articles about this fiasco and I assumed this young woman and her boyfriend had found an attorney who would take this frivolous lawsuit. I was wrong.
"The man bankrolling a bratty New Jersey teen’s lawsuit against her parents allowed her to get boozed up and throw wild ragers in his home, according to a new *report. Powerful attorney John Inglesino, who took now-18-year-old runaway Rachel Canning under his wing, let her get drunk on vodka in his Rockaway Township house when she was 15, according to court papers, the Daily Mail reported (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574966/Spoiled-cheerleader-suing-parents-got-drunk-vodka-home-millionaire-attorney-paying-fees-threw-garbage-claim-mom-dad.html)."
Apparently, the force behind the frivolous lawsuit is "powerful attorney John Inglesino". The young woman and her boyfriend didn't find an attorney. I wonder if John Inglesino is an attorney for Woody Allen and Roman Polanski?
Peter, I respect you but you did not provide an explanation for the lack of sanctions. You provided an excuse. Enforcing the rule against frivolous lawsuits would quickly define frivolous lawsuits. Saying they don't want to discourage any lawsuits by enforcing the sanctions is an excuse. Follow the money.
Peter1469
03-07-2014, 04:00 PM
Peter, I respect you but you did not provide an explanation for the lack of sanctions. Right, I am not the judge. If I was I would have used the local rules to kick the case and apply sanctions.
Soap operas don't interest me a great deal so I hadn't read all the articles about this fiasco and I assumed this young woman and her boyfriend had found an attorney who would take this frivolous lawsuit. I was wrong.
"The man bankrolling a bratty New Jersey teen’s lawsuit against her parents allowed her to get boozed up and throw wild ragers in his home, according to a new *report. Powerful attorney John Inglesino, who took now-18-year-old runaway Rachel Canning under his wing, let her get drunk on vodka in his Rockaway Township house when she was 15, according to court papers, the Daily Mail reported (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2574966/Spoiled-cheerleader-suing-parents-got-drunk-vodka-home-millionaire-attorney-paying-fees-threw-garbage-claim-mom-dad.html)."
Apparently, the force behind the frivolous lawsuit is "powerful attorney John Inglesino". The young woman and her boyfriend didn't find an attorney. I wonder if John Inglesino is an attorney for Woody Allen and Roman Polanski?
Peter, I respect you but you did not provide an explanation for the lack of sanctions. You provided an excuse. Enforcing the rule against frivolous lawsuits would quickly define frivolous lawsuits. Saying they don't want to discourage any lawsuits by enforcing the sanctions is an excuse. Follow the money.
Newpublius
03-07-2014, 04:12 PM
Just as an aside, I'm from the area, I 'know' the father in his role as a cop in Lincoln Park. Cross examined him in a DWI trial that my client eventually was convicted at. This is NJ, this is the post-18 'duty to support' which is a 12 factor test when applied in a family court setting, typically when a couple is divorced. The concept that a noncustodial parent has to pay the college expenses of a post-18 adult, NOT unusual in NJ.
As a further aside, the she's not suing to be 'emancipated' she's actually suing to be UNEMANCIPATED!
exotix
03-12-2014, 01:52 PM
Just In
Teen Back Home
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/new-jersey-teen-who-sued-parents-back-home-attorney-says-n51121
The New Jersey honor student who left home then sued her parents over paying for college has reunited with her family, the parents' attorney Angela Sarno said Wednesday.
Sarno, the attorney for Sean and Elizabeth Canning, said Wednesday the teen had moved home without conditions.
“Her return home is not contingent on any financial and/or other considerations,” Sarno wrote in a news release.
http://media2.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2014_10/227921/140304-rachel-canning-1813_e9a5825d7aefc0ee96345623e338f188.nbcnews-ux-920-900.jpg
The Xl
03-12-2014, 01:57 PM
I read the story and it looks like this family is pretty dysfunctional, with the mother being the number one fruit loop of the bunch. The father seems to be a reasonable guy, but I don't he's wearing the man-pants in the family, but crazy, loopy mom is. If this girl were still a minor a family court could intervene, but now that she is a legal adult there is no longer any jurisdiction for a court to intervene. An 18-year-old is not a "child" in the eyes of the law, so family courts cannot order their parents to support them, even with the most egregious facts. The fact is, at the age of 18, parents have the right to kick their children out the door, and I believe it was our liberal friends who made that the law during the Vietnam War, when they lowered the age of adulthood from 21 to 18. I think 21 is a more reasonable age of adulthood, but that's water under bridge, and there's no turning back the clock.
Dude, you're like 50 and aren't intelligent or mature enough to be considered an adult.
In any case, this chick is dumb and this case should be tossed immediately.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.