Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Rude to Say, “I Told You So,” But …
In July of last year, I commented over at PJ Media on the matter of Marlene Pinnock, a homeless woman whose rough treatment at the hands of a California Highway Patrol officer was videotaped by a passing motorist and broadcast to the world. At the conclusion of my piece, I predicted that the officer would not be convicted of any crime and, so far at least, he’s had no charges filed against him. I also predicted that the state would settle with Pinnock rather than take the case to trial. And yes, Pinnock settled for a tidy $1.5 million, more than enough — one would imagine — to secure a place to lay her head for some time. I finished by saying that Pinnock “will in due course be homeless and living on the side of the freeway.”
I’m now three for three on the predictions. The Los Angeles Times reports: “A woman captured on video last year being punched repeatedly by a California Highway Patrol officer on the 10 Freeway was arrested Tuesday and taken in for a mental health evaluation after she ventured into traffic on the same stretch of roadway, CHP officials said.”
I guess $1.5 million doesn’t go as far as it used to.
Published in Policing
The story of what happened to the money would be fascinating. This could easily be the plot of a movie, at least a TV movie.
I have to disagree. To learn, in detail, what a weak-minded person actually did with $1.5M would undoubtedly be a depressing tale. Perhaps all too familiar to families who are close to those with problems.
Agreed.
I have heard it asserted that if our nation’s wealth were to be suddenly evenly divided among all its citizens, it would all be back where it started within a year. According to this woman’s story, it would only take 90 days.
Just because it would be a depressing story doesn’t eliminate the fascination element. How often do we hear of lottery winners going broke? I come across those stories from time to time, and they usually have the same theme: relatives coming out of the woodwork, no understanding of just how little money $1M is, and thus no forward planning and careful management to make it last.
The story says a trust was set up, so i doubt the money is gone. Rest assured, the lawyer got a cut.
Jack, you’ve earned some “I told you so”s.
“Reversal Of Fortune“: A fascinating 2005 documentary about a homeless man who is given $100,000. Anyone care to guess what happened?
You’ll no doubt be shocked (shocked!) to learn that a good chunk of the swag was ripped off by her lawyer.
Maybe, but it didn’t take a Nostradamus to see how this would turn out.
“I guess $1.5 million doesn’t go as far as it used to.”
One of the few contributors I make a point of reading, but this is a little disappointing.
For starters, did the lawyer’s fee come from the $1.5M or was that paid separately by CHP? If the fee came out of the $1.5M, Pinnock would have netted “only” $1M to $1.2M.
From the linked story: “The money from the settlement was allotted to a special needs trust for Pinnock.”
Whoever suggested it, the special needs trust was a good idea. These kinds of trusts come in many different flavors. Typically, a special needs trust is not the kind in which the beneficiary can get just anything paid for that he or she wants. Rather than having already blown the money, I think it’s more likely that a trustee (and who is that trustee?) is still sitting on a pile of dough administering it. Further, Pinnock sounds as if she has significant mental health issues. I’ll bet that she got fed up with the restrictions entailed in getting anything paid for and headed back out on to the street.
Keep in mind, a trustee is not the beneficiary’s caregiver or babysitter. Pinnock sounds as if she needs to have a guardian appointed for her person so that she can get admitted to some kind of supervised care facility. And I’m sure that the provisions of the trust would authorize the trustee to pay that bill.
In the end, without more information, I don’t see how the linked story suggests that Pinnock has squandered the settlement or that the trustee has mismanaged the trust assets. Instead, I think it says more about Pinnock’s mental health than anything else.
On this one, I’d hold off on the “I told you so’s.”
http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-chp-beating-attorney-20150318-story.html
For crying out loud, why didn’t you post this article in the first place? Although it leaves much in the air, this is clearly more of a case of the lawyer ripping off her client than the client/beneficiary squandering the settlement.
Of $1.5M, the lawyer took a 40% fee, leaving the net settlement at $900K. Lawyers customarily ask for that high a contingent fee only when they have to litigate and either prosecute or defend an appeal. For settlement short of a trial, my understanding is a contingency fee is usually only about 20%. Did CHP demand a certain percentage go for attorney’s fee?
The article mentions a conservator. Depending on the state, that’s synonymous with a guardian. In some states, they serve different purposes. Whatever the case, it sounds as if there were two fiduciaries involved: a trustee of the trust created of the $900K and a custodian. There’s a hint that the lawyer was somehow enmeshed in the administration of the $900K trust fund as either trustee or conservator.
Sorry, but I have to ask: If CHP agreed to write a check for $1.5M, why didn’t it seek to limit the attorney’s cut, why didn’t it insist that a reputable corporate trustee administer the net proceeds, and why didn’t it insist on a family member or friend be appointed as custodian for the woman? In all events, I can’t fathom that the CHP left the door open so wide for the lawyer to bilk this woman.
The merits of the initial settlement aside, I’m even more convinced that this is a case of a reprehensible lawyer bilking a client, than a client wasting a boondoggle settlement. If there are more links to details, post them.
If the woman is back out on the street, what was the point of the cash settlement in the first place? What good is it doing her?
Are we missing the good news? The cop didn’t turn into a sacrificial lamb for PC. Lawyers would have sucked up a good portion of the money even if the case were adjudicated. I’m just happy the cop retains his life.
Speaking of ripoffs of those with limited means: I read an article not long ago which described the experiences of a poor woman who had received a settlement (don’t remember what it was for). The settlement had been structured by the judge to pay out in small portions each year, and provide her enough to make a living for decades. However, to pay for big-ticket charges like repairs to her house and car, she sold off rights to future portions of her settlement for pennies on the dollar of immediate cash. Of course, this left her as bad off as she’d originally been.
< media bias mode = on >
The news media never reports on the lottery winners who invest their winnings prudently, cuz that ain’t interesting news.
< media bias mode = off >
The point of the cash settlement was to get the story out of the newspapers.
Something tells me a politician was behind the rollover of CHP.
Sorry. But the predictions that a cop won’t have charges filed against him and that the police will make a settlement isn’t really going out on a limb. It’s standard operating procedure. When was the last time in California that a cop had charges filed against him is this sort of incident? Just give the victim some taxpayer money in exchange for no admission of guilt. Cop doesn’t pay. Police department doesn’t pay. The taxpayer pays. So why not settle?