(Topic ID: 108377)

The Official Pinside Kevin Kulek Skit-B Predator Discussion


By Xerico

4 years ago



Topic Stats

  • 18,272 posts
  • 815 Pinsiders participating
  • Latest reply 6 days ago by Roostking
  • Topic is favorited by 193 Pinsiders

You

Linked Games

Topic Gallery

There have been 1,540 images uploaded to this topic. (View topic image gallery).

Kulek.pdf (PDF preview)
6-pennywise-has-some-nickelback-funny-meme (resized).jpg
will-ferrell-fillwerrel-i-just-fell-down-the-stairs-holding-31512906 (resized).png
pinsiders (resized).jpg
pasted_image (resized).png
194b3475e0440b8112afc0ac4ad5bf0ed0e8ec3db63fb4b6748a4f2e06a9865b (resized).jpg
31A053C2-4495-4E3E-980F-E5ADEA02F1DE (resized).jpeg
IMG_2933 (resized).JPG
beetlejuice-shrunken head (resized).jpg
2716720260_bc8966f6b1 (resized).jpg
D460F55E-AD42-43C6-91EB-B8162A84A094.gif
Screenshot_20190103-214734_Facebook (resized).jpg
Screenshot_20181108-174321 (resized).png
Fife Appeal Sept 24 2018.pdf (PDF preview)
cat ooo 2.gif
7332539.attach (resized).jpg

Topic index (key posts)

86 key posts have been marked in this topic, showing the first 20 (Show topic index)

There are 18272 posts in this topic. You are on page 309 of 366.
#15401 2 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

I believe it all would be constituted as "hearsay" and wouldn't be able to be used? Correct me if I'm wrong?

Tax returns and 1099G would not be hearsay

#15402 2 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

I believe it all would be constituted as "hearsay" and wouldn't be able to be used? Correct me if I'm wrong?

Legal answer: Admissions against interest in a collateral legal matter, where there is an "identity of interest" or other privity among the parties in the two actions, is generally admissible in a subsequent action as an exception to the hearsay rule. This is particularly true of an "in-court statement" or deposition testimony, where the party is represented.

Here, the doctrine of collateral estoppel may operate to prevent the debtors from taking a contrary position in a later legal proceeding. Of course, criminal actions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard of proof than that required in civil actions (preponderance of the evidence or clear & convincing evidence for civil fraud), as I previously posted.

In layperson's language, the Kulek feathers have been plucked and they are knee-deep in the floodplain.

#15403 2 years ago

Where is the deposition of Kevin in Keith's office? Is there a transcript I missed?

#15404 2 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

Tax returns and 1099G would not be hearsay

Technically, tax returns would be written hearsay, under the rules of evidence. However, an exception to the hearsay rule may very well apply to permit the admission of some or all of those documents. Hearsay is among the most complex areas of the law. Some verbal and written statements are known as "hearsay within hearsay" or "double hearsay."

Many lawyers do not understand the concept because they do not try cases or else their practice is limited to bench trials (sans jury).

#15405 2 years ago
Quoted from ZNET:

Legal answer: Admissions against interest in a collateral legal matter, where there is an "identity of interest" or other privity among the parties in the two actions, is generally admissible in a subsequent action as an exception to the hearsay rule. This is particularly true of an "in-court statement" or deposition testimony, where the party is represented.
Here, the doctrine of collateral estoppel may operate to prevent the debtors from taking a contrary position in a later legal proceeding. Of course, criminal actions require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which is a higher standard of proof than that required in civil actions (preponderance of the evidence or clear & convincing evidence for civil fraud), as I previously posted.
In layperson's language, the Kulek feathers have been plucked and they are knee-deep in the floodplain.

Can a civil proceeding and a potential subsequent criminal proceeding be considered collateral legal matters? I agree that some of what has been said may be admissible under a hearsay exception, but not everything raised will be admissible under an exception such as a statement against interest.

#15406 2 years ago

A prior inconsistent statement can often be used to impeach, if same is offered for that limited purpose, irrespective of hearsay considerations.

Alternatively, if the prior statement is offered substantively to support "the truth of the matter stated" then the hearsay rule and its exceptions will apply.

#15407 2 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

I believe it all would be constituted as "hearsay" and wouldn't be able to be used? Correct me if I'm wrong?

When the person admits to the behavior while under oath... thats a confession, not hearsay

#15408 2 years ago

All legal speak aside....the Kulek's are f*cked!

#15409 2 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

When the person admits to the behavior while under oath... thats a confession, not hearsay

Unless coerced.

#15410 2 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

All legal speak aside....the Kulek's are f*cked!

now THERE is language I can understand....LOL

#15411 2 years ago
Quoted from ZNET:

Technically, tax returns would be written hearsay, under the rules of evidence. However, an exception to the hearsay rule may very well apply to permit the admission of some or all of those documents. Hearsay is among the most complex areas of the law. Some verbal and written statements are known as "hearsay within hearsay" or "double hearsay."
Many lawyers do not understand the concept because they do not try cases or else their practice is limited to bench trials (sans jury).

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.

The tax returns consist of statements made by the declarant, and therefore aren't hearsay. To the extent the tax returns contain statements by non-parties (hearsay within hearsay) you could potentially have a problem but it's highly unlikely this type of thing would rear its head in a case like this. In my experience, nobody objects to the entry of their own tax returns because it severely undercuts their credibility.

Also, there's always the catchall rule as well which judges can use to admit otherwise inadmissible evidence because the statement has "equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness." Tax Returns would be a prime example

#15412 2 years ago
Quoted from flynnibus:

When the person admits to the behavior while under oath... thats a confession, not hearsay

The discussion is about whether testimony from the current bankruptcy proceeding can be brought in to a potential future criminal proceeding. What the Kuleks actually admit to in the criminal proceeding is an entirely different matter. The issue being discussed is the admissibility of the bankruptcy proceeding testimony in a potential criminal suit.

#15413 2 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

The tax returns consist of statements made by the declarant, and therefore aren't hearsay. To the extent the tax returns contain statements by non-parties (hearsay within hearsay) you could potentially have a problem but it's highly unlikely this type of thing would rear its head in a case like this. In my experience, nobody objects to the entry of their own tax returns because it severely undercuts their credibility.

Hearsay is an out of court statement by a non-testifying witness being offered for the truth of the matter asserted. If the Kuleks decide not testify in the criminal trial than admission of the tax returns would be hearsay if offered for the truth of the matter being asserted. Unless tax returns can be considered to have independent legal significance or qualify as an exception as a business or public record, the documents are hearsay without the Kuleks testimony.

#15414 2 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

The discussion is about whether testimony from the current bankruptcy proceeding can be brought in to a potential future criminal proceeding. What the Kuleks actually admit to in the criminal proceeding is an entirely different matter. The issue being discussed is the admissibility of the bankruptcy proceeding testimony in a potential criminal suit.

Quoted from PaulCoff:

The discussion is about whether testimony from the current bankruptcy proceeding can be brought in to a potential future criminal proceeding. What the Kuleks actually admit to in the criminal proceeding is an entirely different matter. The issue being discussed is the admissibility of the bankruptcy proceeding testimony in a potential criminal suit.

I don't practice criminal law but my thinking is that it comes in because the statements are all party admissions, and therefore not hearsay. Isn't this why parties in civil cases often plead the "fiznif"?

#15415 2 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

I don't practice criminal law but my thinking is that it comes in because the statements are all party admissions, and therefore not hearsay. Isn't this why parties in civil cases often plead the "fiznif"?

I agree that some of the what has been said will be considered a direct admission as a hearsay exception based on fairness but I don't know that ALL of the testimony thus far in the bankruptcy case will be deemed admissible as a party admission.

#15416 2 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

I agree that some of the what has been said will be considered a direct admission as a hearsay exception based on fairness but I don't know that ALL of the testimony thus far in the bankruptcy case will be deemed admissible as a party admission.

My thinking in cases like this is that the real "punishment" is the process. The amount of pressure put on people under these circumstances, even in a civil case, is crushing. Uncertainty of the result will put people under extreme amounts of stress. Admittedly, Kevin and the Mrs. don't seem like they "get it" and maybe they don't yet understand the full impact of their actions but they are at least starting to "get it" more and more as the process goes on and the pressure is building. Years may go by before criminal charges are pursued and even after the Kuleks are (hopefully) stripped of assets and fail to get a discharge, they'll still be worried about criminal charges. The guidelines on time served for theft are shockingly low in my opinion. They're looking at something like 2-3 years but may not serve any time at all if criminally convicted. Any time they serve may pale in comparison to the stress they are put under waiting to find out what happens.

All in all its sad seeing this type of thing happening. I don't feel bad for the Kuleks but it's disheartening that people act the way they do and at the end of the day it's little consolation to see them suffer. It doesn't "right" the wrong they've done.

#15417 2 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

The amount of pressure put on people under these circumstances, even in a civil case, is crushing.

#15418 2 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

All legal speak aside....the Kulek's are f*cked!

Well maybe onky one of them... I hear the lead seperate lives

#15419 2 years ago

Suppose there are no tax returns.......

#15420 2 years ago

I actually had faith in Kevin right up to the bitter end. Feel kinda stupid.

#15421 2 years ago
Quoted from MrBally:

Suppose there are no tax returns.......

There are, showing zero income for Kevin for the past few years.

#15422 2 years ago
Quoted from snakesnsparklers:

There are, showing zero income for Kevin for the past few years.

We're these returns Married filing jointly or Married filing separately?

15
#15423 2 years ago

This is pro level debt collection. I have dealt with lots of debt and lots of court...this is a frikkin show. The skills, the focus, the determination, the ATTENTION TO DETAIL...I am sooooooo ready to have to collect from someone again just so I can hire Keith.

The Kuleks deserve to lose everything, and in public. But thank God we all don't get what we deserve, right? LOL .

I predicted the marriage would not make it through this last year. Does not take a rocket scientist to make that prediction , right? A liar is a liar is a liar. In business, with friends, with family. Crosses all lines. He lied to everyone, even his children. She even supported the lies and also lied to her kids faces. They lied to each other constantly. I mean to me it's clear they are lieing to themselves all day every day, so we should expect that I suppose.

Let me throw this out there - Since this was bound to happen this community is lucky it was Kevin Kulek. His ability to lie is not in question, it is clearly one of his strengths. But his lack of skill in covering his tracks and his determination to implicate all of his relatives thus dragging them in front of a judge is like a flashlight and a bullhorn. This public humiliation of his wife Amanda Kulek will serve as a warning beacon. We could be dealing with people who fled to the land of the Dutch and who are much more opaque. We are lucky this is the guy because we are going to be able to watch him and his wife drug behind the horse in the public square ... and so will all the other people thinking about doing this to us again.

#15424 2 years ago
Quoted from labnip:

but how do you know "she's telling the truth" ?

if she floats. oh wait, that just proves that she's a witch. damnit!

#15425 2 years ago
Quoted from rommy:

This is pro level debt collection. I have dealt with lots of debt and lots of court...this is a frikkin show. The skills, the focus, the determination, the ATTENTION TO DETAIL...I am sooooooo ready to have to collect from someone again just so I can hire Keith.
The Kuleks deserve to lose everything, and in public. But thank God we all don't get what we deserve, right? LOL .
I predicted the marriage would not make it through this last year. Does not take a rocket scientist to make that prediction , right? A liar is a liar is a liar. In business, with friends, with family. Crosses all lines. He lied to everyone, even his children. She even supported the lies and also lied to her kids faces. They lied to each other constantly. I mean to me it's clear they are lieing to themselves all day every day, so we should expect that I suppose.
Let me throw this out there - Since this was bound to happen this community is lucky it was Kevin Kulek. His ability to lie is not in question, it is clearly one of his strengths. But his lack of skill in covering his tracks and his determination to implicate all of his relatives thus dragging them in front of a judge is like a flashlight and a bullhorn. This public humiliation of his wife Amanda Kulek will serve as a warning beacon. We could be dealing with people who fled to the land of the Dutch and who are much more opaque. We are lucky this is the guy because we are going to be able to watch him and his wife drug behind the horse in the public square ... and so will all the other people thinking about doing this to us again.

I honestly can't believe he hasn't tried to disappear yet. Probably too stupid to do that too.

#15426 2 years ago
Quoted from c508:

They'll be in court this Thurs May 4... should be something filed by Fri or Mon.

Will there be a motion to have all the profits made by the CNC machine turned over as well as the machine? Call it rent?

#15427 2 years ago
Quoted from rommy:

This is pro level debt collection. I have dealt with lots of debt and lots of court...this is a frikkin show. The skills, the focus, the determination, the ATTENTION TO DETAIL...I am sooooooo ready to have to collect from someone again just so I can hire Keith.
The Kuleks deserve to lose everything, and in public. But thank God we all don't get what we deserve, right? LOL .
I predicted the marriage would not make it through this last year. Does not take a rocket scientist to make that prediction , right? A liar is a liar is a liar. In business, with friends, with family. Crosses all lines. He lied to everyone, even his children. She even supported the lies and also lied to her kids faces. They lied to each other constantly. I mean to me it's clear they are lieing to themselves all day every day, so we should expect that I suppose.
Let me throw this out there - Since this was bound to happen this community is lucky it was Kevin Kulek. His ability to lie is not in question, it is clearly one of his strengths. But his lack of skill in covering his tracks and his determination to implicate all of his relatives thus dragging them in front of a judge is like a flashlight and a bullhorn. This public humiliation of his wife Amanda Kulek will serve as a warning beacon. We could be dealing with people who fled to the land of the Dutch and who are much more opaque. We are lucky this is the guy because we are going to be able to watch him and his wife drug behind the horse in the public square ... and so will all the other people thinking about doing this to us again.

Freaking great post. Thank you.

#15428 2 years ago
Quoted from Trekie:

Will there be a motion to have all the profits made by the CNC machine turned over as well as the machine? Call it rent?

No.

#15429 2 years ago
Quoted from PaulCoff:

The discussion is about whether testimony from the current bankruptcy proceeding can be brought in to a potential future criminal proceeding

Then that's the topic of if the evidence is admissible.. not if it's hearsay or not. A verifiable recording and transcript of the person making statements about their own actions is not 'hearsay'. I think maybe you are trying to say citing evidence from the record of another court.. is hearsay.. not that the actual deposition evidence is hearsay.

The question would be is if the deposition will be released and its status.. so if it can be submitted in the other court.

#15430 2 years ago

Let's not give the Kuleks any pointers. They are reading this thread.

#15431 2 years ago
Quoted from snakesnsparklers:

Let's not give the Kuleks any pointers. They are reading this thread.

Wait, they can read? I wonder if they used predator money to buy hooked on phonics?

#15432 2 years ago
Quoted from Drewscruis:

Wait, they can read? I wonder if they used predator money to buy hooked on phonics?

I believe the preferred spelling is "hookt on fonix"

it rilly werkt fur mee!

18
#15433 2 years ago
Quoted from Jam_Burglar:

Under the Federal Rules of Evidence "Hearsay" is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.
The tax returns consist of statements made by the declarant, and therefore aren't hearsay.

Tax returns are a written form of hearsay. The declarants, who filed those returns are out-of-court declarants. The tax returns themselves are not self-authenticating. A proponent would have to establish a proper evidentiary foundation to overcome an inevitable hearsay objection. Ultimately, tax returns may be admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay doctrine. Precedent exists for this proposition, under the Federal Rules of Evidence, as follows:

In taxpayer dispute, IRS tax records, concerning tax lien notification, were admissible under the business records hearsay exception in Haag v. United States, 485 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2007); Fed. R. Evid. 803(6); see also, e.g., United States v. Moore, 923 F.2d 910, 914-15 (1st Cir. 1991); United States v. Hayes, 861 F.2d 1225, 1228-29 (10th Cir. 1988).

As for hearsay within hearsay, I frequently object to documents containing such material, including tax returns. Indeed, the tax returns themselves are often not discoverable in litigation, even in the case of a lost wage claim. Rather, only specific earnings information is subject to disclosure.

Arcane legal doctrine aside, in the Kulek matter, the pertinent question is whether their tax returns could potentially be used against them in subsequent civil or criminal matters. The concise answer is in the affirmative. Most lawyers here on this forum appear to agree with that proposition.

Just 6 months ago, a few impatient pinsiders on this thread were complaining that the justice system is designed to line the pockets of lawyers. Still others criticized Keith for filing claims in multiple courts. As I recall, at least one pinsider posted the old canard that all lawyers are ambulance chasers. I found myself defending the albeit imperfect justice system, the legal profession and Keith Nathanson, Esq. specifically.

I want to publicly thank Keith for demonstrating the kind of tenacity and legal acumen that makes our profession proud. The vast majority of pinsiders here also deserve credit for maintaining a level-headed approach to this legal quagmire. The pinsiders who have taken the time to post the audio recordings and court documents should be commended for contributing greatly toward demystifying the legal process and thereby reducing the anxiety of those with a financial stake.

#15434 2 years ago
Quoted from ZNET:

As I recall, at least one pinsider posted the old canard that all lawyers are ambulance chasers.

No, as I recall I think I just called YOU an ambulance chaser!

But let's not bring up the past.....

#15435 2 years ago
Quoted from MrBally:

We're these returns Married filing jointly or Married filing separately?

How many times must she tell you...THEY LED SEPARATE LIVES!

#15436 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

How many times must she tell you...THEY LED SEPARATE LIVES!

Let me fix that for you...they LiED ABOUT separate lives!

10
#15437 2 years ago

I heard they had the place split right down the middle.

Fridge/TV/Accoutrements on one side, Microwave/washing machine/adornments on the other.

#15438 2 years ago
Quoted from snakesnsparklers:

Let's not give the Kuleks any pointers. They are reading this thread.

I still don't believe they really read this thread. Clashes with their false reality they have created to much. I think they discuss it in court for sympathy plays but I don't think they really read it.

#15439 2 years ago
Quoted from vdojaq:

No, as I recall I think I just called YOU an ambulance chaser!
But let's not bring up the past.....

Fair enough. I'm glad to know that you're still reading this ambulance chaser's posts.

#15440 2 years ago
Quoted from ZNET:

Fair enough. I'm glad to know that you're still reading this ambulance chaser's posts.

I do because the vernacular is spectacular! OK, I will just stop right there.

#15441 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

How many times must she tell you...THEY LED SEPARATE LIVES!

IMG_2826 (resized).JPG

#15442 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

I heard they had the place split right down the middle.

How do you split the pool in the basement?

#15443 2 years ago

Nice Travish I was thinking Happy Days but same thing.

Quoted from jasonp:

How do you split the pool in the basement?

Michigan law the both most share the water

#15444 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

Michigan law the both most share the water

images (1) (resized).jpg

#15445 2 years ago
Quoted from aalucero:

Who the hell marked my image of a bumper sticker as unsafe?

Must've been because it contained the P word. It is, after all, one of Carlin's famous Seven Dirty Words. Although it and tits are no longer as scandalous as the rest...

They must blindfold their kids when they are out driving!

26
#15446 2 years ago
Quoted from TheLaw:

How many times must she tell you...THEY LED SEPARATE LIVES!

What I really don't understand is how Kevin claims he doesn't have a job because he's at home with the kids all day. But when his wife is on the stand she claims she is with the kids all day and kevin is out doing his own thing. Something doesn't quite add up there... Shocking isn't it

#15447 2 years ago
Quoted from jasonp:

How do you split the pool in the basement?

Kiddie rope.

#15448 2 years ago
Quoted from Haymaker:

What I really don't understand is how Kevin claims he doesn't have a job because he's at home with the kids all day. But when his wife is on the stand she claims she is with the kids all day and kevin is out doing his own thing. Something doesn't quite add up there... Shocking isn't it

But then she's gone most f the summer somehow for work obligations as well...

#15449 2 years ago

May the fourth be with dude!

I was listening again, and it sure seems that if all her bank and her pay pal where forced over for an audit things would be much simpler than her selective account of assets with receipts. Yeah I feel she is majorly worried about losing everything. But as being married you have to assume they will do anything to not give up anything.

Water was up to ribcage in living room and you guys keep talking about water in the basement. ???

Sounds like she is definitely trying to devalue the property. Which is silly as if(when) they give it up, the more it's worth the more the debt can be resolved.

Sure sounds like she still doesn't get it.

Your done like yesterday's​ dinner.

Slapping da bass!!

16
#15450 2 years ago

For those who were speaking about hearsay, here's a clarification.

Please don't confuse hearsay with a party admission. Admission of something, under oath or not, is still an admission of something.

By way of example: If you were at your divorce hearing, and said to the Judge: "She can have the bank account because I stole $5 from my best-friend's wallet last week, so I have money", and then you were prosecuted for stealing the $5, that statement would be clearly admissible in the criminal prosecution against you for the $5 larceny from the wallet. Notwithstanding that you made the statement in an unrelated action (the divorce action).

Compared to hearsay which would be: "Bob told me that Joe admitted to him that he took $5" if it is being offered to prove the truth of that statement, eg., that Joe admitted he took the $5. However, if you were only offering that to show that Bob said those particular words, it is not hearsay (not the truth of the statement itself [the stealing of the $5] but merely that the words were uttered [Bob actually said that]).

Hope that makes sense. It's a bit convoluted. About as much as the Rule against Perpetuities.

Additionally, testimony in a deposition is in fact under oath, and subject to penalties of perjury. It can be used to prove (or disprove) something based upon the testimony. "I took the $5" by Joe under oath is sufficient for the person who had their $5 taken to sue Joe to get the money back". It could also be introduced to a judge/jury to show the fact or to "impeach" Joe (if Joe testifies he never took the $5).

Promoted items from the Pinside Marketplace
From: $ 50.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Gameroom Mods
$ 99.00
Hardware
Pappy's Pinball Palace
From: $ 149.10
Cabinet - Sound/Speakers
PinWoofer
$ 27.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
From: $ 9.99
Eproms
Matt's Basement Arcade
$ 35.00
Cabinet - Decals
Pinball Haus
From: $ 175.00
Gameroom - Decorations
Pinball Photos
$ 4.00
Electronics
Z-connector (24 pin) Out of stock
Professor Pinball
$ 8.00
Cabinet Parts
RPGCor
From: $ 5,799.99
From: $ 48.00
Playfield - Toys/Add-ons
PinWorlds
$ 229.99
Lighting - Led
PinballBulbs
$ 92.00
$ 50.00
$ 9.95
Apparel - Unisex
Pinball Wheezer
$ 19.99
From: $ 218.00
$ 5,799.00
Pinball Machine
Gulf Coast Pinball, LLC
$ 49.95
Playfield - Plastics
MicksPinball
There are 18272 posts in this topic. You are on page 309 of 366.

Hey there! Got a moment?

Great to see you're enjoying Pinside! Did you know Pinside is able to run thanks to donations from our visitors? Please donate to Pinside, support the site and get anext to your username to show for it! Donate to Pinside