As i see it, this one is super simple. Civil lawyers work on contingencies ALL. THE. TIME. So it DOES NOT MATTER that he can't afford a lawyer. If he had a case, a lawyer would do his fillings knowing there was a future payday. The only conclusion is that no lawyer believes he has a claim.
There are a lot of civil cases that lawyers will not work on contingency. Primarily cases that won't see attorney fees be available in the end with a win, or if a win isn't certain. If this trust he is representing doesn't have enough liquid cash in it then it's not worth it for the attorney.
@@icarus_flying1994 like I said, tort or collections are routinely contingency. Impossible to evaluate the case in this video, but I'm guessing the money at stake is small. I think the average hourly rate across the country is around $300. we would bill north of $600.
He's probably being quoted a $50k retainer because his case is a loser right from the start. A smart lawyer would agree to represent for a percentage of the judgement, but if there's little chance of winning the best thing to do is price yourself high enough to assure you won't be retained.
It's a $50,000 retainer because any lawyer can see the Court and Lawyers did this to Mr. Beneke on purpose. In a flim flam. Lawyers exploit like the Alexander Brothers in Miami.
Yep. As soon as someone who is not an attorney comes into my office claiming to be a "trustee" I'm just like, "Nope. Can't help you. It's not even about you being able to afford my retainer. The fact that you are a non-attorney here claiming to be some kind of trustee means I don't want to be involved in this case." Non-attorney trustees are legal in my state, but they are almost always a bad idea, and I'm not taking such a case if I can avoid it.
@@ajm5007 in my state a trust isn't a party, so an action is typically styled, "[name], individually and as trustee of the [name] trust." Trusts are very common as a way of holding assets, especially real estate where the true owners can remain hidden from public records. I don't know what the damages are, but my office wouldn't touch a case worth $50k. $50k in attorney fees won't go very far.
@@JohnnyTalia Nope, that’s a pretty standard for any trust case, although this idiot obviously doesn’t have a leg to stand on. There are a lot of reasons for a trustee to not be an attorney and, as my attorney loves to say, the problem with trusts is that the trustee has to be trustworthy, which, believe or not, is very hard to find, lawyer or not. In my case, a sibling trustee stole a couple hundred thousand dollars from the trust. The CPA had records and tax filings, and I had bank records. Come to find out, it doesn’t matter. You’ll spend at least $100,000 to get $300,000 back, I.e. not worth it in the long run for me or any attorney.
Hey Mark...a judge is not allowed to offer you legal advice. So, coming into court and asking the judge for help is never gonna go well. Everything your stating falls under the category of "that's YOUR problem."
@@brentfarvors192 depends on the state. in my state, its a contractual relationship, and the trust is not an entity or party in a lawsuit. it's always "[individual name] as trustee of the [name of the] trust."
Too expensive! Do you know how many billions of $ cost and how hard is to find a good camera in 2024? I look around me I can barely see ... five cameras.
It does give a certain “underwater submersible controlled by a game controller” feel to the proceedings.
25 днів тому+7
That prosecuting attorney immediately took it to the mat, like an MMA takedown/sweep/bodyslam while the defendant claws at the fence trying to get away. Hilarious!
That's a defense atty, in this case...Its civil. This guy is sueing to retain a controlling interest in a living trust...That $ cant come from.the trust; Literally why it was created; To keep petty bickering away from the $!!!
in my state emergency hearings are called ex parte applications and are so routinely abused that unless the emergency is something like, "the ship is leaving the dock," the merits will not be heard.
I bozo'd myself once in court...and won!! Never considered for a instance that my single-member LLC would still require an attorney for a small claims case. Found out years later that it in fact did (at least in my state). Judge just whiffed on it that day. As did defendant's counsel. Crazy bit of good luck. But no luck was required presenting the merits of my case. It was rock solid.
Dude: maybe resigning from the Trust is the answer, not sure why you'd want to stay in bed with your enemies anyway. Actually, I'm not sure what the problem is.
When the Purdy judge called the case, Mark Beneke was named as the Plaintiff. There was no mention of a trust or his capacity as trustee. It was the Defendant who said he was acting on behalf of a trust. Without seeing the complaint, it is impossible to understand the substantive issues, and perhaps this was an attempted end-around by Mark Beneke. However, the way the case was titled sounds like Mark Beneke is the Plaintiff, and he is only representing himself.
Pretty accurate assumption, I concur...Most likely has to wait his turn for any $...Once his father dies, he will gain controlling interest; Is typically how these are set up...
There is a fundamental flaw with his argument that “he can’t defend himself pro se” because he is not defending himself. He is not speaking for himself. When he appears in court in his capacity as a trustee he is appearing on behalf of the trust and representing the trust. He’s also not understanding what the Judge is telling him. He CAN represent himself so far as any claims are being made against him personally. The irony is that he may be able to do what he wants pro se, it’s just that he’s going about it the wrong way. To the extent that any actions are being taken that effect his interests personally, he could file pro se so long as he names himself, personally, as the party. Not as trustee. At the very least this would prevent him from getting bounced out the door before the Court even gets past the caption on his papers.
That's what I got out of her twice saying he can't represent the trust: that he CAN represent himself in his personal capacity to protect and fight for his rights in this matter. I don't think he got the subtext message from her. She can't outwardly say he can represent himself b/c that would be legal advice. Guy's goose is cooked!
@ Maybe so, but it is still really expensive and difficult to have a named trustee removed from a trust. Either this is a living trust, or little man ran through a few million in a year or two, or both. Not to mention, the trust must be worth enough to hire a trust attorney (at least between $50,000 and $100,000 down payment), to even entertain an action like this. This is not middle-class daddy with $2 or $3 million.
Some IT nerd at the courthouse got hornswoggled by some swag from an AV company. "This will save you money on multiple cameras and it'll look so cool."
You have a busness with out a lawyer on retainer, AND you set up a trust with no attorney to handle to handle anything the trust may require. Dude i havent see a lack of fore thought this bad since. . I was born in a middle class family, in a middle claas town.
You can search the internet and find the information about this. This is not my forte but it looks like he borrowed money, signed a promissory note and has not paid back the money. He is giving the family the run around which includes lawyers and accountants in the family. Meanwhile, these shenanigans are costing them money. They want that money owed and they want him out. Forgive if I am reading it incorrectly.
What state? In Michigan, your bar number starts with P. So, if he was an actual attorney, he would identify himself by name and bar number in Michigan, no idea if providing your bar number is common in other states when on the record.
Court Appointed Attorney...is a Right only when incarceration is on the table. not financial maneuvers ..or civil filings..(neighbor vs neighbor cases)
The rule states only a lawyer can represent the trust, but when there is a conflict, they are representing individuals concerning the trust. The lawyer in this case is not representing the trust he is representing his client. That is just wrong,. If he is being removed from the trust, that violates the intent of the person who created the trust. That requires a hearing. Not rich people can manipulate trusts at their whim.
Probably because of the particular issue being litigated. Since the issue being litigated is the issue of the representation of the trust and not the actual use of the trust? Like because he's the trustee, he's a fiduciary and can't use funds to keep himself on as that could be a breach of duty? Just a guess, obviously Edit: 2nd litigated accidently changed to medicated so I corrected it.
@@Mewse1203the case is being medicated?? I think you should stick to picking up pop cans on the side of the road instead of pretending to be a u tube lawyer 🤦🏻♂️🤣🤣🤣
@TadJenkins or, you could have a modicum of reading comprehension and realize that sometimes a combination of fat fingers and autocorrect change words. I'm sure you're perfect 100% of the time. Oh wait, your comment shows you to be a dick for no reason, so definitely not.
Is he a real Sov Cit? He seemed rather an urbane gentleman who had some legal arguments, albeit flawed. Why the closet? Mrs Beneke hoovering in the front room?
Bout to say: Wrong "trust"... This is a living trust (Corporation formed from $/assets, that cant be dissolved...) "Trustees", get a certain % of the profits a trust generates, but its entirely based on it sustaining a profit...This prevents families from fighting over the $... 🤣🤣🤣
I feel like the judge is sandbagging. It his right to represent himself. The other plaintiffs attorney is sorta breaking it down. He can represent the trust in his individual capacity. He hasn't declared his individual capacity. What's not being said is that he doesn't need to represent himself. He's not the one being brought to court. That's how I'm reading the situation.
@utlaw72 is correct. My wife is an attorney and one of my relatives found himself in the same situation. He is a pastor and was trying to fight county ordinances. He went to court and the Judge told him to hire an attorney because he couldn't represent the church in legal matters.
As i see it, this one is super simple. Civil lawyers work on contingencies ALL. THE. TIME.
So it DOES NOT MATTER that he can't afford a lawyer. If he had a case, a lawyer would do his fillings knowing there was a future payday.
The only conclusion is that no lawyer believes he has a claim.
no, contingencies for a debt collection or tort, but for defense or commercial disputes or shareholder beefs, its hourly. $600/hr. top rate.
There are a lot of civil cases that lawyers will not work on contingency. Primarily cases that won't see attorney fees be available in the end with a win, or if a win isn't certain. If this trust he is representing doesn't have enough liquid cash in it then it's not worth it for the attorney.
@@icarus_flying1994 like I said, tort or collections are routinely contingency. Impossible to evaluate the case in this video, but I'm guessing the money at stake is small. I think the average hourly rate across the country is around $300. we would bill north of $600.
He's probably being quoted a $50k retainer because his case is a loser right from the start. A smart lawyer would agree to represent for a percentage of the judgement, but if there's little chance of winning the best thing to do is price yourself high enough to assure you won't be retained.
ding ding ding
It's a $50,000 retainer because any lawyer can see the Court and Lawyers did this to Mr. Beneke on purpose. In a flim flam. Lawyers exploit like the Alexander Brothers in Miami.
Yep. As soon as someone who is not an attorney comes into my office claiming to be a "trustee" I'm just like, "Nope. Can't help you. It's not even about you being able to afford my retainer. The fact that you are a non-attorney here claiming to be some kind of trustee means I don't want to be involved in this case."
Non-attorney trustees are legal in my state, but they are almost always a bad idea, and I'm not taking such a case if I can avoid it.
@@ajm5007 in my state a trust isn't a party, so an action is typically styled, "[name], individually and as trustee of the [name] trust." Trusts are very common as a way of holding assets, especially real estate where the true owners can remain hidden from public records. I don't know what the damages are, but my office wouldn't touch a case worth $50k. $50k in attorney fees won't go very far.
@@JohnnyTalia Nope, that’s a pretty standard for any trust case, although this idiot obviously doesn’t have a leg to stand on. There are a lot of reasons for a trustee to not be an attorney and, as my attorney loves to say, the problem with trusts is that the trustee has to be trustworthy, which, believe or not, is very hard to find, lawyer or not. In my case, a sibling trustee stole a couple hundred thousand dollars from the trust. The CPA had records and tax filings, and I had bank records. Come to find out, it doesn’t matter. You’ll spend at least $100,000 to get $300,000 back, I.e. not worth it in the long run for me or any attorney.
Hey Mark...a judge is not allowed to offer you legal advice. So, coming into court and asking the judge for help is never gonna go well. Everything your stating falls under the category of "that's YOUR problem."
The trust is an ACTUAL trust!? I'm not used to this! 😮
Yes. A living legal entity, that legally requires a profit to sustain itself...
@@brentfarvors192 depends on the state. in my state, its a contractual relationship, and the trust is not an entity or party in a lawsuit. it's always "[individual name] as trustee of the [name of the] trust."
When mummy and daddsie leave money to their spoiled kids.
This court NEEDS another courtroom camera, for pity's sake.
Too expensive! Do you know how many billions of $ cost and how hard is to find a good camera in 2024? I look around me I can barely see ... five cameras.
It does give a certain “underwater submersible controlled by a game controller” feel to the proceedings.
That prosecuting attorney immediately took it to the mat, like an MMA takedown/sweep/bodyslam while the defendant claws at the fence trying to get away. Hilarious!
That was the best way to descrive this 😀 Thank You! 🙂
Except for the fact that this is a Civil matter and thus THERE IS NO PROSECUTING ATTORNEY.🙄
I understand it's tough for the little brains to keep up.
That's a defense atty, in this case...Its civil. This guy is sueing to retain a controlling interest in a living trust...That $ cant come from.the trust; Literally why it was created; To keep petty bickering away from the $!!!
he's not a prosecutor just opposing counsel
Way to pro se yourself into a corner, dude.
in my state emergency hearings are called ex parte applications and are so routinely abused that unless the emergency is something like, "the ship is leaving the dock," the merits will not be heard.
I bozo'd myself once in court...and won!! Never considered for a instance that my single-member LLC would still require an attorney for a small claims case. Found out years later that it in fact did (at least in my state). Judge just whiffed on it that day. As did defendant's counsel. Crazy bit of good luck. But no luck was required presenting the merits of my case. It was rock solid.
Step 1 - get a lawyer. Step 2 - shut up.
🤣🤣 yep
👍
Trust fund baby is getting the plug pulled.
Omggggggg. When the judge says "I will say it again..." You know you're fucked
A "fundamental fairness issue?" "A circular issue?" How many crayons has this guy eaten??
Wish we knew the background of this case, I'm intrigued
Trust fund baby is getting his apron strings cut.
Why is he sitting in his wardrobe?
ROFL
We're waiting for the lion and the witch now ... ;-)
Dude: maybe resigning from the Trust is the answer, not sure why you'd want to stay in bed with your enemies anyway. Actually, I'm not sure what the problem is.
When the Purdy judge called the case, Mark Beneke was named as the Plaintiff. There was no mention of a trust or his capacity as trustee. It was the Defendant who said he was acting on behalf of a trust. Without seeing the complaint, it is impossible to understand the substantive issues, and perhaps this was an attempted end-around by Mark Beneke. However, the way the case was titled sounds like Mark Beneke is the Plaintiff, and he is only representing himself.
Did he just argue that he's going in circles as a defence? Lol
This guy is coming out of the closet by Zooming in from his closet.
Spoilers: That's not his "closet"; Its his room; Which, happens to be a closet...😂
"Return back"? The word "redundant" seems to have disappeared from the American vocabulary. 🙄
You hear ," Exit out of the court:" too.
@@normanpearson8753 True. "Came" for "went" and vice versa among other grammatical comedies.
It's not just disappeared; it's ceased to be visible. It's become impossible to find.
Guessing he didn’t have Thanksgiving Dinner with his family and won’t be joining them for any upcoming holiday ones either.
Pretty accurate assumption, I concur...Most likely has to wait his turn for any $...Once his father dies, he will gain controlling interest; Is typically how these are set up...
Benoke is screwed!!
I would love to know the back story here!
Pretty sure that’s the guy that had an affair with Skyler White, then broke his neck running away from her.
Sounds like he's a liar saying there are personal claims against him when there aren't
It sounds like there were claims against him as a motion was filed to remove him as a trustee.
It's weird to have someone go "Pro Se" AND it be an ACTUAL, Legal, Trust. You just don't see that.
Well done!! Finally a shut down 😂😂😂
There is a fundamental flaw with his argument that “he can’t defend himself pro se” because he is not defending himself. He is not speaking for himself. When he appears in court in his capacity as a trustee he is appearing on behalf of the trust and representing the trust.
He’s also not understanding what the Judge is telling him. He CAN represent himself so far as any claims are being made against him personally.
The irony is that he may be able to do what he wants pro se, it’s just that he’s going about it the wrong way. To the extent that any actions are being taken that effect his interests personally, he could file pro se so long as he names himself, personally, as the party. Not as trustee. At the very least this would prevent him from getting bounced out the door before the Court even gets past the caption on his papers.
That's what I got out of her twice saying he can't represent the trust: that he CAN represent himself in his personal capacity to protect and fight for his rights in this matter. I don't think he got the subtext message from her. She can't outwardly say he can represent himself b/c that would be legal advice. Guy's goose is cooked!
Beneke is such a child. 🙄 "I'm being silenced." Puuuuuhleeease.
The guy is flaky like psoriasis.
Wow. This kid must have done some really stupid things to have a removal action filed if he is a named trustee. Can’t imagine. 🤦♀️
probably mismanagement of assets or some breach of fiduciary duty like self-dealing.
@ Maybe so, but it is still really expensive and difficult to have a named trustee removed from a trust. Either this is a living trust, or little man ran through a few million in a year or two, or both. Not to mention, the trust must be worth enough to hire a trust attorney (at least between $50,000 and $100,000 down payment), to even entertain an action like this. This is not middle-class daddy with $2 or $3 million.
@@kimstelly9480 I'm not getting the impression this is a high value case.
The camera thing is hilarious. It looked like she was moving it manually. Wonder what happens when people start arguing...
Some IT nerd at the courthouse got hornswoggled by some swag from an AV company. "This will save you money on multiple cameras and it'll look so cool."
Then why doesn’t he just refile his claim as an individual and not on behalf of the trust?
That would violate the sovereign citizen legal frivolity.
Sounds like he doesn’t work and wants daddy’s money now while his brother (I assume) is responsibly managing the trust.
You have a busness with out a lawyer on retainer, AND you set up a trust with no attorney to handle to handle anything the trust may require.
Dude i havent see a lack of fore thought this bad since. .
I was born in a middle class family, in a middle claas town.
No. The trust was established by his grandfather (or, whoever), before they died. This ensures their $ is wasted on frivolous lawsuits...
@brentfarvors192 Then the trust should already be in tbsy lawyers care
🤣
Judge needs a new video system. That slow panning is ridiculous
LOL
No means no!
From what I gather, this guy is the trustee of the trust, not the beneficiary. So he's only the custodian of the Trust.
and they want him OUT
Cue the circus music for Mr. Beneke.
You can search the internet and find the information about this. This is not my forte but it looks like he borrowed money, signed a promissory note and has not paid back the money. He is giving the family the run around which includes lawyers and accountants in the family. Meanwhile, these shenanigans are costing them money. They want that money owed and they want him out. Forgive if I am reading it incorrectly.
He is not able to represent the TRUST,,,,,,,not himself but a TRUST What doesnt he understand?
What state? In Michigan, your bar number starts with P. So, if he was an actual attorney, he would identify himself by name and bar number in Michigan, no idea if providing your bar number is common in other states when on the record.
@@bundesautobahn7This case is in Texas
But but but it’s not fair 😂
He doesn't want to understand.
Can he not be appointed a public defender? Why yhe endless repetition of information here?
Court Appointed Attorney...is a Right only when incarceration is on the table.
not financial maneuvers ..or civil filings..(neighbor vs neighbor cases)
@@stacieroddy8564 Thank you for clarifying. I wasn't sure about that (fortunately, I've never had need of an attorney).
The rule states only a lawyer can represent the trust, but when there is a conflict, they are representing individuals concerning the trust. The lawyer in this case is not representing the trust he is representing his client. That is just wrong,.
If he is being removed from the trust, that violates the intent of the person who created the trust. That requires a hearing. Not rich people can manipulate trusts at their whim.
Uh, no.
that makes no sense. Sprechen Sie Englisch?
@@greenflagracing7067 He took a bunch of random words and put them all together in a bunch of random sentences.
@@TontoEpstein Thought I so.
@@greenflagracing7067 Green ham eggs and.
Why doesn’t the trust pay for the lawyers? He’s seeking to represent the trust, so the trust should pay for any attorney fees.
they obviously want him OUT
Probably because of the particular issue being litigated. Since the issue being litigated is the issue of the representation of the trust and not the actual use of the trust? Like because he's the trustee, he's a fiduciary and can't use funds to keep himself on as that could be a breach of duty?
Just a guess, obviously
Edit: 2nd litigated accidently changed to medicated so I corrected it.
@@Mewse1203the case is being medicated?? I think you should stick to picking up pop cans on the side of the road instead of pretending to be a u tube lawyer 🤦🏻♂️🤣🤣🤣
@TadJenkins or, you could have a modicum of reading comprehension and realize that sometimes a combination of fat fingers and autocorrect change words. I'm sure you're perfect 100% of the time.
Oh wait, your comment shows you to be a dick for no reason, so definitely not.
@@TadJenkins Why are you so rude? There was absolutely nothing remotely rude in their response. Get a grip.
Is he a real Sov Cit? He seemed rather an urbane gentleman who had some legal arguments, albeit flawed. Why the closet? Mrs Beneke hoovering in the front room?
Not a Sov Cit. This appears to involve an *actual* trust of some sort, not the sort of B.S. "trust" that Sov Cit's claim to be a part of.
Not even a criminal case..."WTF???" 🤦
Bout to say: Wrong "trust"... This is a living trust (Corporation formed from $/assets, that cant be dissolved...) "Trustees", get a certain % of the profits a trust generates, but its entirely based on it sustaining a profit...This prevents families from fighting over the $... 🤣🤣🤣
That's one fine looking judge ❤...great channel 👍
Why can't he get a court appointed brief?!
Civil court.
Usually court appointed counsel is for cases in which you face jail time.
@leetakamiya oh , ta .
no constitutional right to an attorney in a civil case
I feel like the judge is sandbagging. It his right to represent himself.
The other plaintiffs attorney is sorta breaking it down.
He can represent the trust in his individual capacity.
He hasn't declared his individual capacity.
What's not being said is that he doesn't need to represent himself.
He's not the one being brought to court.
That's how I'm reading the situation.
Perhaps you can help with the individual's appeal. ( I thought the judge's argument was sound but I am no expert )
He cannot represent a trust “in his individual capacity.” If he does, he is illegally practicing law.
@utlaw72 is correct. My wife is an attorney and one of my relatives found himself in the same situation. He is a pastor and was trying to fight county ordinances. He went to court and the Judge told him to hire an attorney because he couldn't represent the church in legal matters.
You are totally wrong. Even if she was he could contest that in court.
Contest away, he will lose.