Handel on the Law
Radio Review: “Handel on the Lawâ€
Bill Handel is the brilliant and incredibly funny and entertaining host of the weekday “Bill Handel Show”5am to 9am on KFI 640am in Los Angeles. This is remarkable, because he’s an attorney. He also happens to be a recovering addict with about 20 years of sobriety.
Handel is also an amazingly busy guy. He owns a fertility clinic, is married and has a couple of pre-adolescent kids. And, he hosts “Handel on the Law”on Saturday mornings, 6am to 11am, in which he fields legal questions and gives the best”and often most amusing responses”possible. It’s syndicated in other areas of the country, so you may have an opportunity to listen in. It’s well worth your time”Handel puts on a great show.
Addicts are often pitted against other addicts in legal cases. Criminal ones in particular almost always include at least one addict”the criminal, of whom 80-90% are alcohol or other-drug addicts. Often, the victim is also an addict”after all, much crime is committed against people known to the perpetrator, and addicts often associate with other addicts. The Robert Blake non-murder of Bonnie Blakely was a recent glaring public example of this phenomenon, as was Michael Jackson’s non-molesting of Janet Arvizo’s son.
Many civil cases also include at least one addict, somewhere. Handel’s callers generally ask questions in which civil law applies. Here’s a recent sampling of a series of calls on Handel’s show, with my comments as to who may have the disease of addiction. Out of 38 callers, I found 13 worth mentioning as likely involving addiction, which may be a lower ratio than usual on the Handel show. Additionally, many other callers did not divulge enough information to identify possible addiction. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Brad vacationed on a lake with his friend’s kids and new Jet Ski. His friend, who owns a $900,000 home and told him where to park the Jet Ski overnight, arrives a few days later and stays at a hotel. The Jet Ski is stolen overnight. The friend, who had no insurance, wants Brad to pay for the Jet Ski. The question for Handel is, who’s responsible? (Handel says, not Brad.) Our question is, who’s the addict? The thief is and the friend may be”most responsible people would carry insurance on an expensive Jet Ski, if only for liability coverage. Either the friend is an idiot (Handel’s conclusion), or he’s an addict. I say, give addiction the benefit of the doubt.
Glenn was driving in a residential area. A 10-year-old, who was riding his racer in the street in violation of local law, hit Glenn’s car. Damages were slight to the kid. Glenn is concerned over a claim. Who’s the addict? No one, unless the kid’s parents bring suit. If they do, give them the benefit of the doubt: one or both of them are likely addicts.
Dave, who died, got a lot of parking tickets which are associated with a car Jenna inherited. Jenna wants to donate the car. Can she do so without paying the tickets? Handel thinks yes. Since numerous parking tickets are a terrific clue to someone who thinks because he’s so much better and more important than everyone else that he can park anywhere at any time, Dave may have been an addict. I suspect many diplomats in New York City, known for their flagrant abuse of parking meters, of addiction.
Mark has lousy credit and got a friend, Joe, to buy a house for him. Mark paid $5,000 down and $5,000 to Joe as a service fee for having cooperated in defrauding the lender, and let Joe live with him in the house rent-free. Mark never got an unrecorded quit claim, so Joe is solely on title. Joe now wants to evict Mark. Handel thinks he’ll be ok if he gets a real estate lawyer. Since Joe is almost surely an addict and will, therefore, tell lies in court that will be more believable than Mark’s truths, Mark will be hard-pressed in convincing a judge the house is really his. If Mark had read my books, he would have figured this out long before he put himself into this situation.
Linda’s professor kicked her out of his class, claiming Linda was rude in class, an assertion she denies. Does Linda have a case for defamation? No. How does Linda get her money back? File a claim with the school. Who’s the addict? The professor may have wielded his power capriciously. While we’re no doubt not hearing the full story, there’s likely addiction in one or the other.
Dotty was injured in an incident in which a bus she was on had to slam the brakes due to another driver cutting off the bus. Based on the one observation, the driver of the car exhibited a 35% likelihood of DUI and, therefore, an almost as high likelihood of addiction.
Jerry entered a domestic partnership with a pre-nuptial agreement. The pre-nup clearly stated the house was Jerry’s, the house is in his name and he made all payments. He’s now going through a “divorce”and getting sued for the equity. Who’s the addict? Probably Jerry’s ex, but if Jerry made other promises that were not kept it could be Jerry. Or both.
Jean sold a car to a neighbor ten years ago for a $10,000 note that was to be paid off in six months. The neighbor paid in dribs and drabs for eight years and after ten years still owes Jean $1,500. Since the last payments were made within the four-year statute, she can sue him and win. Handel suggests, however, that the judgment would probably be worth the paper it’s printed on. Who’s the addict? Since she didn’t mention any other problems with the neighbor, I’m limited to 30% odds of addiction in the neighbor. However, there is almost assuredly addiction somewhere in the neighbor’s life.
Don stole $100 a dozen years ago. He’d like to return the funds, with interest and not get into trouble. His concern: he’s an executive working for the federal government. Handel: since there’s an issue of moral turpitude, send a money order anonymously or give the money to charity. Doug: he may be a recovering addict working on paying amends. Good for Don.
Jim’s sister talked their parents into turning a house they owned over to her and her boyfriend with a verbal promise to pay $135,000. Two years later, the sister is refusing to pay. Handel: all promises relating to real estate must be in writing, so good luck. Doug: the sister’s an addict, so good luck.
Damon hit someone on the freeway who may have already been dead from having been hit by the car in front of him. Handel: running over someone who’s already dead isn’t a problem. Doug: you don’t get dead people on freeways without addiction somewhere, either in the dead person or the person who put him there.
Caroline’s son’s Lexus was impaled by a trailer that was let loose and slid down the street by thieves attempting to steal the Sea-Doo’s on the trailer. Since criminal acts generally preclude someone else’s civil liability, they can’t go after the owner of the Sea-Doo’s. Unfortunately, the thieves escaped. Note that the turmoil that might have been observed in a civil case was precipitated by likely addicts, even if the participants in the case are likely not.
Gloria, who arranged for hot dogs, drinks and chips at a fundraiser, is the subject of a racial discrimination suit because she didn’t plan for enough chips. Look for Jesse at the trial, and look for addiction in those making such absurd accusations.