sotua: Excellent use of FAIL tag.

Wrong, should have been the Florida tag.

Florida tag trumps all!

amanogowa:.

I think that Kolodziej is not really needing a lesson. He is not out all that much if the guy doesn't pay up, but he stands to get a lot if he does. It is a simple case of expected value -- and Kolodziej seems to have a great handle on that.

I feel that Kolodziej should at the very least be recouped for the money and time spent pursuing this offer... after all Mason DID go on national TV... and you can't expect every single viewer not to have taken it seriously. Mason provided no disclaimer. It seems like an irresponsible thing to do on Mason's part if it is indeed ruled to be mere hyperbole.

JohnCarter: Did he really have to drive the route? Couldn't it have been proven with basic mapping software, mileage, and speed limit estimates?

I meean with addresses you can plot point to point and see distance and estimated times.

Seems like a grunt in the slimy lawyers office could have done the legwork before he opened his big mouth.

He might have been speeding, or something....

JohnCarter: Did he really have to drive the route? Couldn't it have been proven with basic mapping software, mileage, and speed limit estimates?

I meean with addresses you can plot point to point and see distance and estimated times.

Seems like a grunt in the slimy lawyers office could have done the legwork before he opened his big mouth.

The investigators did fly/drive the route once or twice before the trial IIRC. I could go ask.

This is NOTHING like the Pepsico suit. In that case, a guy tried to explore the boundaries of the rules of a contest to get a Harrier jet for ~$700k in coupons.

This lawyer offered $1million to any person that could make the alleged travel within a slotted time; the interviewer even repeated the million dollar offer. It was a legitimate challenge to anyone up to the task. It wasn't humorous or hyperbole. The lawyer should have to pony up.

Ivo Shandor: FTA: Cheney Mason went on Dateline and offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was actually able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.

OK, so Kolodziej managed to do the travel within the time limit. But did he also kill four people along the way? Because that takes time too. If he didn't, then the lawyer's point is still valid and he shouldn't have to pay a cent.

/passes Englebert Slaptyback a jar of Dijon ketchup

The article did say that he came in under the time limit. Unfortunately we don't know how far under he came, but I'm willing to bet it left enough time for the murders.

It would have been much better and realistic if he had to kill people after making the trip. And can anyone out there who actually remembers civil procedure tell me why Texas law controls?

SeamusFerrell: It would have been much better and realistic if he had to kill people after making the trip. And can anyone out there who actually remembers civil procedure tell me why Texas law controls?

I was thinking the same thing...and too lazy to look it up. I'm betting the kid filed it out there hoping that the attorney would just settle and make it go away.

Foolkiller: Madbassist1: Why is this green?

It's the color of a dress.

But not a real green dress, that's cruel.

SeamusFerrell: It would have been much better and realistic if he had to kill people after making the trip. And can anyone out there who actually remembers civil procedure tell me why Texas law controls?

I remember civil procedure. The chick who sat in front of me was totally hot. The other stuff I don't remember so much. Erie-York-Byrd something something.

Hm. I think if I were needing a lawyer, I'd go for the grad Kolodziej over the big-mouth didn't-do-the-research Mason. Sounds like the kid did a little extra research on his own time and is floating some new ideas. I don't care for the frivolous lawsuit, but I accept it as the only language most lawyers know.

Compare this with any number of lawsuits that have people screaming for tort reform, and I can only wonder... Is soul extraction part of the bar exam? Cause the kid seems okay.

/a good lawyer is worth his weight in gold

This reminds me of that Leonard v. Pepsico Case
Link (new window)

humandrive: I doubt that Dustin Kolodziej completed the dare in that he didnot kill 4 people on the trip.

How long does it take to fire four bullets? One second for each bullet? If he made it under the time limit by more than four seconds, they dude's guilty.

This is actually BRILLIANT strategery.

Once his client is convicted he can appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel! Who's gonna argue his attorney isn't an idiot?

HMS_Blinkin: humandrive: I doubt that Dustin Kolodziej completed the dare in that he didnot kill 4 people on the trip.

How long does it take to fire four bullets? One second for each bullet? If he made it under the time limit by more than four seconds, they dude's guilty.

The dude *could* be guilty.

RedT: Once his client is convicted he can appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel!

That's a strategy that's actually used by overloaded public defenders.

/anecdotal

playdate

Wells Fargo Sues Themselves (new window)

Alton attorney accidentally sues himself (new window)

Hey, does this remind anyone of that PepsiCo case?

Wasn't there a case about a soft drink maker and a plane similar to this?

Under Florida law, contracts valued at $500 or more must be written and signed to be valid.

Shakespeare's Monkey: FTFA: Mason just better hope that the judge in the murder trial doesn't allow the prosecution to admit Kolodziej's video into evidence.

The lawyer might weasel out of the million bucks, but his client will fry.

Yeah... the person who wrote this on FindLaw's blog is a little behind on the times. Serrano was sentenced to death in 2007.

Needle time! (new window)

-The muderer was already convicted. The attorney was upset over the prosecutor's aurgument and trying to garner public support.

-There is a big difference between this and the PepsiCo case, in Pepsico it was a simple matter of purchasing x amount of soda to get y harrier. Anyone willing to invest the $700k or whatever it was could get a $13M harrier. It was therefor unreasonable to think Pepsico was serious.

This is different, the attorney was publically stating that the feat was impossible to perform. To bolster the claim he issued the challange with the hefty reward. If he really wasn't serious about the reward it would undercut his claim that it was impossible. Thus to increase the strength of the assertion, the attorney would logically want to be bound to the reward.

/INAL

Hey, this reminds me of that time that the Aston Wells Fargo sued itself in Leonard vs Pepsico! (new window) I don't know why the Caveman Lawyer from the Simpsons doesn't just use the Chewbacca defense.

/but not a real Chewbacca defense. That's cruel.

doomfistinc: Ivo Shandor: FTA: Cheney Mason went on Dateline and offered a million dollars to anyone who could prove that his client, Nelson Ivan Serrano, was actually able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged.

OK, so Kolodziej managed to do the travel within the time limit. But did he also kill four people along the way? Because that takes time too. If he didn't, then the lawyer's point is still valid and he shouldn't have to pay a cent.

/passes Englebert Slaptyback a jar of Dijon ketchup

The article did say that he came in under the time limit. Unfortunately we don't know how far under he came, but I'm willing to bet it left enough time for the murders.

Are you willing to bet...one MILLION dollars??

Ah, the old tried-and-true Just-Kidding defense versus the No-Takesies-Backsies argument.

Harmania: Hey, does this remind anyone of that PepsiCo case?

You mean one of these?

The lawyer should be penalized for his gamble. He obviously wanted the benefit of his assertion and the benefit gained came from the bounty. Most people hearing the assertion would say "yeah, his client is innocent or else he wouldn't be offering a million dollars like that", and something like that equates to a monetary gain for the lawyer by how it can affect the jury pool, etc.

The other guy did a fine service for society while collecting a million dollars in the process.

austerity101: Ah, the old tried-and-true Just-Kidding defense versus the No-Takesies-Backsies argument.

No doubt that Mason will cite Rubber v. Glue as precedent.

This really makes me think of that Leonard/PepsiCo thing. I think I have the wiki link here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.

Hay guys! Free case of pepsi at Rexall!
Link (new window)
/one million doll hairs

zialu: Are you willing to bet...one MILLION dollars??

That sounds like too much. Maybe you can get him to agree to one hundred grand.

I hope the judge slaps this lawyer hard. Maybe not to the tune of 1 Mil, but something substantial. And I hope his client loses. dumbass.

trapped-in-CH: I hope the judge slaps this lawyer hard. Maybe not to the tune of 1 Mil, but something substantial. And I hope his client loses. dumbass.

He got the death penalty.

Hey, the author of the blog entry is Kevin Fayle.

Attorney: FAIL!
Blogging about it: FAYLE!

neilnole: SeamusFerrell: It would have been much better and realistic if he had to kill people after making the trip. And can anyone out there who actually remembers civil procedure tell me why Texas law controls?

I was thinking the same thing...and too lazy to look it up. I'm betting the kid filed it out there hoping that the attorney would just settle and make it go away.

Plaintiff went to a Texas Law School. Safe bet to say he lives in Texas and just filed the suit where it was convenient for him and inconvenient for Mason. Texas law will control, but I think Mason can file to have the case removed to federal district court because of diversity jurisdiction.

I think the Pepsico case with the harrier that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE has mentioned yet ended up in Federal Court. The kid in that case was from Seattle, I think, and the case ended up in NY.

Ivo Shandor: zialu: Are you willing to bet...one MILLION dollars??

That sounds like too much. Maybe you can get him to agree to one hundred grand.

Or maybe One Hundred Grand??

Turfshoe: sotua: Excellent use of FAIL tag.

Wrong, should have been the Florida tag.

Florida tag trumps all!

Oh, it happened in Florida? FAIL tag fails.

/or is it "FAIL tag floridas"?

Since the report and most other references to the crime DO NOT NAME THE KILLER.

Nelson Iván Serrano Sáenz (Quito, 1938) is a former Ecuadorian businessman and nationalized US-citizen (since 1971) who was convicted of murdering Frank Dosso, Diane Patisso, George Patisso, and George Gosolves in 1997 in Bartow, Florida. A jury recommended the death penalty for Serrano in October 2006 after he was convicted of the murders. On June 26, 2007 Judge Susan Roberts sentenced him to death by lethal injection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Serrano (pops)


Nelson Serrano Sentenced to Death
http://www.theledger.com/article/20070626/BREAKING/70626002?Title=Nelson-Serra no -Sentenced-to-Death (pops)

There are just two options:

1. Lawyer pays.
2. Lawyer admits he didn't genuinely mean what he said; ie., he lied in court and must thus be disbarred, and jailed.

Ding Dong Seven: There are just two options:

1. Lawyer pays.
2. Lawyer admits he didn't genuinely mean what he said; ie., he lied in court and must thus be disbarred, and jailed.

With number 1, he ought to be disbarred, anyway. He engaged in activities contrary to the best interests of his client.

Lawyer offers $1,000,000 to anyone who can prove his client's guilt.

Actually, that would have been a better option - because how could anyone actually prove his guilt? It could even be argued that a conviction doesn't absolutely prove guilt, merely a preponderance of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

But what he said was that he'd pay someone who would prove it was possible - something that can and was done. He needs to pay up now.

Lionel Hutz: Well, I didn't win. Here's your pizza.
Marge: But we did win.
Lionel Hutz: That's okay. The box is empty

Englebert Slaptyback: *begins preparing Kraft Dinner*

I have some fancy Dijon ketchup. I'll be right over.

Ding Dong Seven: There are just two options:

1. Lawyer pays.
2. Lawyer admits he didn't genuinely mean what he said; ie., he lied in court and must thus be disbarred, and jailed.

Riiiight.Where are you getting that he lied in court? He made the challenge on Dateline NBC. Unless the interviewer swears people in before they go on air, I don't think he perjured himself.

'"I challenge anybody to show me, I'll pay them a million dollars if they can do it," Mason said on Dateline NBC.'
-From here:http://wdbo.com/localnews/2009/06/dateline-dare-may-prove-costly.html

averagejoe42: Under Florida law, contracts valued at $500 or more must be written and signed to be valid.

THIS.

/yeah, I see what I did there... what about it?

This is a unitlateral contract. People have explained this already in this thread. This lawyer was joking? Was he joking about his client being not guilt? He is making jokes about his defendant in a serious murder case? This Lawyer made a unilateral contract with the public in a public fourm about a very serious matter. This lawyer should pay. He even went on to say how to express the contract, "... actually able to travel across two states and kill four people in the time that prosecutors had alleged." By law the lssuer of a unilateral contract can reject the contract before somone shows intent to fulfill the contract, usually over 50%(depends on the state.) in this case the person fulfill the whole contract therefore the lawyer should pay.
"
averagejoe42: averagejoe42: Under Florida law, contracts valued at $500 or more must be written and signed to be valid.
"

sorry that is a contract between 2 people, Unilateral contracts dont need to be signed only bilateral ones. How can you have everyone who watched dateline that night sign a contract?

He asked Mason for the money, but Mason has so far refused to pay up, alleging that the challenge was a joke or hyperbole.

A dishonest lawyer? I'm shocked!